In order to determine whether the death penalty is to be considered cruel and unusual punishment, it is necessary to first define each word in order to get full understanding of the issue. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, cruel is defined as "causing pain and suffering to others: MERCILESS"(pg. 189). Unusual is defined as "not usual: UNCOMMON, RARE" (pg. 795). Justice is defined as "the administration of what is just (as by assigning merited rewards or punishments): JUDGE: the administration of law: FAIRNESS" (pg. 407). Punishment is defined as " retributive suffering, pain, or loss: PENALTY: rough treatment" (pg. 592). So the question is, is the death penalty Merciless and Uncommon or Rare, or is it Fairness in terms of Penalty? This is the question of long debate as can be seen in our separation of states on this matter. As of to day nether side of this debate can render solid evidence to their claims.
             The two sides of this debate you have the Retentionists, those in favor of the death penalty, and the Abolitionists, those in favor of doing away with the death penalty. The retentionists believe that death penalty, or an eye-for-an-eye, shows fairness in the administration of what is just penalty. The abolitionists believe that killing, or two wrongs don't make a right, by means of the death penalty is causing pain and suffering that is uncommon or rare. Which side is correct?
             The abolitionist would argue that "the death penalty is cruel and inhumane...[that] We do not need the death penalty to in capacitate convicted murderers because life imprisonment can provide us with a sufficient measure of societal protection (Mappes,T and Zembaty, J: pg.109). I would argue would it not be as inhumane and cruel to take someone's life away and cage them as we ca
             ...