The rightness or wrongness of the death penalty has been a long held civil debate. Those who favor the death penalty ultimately believe that the death penalty is justified, i.e. It offers the victims and the state retribution for the crime committed. Since the punishment fits the crime it is fair and offers victims closure and a sense of justice. In addition, many believe that it is an effective deterrent to would-be killers. The belief that capital punishment deters crime was an underlining reason that criminals were crucified by Roman soldiers or drawn and quartered by English executioners. They believed that if the punishment was horrible enough, the criminal will think twice before committing a capital offense. Opponents believe that crimes worthy of capital punishment are committed under an array of circumstances unaffected by the sentencing standard.

Those who oppose the death penalty are often motivated by humanitarian issues. No doubt the humanitarian issues that are raised are numerous. They range from the question of cruel and unusual punishment, to disproportionate death penalty demographics for poor or minority defendants. One issue of great interest for those who support a moratorium on the death penalty is the increasing recognition that the court system is fallibility. Craig Haney, Professor of Psychology at the University of California, points out the many things that can, and do in fact, go wrong in death penalty cases which, in his opinion, creates a situation where defendant are not 'death worthy.' He cites cases where death row inmates are exonerated and notes that these cases are striking to public opinion and causes a second-look at the system. However, he moves forward with a more nuanced argument that defendants who are guilty of a crime endure many judicial errors which cause them to face harsher sentence than legally necessary. He writes, "The failure to follow these minimal standards is likely to continue to produce miscarriages of justice at the penalty phase stages of capital cases, resulting in wrongful condemnations that would have resulted in life sentences had competent counsel handled them."[footnoteRef:2] [2: Craig Haney, Exoneration and Wrongful Condemnations: Expanding the Zone of Perceived Injustice in Death Penalty Cases, Golden University Law Review [Vol 37], 9/17/2006, p.172]

The debate regarding the death penalty is both somber and complex. Both sides offer compelling arguments and ask thought provoking questions: How thin is the line between retribution and revenge? How can a punishment be both a) not "cruel and unusual" and b) severe enough to be a deterrent? Is the humanity of society compromised when an innocent man is executed? Is life in prison true justice for a criminal who has committed the most horrendous crimes in society? The answers may be allusive but the search in none-the-less noble.