Watching the light fade from someone’s eyes, feeling a once warm body turn cold to the touch, realizing that a person will never again walk on Earth as one of the living: these are all the consequences and results of witnessing someone die. Generally, these instances are avoided at all costs; for the general public it is not enjoyable to see someone’s last moments in the world. Indeed, it has long been considered the worst of all sins, from a moral and religious perspective, to bring about these effects before it is a person’s natural time to die. This is defined as murder , and is one of, if not the, worst crime that one can commit. Often, crimes such as this merit a life sentence in jail, in other states taking another human’s life means that you must forfeit your own. The harshest of capital punishment: the death penalty takes the life of a person for murdering another person. As with any controversy, there are people who support the option of the death penalty as a sentence in murder trials, and there are those who are against this. As one would expect, each side has differing facts that support their respective arguments. Those who are not in favor of the death penalty however, possess a stronger argument with both facts and moral evidence to support their position. One of the favorite arguments of those who are in favor of the death penalty is that having the possibility of the death penalty as a punishment influences potential criminals against committing crimes; however, there are many statistics that outright contradict that belief. For example, the state of Texas ranks thirteenth in the county in the number of violent crimes committed and seventeenth in murders committed per 100,000 citizens. Texas is the state who possi… … middle of paper … …oven in every case that the accused is guilty, without any doubt in the minds of those delivering the sentence. Factually, the death penalty does not make sense: why would one sentence a person to death if it will not deter future crime, if it will cost an unreasonable amount of money that could be used elsewhere, and if there is a possibility that the person may not in fact be guilty? Morally, it also does not make sense: as the old saying goes “an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.” If one tries to take revenge on a criminal by administering the same punishment that the criminal did to another, then one is as low as the criminal. In the end, it solves nothing. Also, how can one make a statement that killing people is wrong, by killing more people? According to the facts, logic, and ethics, the death penalty does not benefit anyone or solve anything.