Before arguing FOR the death penalty we must dismiss several counterarguments immediately. By arguing for the death penalty is not to say that I am arguing for the means of the death penalty as well. In other words because I am for the death penalty does not mean I am for lethal injection, electrocution, etc. I am not supporting these particular means of the death penalty. So we can eliminate any counterarguments against the death penalty that use cruel and inhumane practices as the basis for their argument. We must likewise dismiss counterarguments that deal with expense or arguments that claim the death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crimes. For the expense, we cannot place a price tag on justice. In other words many claim that it is more expensive to execute the death penalty than it is to keep a criminal in prison for life. This is a lame argument as it places a cap on our capacity to exercise justice. Justice is bigger than money so we cannot judge a practice based on how expensive it is. There's more to say on this but I think you get the point. Some people claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent and so we should not practice it. They show facts that show places where the crime rate has risen where the death penalty is exercised. This too is a lame argument. Justice is good in itself. It is an end to itself. We do not practice justice to get something out of it. We practice justice because it is the right thing to do. Justice is not a vehicle which drives us to a location. Justice is the location. So we can dismiss all these arguments as well. Let us now set up the argument in favor of the death penalty.

Take this statement as an absolute fact: Man A kills Man B

Do not look at that statement as, "The jury has convicted Man A for murder," for then we get into all the arguments about the trust and consistency of the legal system; an argument for which we are not concerned with. We are looking at the question, "If Man A kills Man B, does Man A deserve the death penalty?"

So this is the question we are going to answer in the following argument to come. Here is my thesis:

Because there is a distinction between Crimes against Society and Crimes against Humanity, a crime committed against Society deems punishment which does not allow the criminal from contributing to Society, and a crime committed against Humanity deems punishment which does not allow the murderer from contributing to Humanity.

In my thesis there are two distinctions: Crimes against Society and Crimes against Humanity. Let me show you how I can rightfully claim these two distinctions.

Let us compare and contrast George Bush and an orphan child in Africa. Are these two individuals equal? Yes and No. They are not equal on their societal status. George Bush is one of the most powerful people in the world. The African orphan is one of the most feeble. George Bush can change the lives of billions of people with his decisions. The African orphan probably changes few if any lives. George Bush is honored and respected by many institutions. The African orphan is honored and respected by none. So on a societal level, George Bush and the African orphan are quite unequal. But there is also a grand similarity between George Bush and the African orphan in that George Bush is as human as the African orphan. George Bush is not more human than the African orphan or anyone else for that matter. The African orphan must eat and drink to survive and eventually will die. Likewise, George Bush must eat and drink and eventually he will die. So on a Societal level the two are different, but on the Human level the two are equal.

What does this have to do with the death penalty argument? Well, looking at crime in general since we have these two circles (Social and Human) we must fit crime into one of these two categories. A crime is either a crime against Society or a crime against Humanity. Let us dissect these two types of crimes.

Crime: An intended, execution of harm, which conflicts with law

Crimes against Society:
A crime against society is that crime which is afflicted on a person which hinders them in any way from contributing to Society as he had done before. For example if a man steals money from a woman, that woman is hindered from contributing to society in the same intensity as before. She cannot go out and purchase an item planning on purchasing, etc, etc. If a man assaults a lawyer, that lawyer is not going to be able to contribute to society in the same intensity as before because the lawyer will be in pain and fear. If a man rapes a woman, she is hindered from her contribution to society because she will be in constant fear, suspicion, and paranoia. The list goes on and on and can be applied to every crime except one: murder. Although if a man murders a banker that banker can no longer contribute to society and so it qualifies as a Crime against Society, this criminal action goes much deeper.

Crimes against Humanity:
A crime against humanity is that crime which prohibits a person from contributing to humanity. If a man murders a banker that banker can longer contribute to humanity, for the banker is dead. If a woman is raped by a man, that woman is still as human as ever before. She does not lose her position as a human. But a woman who is killed by a man does lose her position as a human for she is no longer alive. A crime against humanity destroys the victim's contribution and/or position as a human because he no longer is. Furthermore, the only crime which can fall under the umbrella of a crime against humanity is that crime which prohibits another person from contributing to humanity: murder.

The Death Penalty:
We have now split crime into two categories and have examined what determines a certain crime from being categorized in a certain way. Let us now talk about punishment and justice to these distinctive crimes. Justice is a balancing act. Justice is fair. Justice is handing a guy on the street $5 and him taking $5 dollars out of his pocket and giving it to you. So when it comes to punishment we must be fair.
We must punish the criminal in the appropriate manner depending on which Crime he has committed. If a man commits a Crime against Society then we must punish him by hindering him from contributing to society. Since the criminal has hindered the victim from contributing to society, the criminal must also be hindered from contributing to society. This does not mean, however, that we assault the assaulter, rape the rapist, burn the arson, etc. This simply means that we remove the criminal from society and thus hinder/prohibit him from contributing to society in the intensity he had done before. This is what our jails are for. They remove the criminals from society. So in order to keep justice in this balancing act when a criminal commits a crime against Society, we punish him in a "Society manner." We remove him from Society.
However, when a man commits a crime against humanity (murder) it is not sufficient to remove him from Society. A further step must be executed. If Man A kills Man B, then Man A must be removed from humanity. Just as we saw, when a man commits a crime against Society, we remove him from Society, when a man commits a crime against humanity we must remove him from humanity. Again, it is a balancing act. If we do not remove the murderer from humanity and continue to allow him to contribute to his human position, whereas his victim cannot, it is like giving the man on the street $5 and the man giving me $1. It destroys the balance.
Therefore, to sum up, we have seen that there are these two distinctive groups (Social and Human). We have seen that a crime is committed in one of these two groups: either a Crime against Society or a Crime against Humanity. We have also seen that justice is a balancing act and so a criminal committing a crime in one of these groups must be dealt with in an appropriate way depending on which group violated (if committed a Crime against Society, then remove him from Society, if committed a Crime against Humanity, then remove him from Humanity). Thus, the death penalty MUST be executed only when there has been a Crime against Humanity. Remember, I am only arguing for the fact: If Man A kills Man B, Man A deserves to die.

Therefore, the Death Penalty is appropriate and just within its due execution.