Death penalty or capital punishment is one of the most passionately, actively and persistently debated topics in American political, legal and social circles. It occupies the same place in political agenda of a new presidential candidate as abortion or gun control.
             Opponents of death penalty base their arguments on the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause of the Eight Amendment. They feel that the constitutional laws if studied closely provide opposition to deprivation "of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."(U.S. Const. amend. V)) Defenders of death penalty however ground their arguments in deterrence believing that if strict punishments are used, crime rate could be effectively controlled. This section also believes in retribution arguments. Justice Brennan described retribution as "[t]he asserted public belief that murderers . . . deserve to die". 1
             I feel that the cases in which death penalty should be granted cannot be defined in absolute terms. Therefore while I do not oppose it, I feel there should be strictly defined categories of crimes for which death penalty would be used. It may not serve as a deterrent, but it definitely serves the purpose of retribution. If a person commits a pre-meditated murder and has not sound reasons to do so, he must face capital punishment. But if it is found that a person killed another accidentally or was avenging someone's death caused by the victim then exceptions should be applied. I cannot absolutely support mindless implementation of death penalty.
             Death penalty has its fair share of opponents. There is a significant minority that believes in its complete abandonment by the law. In 1764, Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria in his Essay on Crime and Punishment explained why he believed life sentence was a more powerful and effective deterrent than death penalty:
             The death of a criminal is a terrible but momentary spectacle, and therefore a less eff...