If an individual was to commit a violent crime, he or she has to take responsibility for their actions and suffer the consequences. Now, if a criminal were to commit murder and take the life of another, should her or she be required to take away the life of their own, or suffer the rest of their life behind bars – as some would say is the ultimate punishment. Most Americans paid attention to the Boston Marathon bombing trials, where bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was on trial to see whether or not to be sentenced to death row. Jurors during the trial were asked to decide Tsarnaev's fate. Some said that life imprisonment was still a life that he did not deserve to be living, while others said that the death penalty was the easy way out. After being found guilty of 30 charges, 17 of them (including the use of a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death or possession and use of a firearm during a violent crime) led to the possibility of him being sentenced to death row (WBUR Newsroom).

First and foremost, the “Death Penalty” is known as a means of lethal injection used to execute criminals although capital punishment can also be applied for treason, espionage, and other crimes. Approximately 1,188 people were executed in the US from 1977 through 2009. The pros concerning the use of taking the life of a murderer who has taken the life of an innocent victim is that it is said to be an important tool for preserving law and order. It is also said that it honors the victim, consoles grieving families, and ensures that no further crime/tragedy will be committed by the perpetrator. It is said to be appropriate for the worst of the worst, people who have committed crimes so atrocious that they are no longer fit to be among us (Richard A. Devine, JD). It should be the victim’s family to request and/or wish to pursue with death sentencing the murderer. If it is not what they want, then withdraw the idea, but if they want the perpetrator to suffer the ultimate revenge of their actions, then the death penalty should be allowed.

The cons concerning the death penalty is that it will seem as the easy way out, it is said to have no deterrent effects on crimes, and it targets people of different working classes.  Therefore, some think that a lifetime in jail is far more severe. The death penalty may seem as the easy way out to some, and some criminals may even prefer the death penalty rather than jail. Some also believe that when a criminal such as a terrorist is to die by staying committed to what they promised to do, they will die as a hero or martyr and not as a criminal. There is also no deterrent effect on crime, wrongly gives governments the power to take human life. Perpetuates social injustices by targeting people of color and the ones with less money who cannot afford a good attorney.

Lastly, the death penalty is said to be used as a means of revenge and most of the time we kill criminals that may not even be guilty, but are sentenced to death due to a poor trial and the amount of evidence given. For example, in 1989 Carlos DeLuna was executed in Texas for the fatal stabbing of convenience store clerk Wanda Lopez in 1983. Years later they found new credible evidence against Carlos Hernandez, who had similar crimes and repeatedly confessed to the murder (DPIC). During the execution, the criminal dies in a gurney, wrapped in sheets with an IV in their veins, surrounded by their closest, monitored by sophisticated medical devices, and is much like a hospital or hospice. It is ruled as unconstitutional because it violates the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Concerning the death penalty, it should be the considered the ultimate conclusion under the proper circumstances such as murder or other crimes so horrendous and inhumane. Arguing the fact that it is more of a medical procedure and not the pain the victim had to go through is false. Criminals sentenced to death row suffer the right amount of pain to be punished for their actions. Michael Wilson's last words were “I feel my whole body burning,” Dennis McGuire was gasping for breath for 26 minutes, Clayton Lockett writhed in pain and Joseph Wood slowly died over a course for two hours (Mr. Death Penalty, National Journal). Although it is thought that it has no deterrent effect on crimes, if there is severe punishment for murder such as receiving the death sentence, it would be considered as a pre-emptive method of reducing a crime rate. In conclusion, the death penalty should be mandatory for crimes so vile and inhumane that he or she no longer deserves to be alive.