t used the way it should be (Stewart 50). If the death penalty has been declared legal, then the federal and state governments must employ it to its fullest as a means to help put a halt on the amount of violent crime across the country. Since most of the prisoners on death row are there for murder, executing them would ensure that they would never kill again. Obsessive murderers, who know no alternative to killing, need to be executed to protect prison guards, other prisoners, and society. This view is perhaps best illustrated through the words of Judge Alfred J. Talley of New York who explained "If I as an individual have the right to kill in self defense, why has not the state, which is nothing more than an aggregation of individuals, the same right to defen!
             d itself against unjust aggression and unjust attacks (Kaplan 28)?"
             It's so difficult to understand why these criminals have their lives preserved for extended periods of time, while the families of the victims have to wait patiently for justice. It is simply unfair. If the United States demonstrates that it is serious about using the death penalty through an increased number of executions (considering that the appeals process would have been changed), then potential murderers will know their fate before killing. They will know that if caught and convicted, they will face a sure death. In order to promote and maintain a sense of justice and moral order, the death penalty must be used more frequently and quickly. Because death is reserved as punishment for only the worst criminals, it is only fitting that they receive a punishment accordingly. The judicial system should not be afraid to retain the confidence of the public (Stewart 53). In looking back to previous societies that relied upon the death penalty, such as ancient Athens and the Roman!
             Empire, one realizes the effectiveness of this sentence and its usefulness as a tool for deterring crime (Pro Death Penalty 3...