The death penalty should be abolished

If the punishment is supposed to fit the crime, is it really fitting that a murderer should be allowed to live out the rest of his life in a jail cell rather than be deprived of the fundamental right to life that he has taken from someone else? Punishments don’t have to mimic the crime to be fitting. Rape is a severe crime, yet we do not have a rape penalty. Should we have a fraud penalty where people who commit fraud are told they will be given a certain punishment, yet are given a worse punishment instead? We punish harsh crimes with a harsh yet different punishment, because there is a moral limit to how we punish criminals. If we shouldn't’t punish people with rape or fraud, than should we also not punish them with death? Should we expect a wife to be happy that her husband's murderer is rotting away in a jail cell because he ruthlessly took her husband from her? Is it really fitting to tell someone that even though their loved one was murdered, we're just going to lock the murderer away for a long time as punishment? This is not a fitting punishment for a murderer. We shouldn’t maintain a penalty that potentially kills innocent people simply to make the victim’s family feel better. Also life imprisonment is no cake walk. It is a very harsh punishment. There are other, non-lethal ways to find closure in this situation, like forgiveness. Even though escape from a maximum security prison is rare, it does happen. If a murderer hasn't been put to death, they run the risk of escape and repeating their offense. Even if they don't escape, they can still murder other inmates.All right so we are both pointing to risks that are admittedly rare. My rare risk is the execution of someone innocent, your risk is that the murderer potentially escapes and kills someone. The thing is, the threat of someone innocent dying from my risk is more direct. An innocent execution will always result in an innocent death. If a murderer escapes he or she doesn’t necessarily have to murder someone, plus in all likelihood they will soon get caught.As far as inmate murders go, solitary confinement can be an alternative to the death penalty. Also if the guard sees the murderer about to kill an inmate, I do support him using lethal force to stop the murderer. That would be an act of defense.there should be no shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty of murder, probably backed up by DNA evidence and especially with a signed confession. Abolishing the death penalty will guarantee no innocent executions. Even with those restrictions, human error will still work into the system.My question to you would be as follows: Death is, of course, not reversible (unless Jesus comes to your funeral). So why should a murderer get a punishment that is reversible? Because they might not really be a murderer. If the punishment is reversible, then we can correct such mistakes. We should remember that old adage that “The smartest man in the world is the guy who invented the eraser.” Human judgement can be mistaken and to give it the power of life and death will result in fatal mistakes. people who are not pacifists see war as a necessary action.War is a topic for another debate, but you don’t have to be a pacifist to oppose non-defensive wars. This goes back to my point of how immediate self defense is the only justification for homicide, thus even executing the guilty is not the justified form of homicide.