At the center of the controversy over capital punishment is the question of whether capital crimes could be punished effectively without executing the death sentence. ‘If we resume use of the death penalty, we will be killing some people by mistake and some without application of comprehensible standards, and we will go on doing these things until we give up the death penalty.‘ (Black, ‘81.)
Proponents of the death penalty will argue that it should be in place to serve as a deterrent to crime (others will hesitate to commit the same crime.) Many arguments will speak to the nature of the crime or to the fact that the accused should be removed from society for the safety of the public. Still others will make arguments for retribution (if a person takes the life of another, that person should pay for that act by giving up his own life.)
Opponents of the death penalty counter. There is no definitive evidence that those states which carry the death penalty have lower crime rates or less heinous crimes because of that practice. It has not been proved that having the death penalty in place stops people from committing the crime, nor does lawful execution do anything to improve the status of the original victim of the crime or make the suffering easier for his family. What we are left with, in this system is a second wrong (committed by the government) coupled with the first wrong (committed by the accused) and more than one life taken, through this system of justice.
There can be no absolute certainty of guilt in the sentencing of, or in the execution of the death sentence for the accused, because of the subjective judgment of lawyers (prosecuting and defending), the judge and the jury. There are also aggravating and the mitigating factors to be considered. There are race relations and political gains that are factored in and there is the-all important concern of capitalism to be protected. Above all of the aforementioned, there is the desire of the dominant group to maintain control.