The Death Penalty Should stay legal.

Its ironic that i accepted this argument as pro when i usually argue against the death penalty but for the sake of enjoying a potentially good argument from a side i'm not accustomed to i shall adopt a different viewNow that all introductions are out of the way. Pro believes that the death penalty is necessary in any legal system as it acts as a deterrance against the commission of certain horrendous crimes For example first degree murder.Reason would tell us that primarily the one thing peoturally fear tjhe most is death. We avoid the thoughts of death on a daily basis and avoid the discussion of such a topic because of the fear created by the uncertainty of death (we do not know what heppens after we die). I digress slightly but this prima facie "waffle" serve to prove that death= fear, therefore it naturally follows that the threat of death= the instillation of fearPro understands and acknowlegdes the research data Con may use to prove that the murder rate is lower in states and countries without the death penalty, but that is not entirely true, it is not universal and ignores certain factors such as th socio-economic structure of each country, the culture of each country and the general mindset of the populace (whether they were affected by racial segregation, such as in South Africa or whether drug dealers literally run the economy for example Columbia) as these factors play a very big role in determining the crime rate of a country.Pro argues that it is logical to draw the conclusion that the threat of the death penalty would generally push people away from committing a crime as gruesome as murder. A lot of murders are commited out of provocation or anger, or as it often referred to "crimes of passion". This occurs where one acts out of a sudden outburst of emotions and fails to think rationally about the consequences of his/her actions. Po argues that the death penalty even in such instances acts as a sort of deterrent as the fear of the possible trade off the commiter could face (trading his life for the commission of the murder), subconsciously inlfuences his/her actions http://papers.ssrn.com...The mind is a powerful tool, pro argues that if one lives in an environment where the legal framework is designed in such a manner that it does not accomodate for the forgiveness of murders, the option to kill someone will arise in very very few instances (emphasis added)Pro further argues that it generally better for the public to have a murder executed as he/she upon comission of such a crime proes to be incapable of having commited such an act in most cases proves to not value the sanctity of human life, whose to say then he/she will not commit the crime again when faced with a similar situation (for example if someone kills wife during a heated argument onger, whose to say that he will not lose control of his temper and commit the same crime against someone else). Pro therefore argues that the death penalty serves a greater good for societyPro proceeds with an argument that putting a murderer in prison, more often than not does not rehabilitate them, it does not help reaclimate them with the norms and standards expected of a citizen in societyhttp://www.examiner.com...In certain cases prison hardens criminals, in certain instances they get involved in gangs inside prisons in order to be able to survive in the system. In so doing they have to commit more crimes and possibly kill more people in order to be accepted by those gangs. Is that something we want to promote by not administering the death penalty?http://www.soc.iastate.edu...