I am talking about death penalties for murder. What's the point of killing someone who killed someone to show killing is wrong?
Ef ef e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ee h
The death penalty should only apply in the most extreme cases. There may be some exceptions to the murder only rule. In the case of Jeffrey Lee Wood, I don't think he deserves to face execution. He may have been involved in a scheme to rob or even assault the convenience store owner, but he didn't intend to kill the man, or have an awareness of Renau's intent to commit murder. In this instance, Wood should be punished for what he did, but not killed for what someone else did.
The death penalty should be banned in all cases except murder because the death penalty is an unfair punishment for lower crimes. People make mistakes and commit crimes, but that does not give other people the license to kill them for their actions, especially if no one died at the hands of the criminal who has been given the death penalty.
The death penalty implies that a person is not rehabilitable and if they do not die, than other people will. For this reason alone, the death penalty should only be used in very extreme cases. Someone who did not kill anyone is not likely to kill other people in the future.
The death penalty should still be used if a person assisted in heinous crimes which intentionally caused death. Unfortunately many states do not approve of the use of the death penalty, so many victims memories will not have justice. A killing or assisted killing is almost the same thing in terms of action.