Moral Aspects of Death Penalty

In a society of numerous irregularities it is necessary of a rule of law when serious offenses are committed upon people. Those serious offenses are of different magnitude, but the ones that do violate fundamental and crucial social codes and laws are those who in some cultures should be paid with the ultimate price, life. And because of very bitter situation, many people find themselves in either supporting or opposing such action. When arguing about the issue of death penalty, we touch a very sensitive issue for the decision-makers in a country, since it is an irrevocable action taken for the preservation of social order. This problem has been considered an issue for decades. People have tried to argue about it from the aspects of morality of such an action. Death punishment has been so accepted by people in the past, to the extent that the execution of the sentenced people was done in public. This phenomenon was considered as the right action since at that time it was supported by religion as well. The society has evolved since then in many aspects, and the degree of civilization of human kind is the main element that is pushing people to analyze further the sentence of capital punishment. By no doubt, a person who commits a capital crime deserves a higher punishment than someone who is engaged in a minor crime such as pickpockets. The question is whether that punishment should be death penalty.
Supporters of death punishment use the argument of “an eye for an eye”. According to them, the punishment of a crime should be as close to the crime itself. When a person is sentenced for a murder then that person should be punished with the same degree of harm, execution. This argument would make sense in the case of one murder. However, we know that there are many cases where a criminal murders 20 people. When we consider this case, “an eye for an eye” punishment would not be suitable; we cannot kill a person 20 times. Additionally, in cases of murder as a result of a