Introduction The dilemma of a death penalty versus a life sentence has been discussed for decades, yet no consensus has been achieved. The problems in addressing the subject matter are evident. The very concept causes an immediate emotional response, clogging the process of reasoning. Furthermore, different ethical perspectives do not allow reaching an agreement. Since the justice system is supposed to be geared toward rehabilitating criminals as opposed to merely punishing them, it seems that capital punishment is not to be included in the list of possible penalties. Analysis The possibility of a mistrial is the primary reason for arguing against the identified measure. Even if it seems that every chance for proving the accused not guilty has been exhausted, there is still a chance that the person who is on trial is not responsible for the crime and that a mistake has been made. Therefore, a death penalty would be a tragic instance of a mistrial. Furthermore, racial biases need to be listed among the essential reasons for protesting against a death penalty. There is no secret that the contemporary justice system is not fully protected from racial and ethnic biases, as a recent study by Burt et al. (649) shows. Therefore, there is always a threat that people of certain ethnicities will receive harsher sentences than the rest of the population. Given the gravity of the outcome, i.e., the death of the person that was possibly innocent or guilty to a lesser degree than stated in the course of the trial, the concept of capital punishment must be viewed as the prerequisite for increasing the negative effects of justice miscarriages. It should also be borne in mind that the introduction of a death penalty implies that the current framework of crime categorization must be reconsidered. To be more specific, the classification of crimes into misdemeanors and felonies is to be revisited. The line between the felony that warrants a life sentence and the one that entails capital punishment will have to be drawn. The identified decision is going to be rather difficult to make since the eye-for-an-eye principle is hardly applicable to the contemporary justice system. In other words, it will be necessary to decide in which case a murderer must be imprisoned, and in which case they must be sentenced to death. Pandora ’s Box of ethical and moral dilemmas that the inclusion of capital punishment into the contemporary justice system will open is beyond terrifying. Apart from the necessity to redesign the very foundation of the modern justice system, it will challenge the contemporary ethical and moral norms. Since a death penalty is basically a state-approved murder, it is likely to tear the very fabric of the social morality apart. Convincing people that killing intentionally is in line with the modern idea of justice, it will pervert the idea of the justice system, which is to rehabilitate criminals. Therefore, a death penalty is not to be incorporated into the framework of the justice system. The very concept of capital punishment is far too controversial to allow it to exist. It subverts the ethical and moral standards that humankind must uphold to achieve global wellbeing. Therefore, the very notion of capital punishment as a form of retribution must be excluded from the moder