In my position, I think in all fairness someone who kills someone should also be killed. I know its going to look like its brutal, but take a while and think about this; taking someone's life is a huge sin and someone who kills somebody is not human. For example the incident that happened in Chicago.
First of all, the thing about "not human" is totally opinion. Human needs to be identified first before saying something like that. Human means it is not an animal and has enough intelligence to know whats right or wrong. If law kills someone who also kills someone, what does that help to do? The family that lost a person that was killed doesn't get anything from killing the murderer. Nor does HIS family. Jail time can help in case if they are going insane so they can go to an asylum to calm down an then be released living a normal life. It all depends on the person, so you can't just go in and say hes not human and he should be killed no matter the case. You also need to define murder and manslaughter which I will do in my next argument so you can have a side.
"People often confuse retribution with revenge... Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime...
Retributive is not based on hatred for the criminal (though a feeling of vengeance may accompany the punishment). Retributive is the theory that the criminal deserves to be punished and deserves to be punished in proportion to the gravity of his or her crime, whether or not the victim or anyone else desires it. We may all deeply regret having to carry out the punishment, but consider it warranted.
When a society fails to punish criminals in a way thought to be proportionate to the gravity of the crime, the danger arises that the public would take the law into its own hands, resulting in vigilante justice, lynch mobs, and private acts of retribution. The outcome is likely to be an anarchistic, insecure state of injustice."
Everyone agrees that there should be some punishment for murder. This mandate turns capital punishment into a necessity when nothing else serves as real punishment for a murder... Everyone would also agree that besides imposing some punishment for murder, the law should also impose meaningful punishment. Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good.