I believe that the death penalty is an ineffective punishment for criminals. I agree with Assemblyman William B. Hoyt that it isn't a deterrent. Hoyt suggested a predictable punishment may act as a more efficient deterrent than the death penalty, in that it is more decisive. I don't believe that anyone has the right to play God and decide who should live or die.
Assemblyman Vincent J. Graber, who is in favor of the death penalty, has implied that those against capital punishment appear to place more value on the lives of defendants than those of their victims. I say those against the policy definitely do not subscribe to that view. But how does killing the defendant place more value on the victim's life? It seems an additional unnecessary waste of human lives, which doesn't accomplish anything more than giving the media another event to portray as "news."
One suggestion is installing a policy of punishment of life imprisonment without parole. This way criminals are prevented from menacing society. I see this as being more effective than the death penalty because it seems more decisive.
How can we expect those likely to murder to stop this process when our own judicial system invests itself with the power to decide the fate of fellow human beings resulting in life or death?