Civil society must be able to reconcile fundamental human rights with the needs of an entire community: it is therefore necessary to define the scopes within which the exercise of Justice can act. The more urgent a question is: is it permissible to punish by means of capital punishment or sentencing criminal to death? We must start from the principle that the Act of killing is wrong and that life is an absolute and inalienable right of the human being. In light of this, what example can a State provide that, aware of being stronger than individual, kills and remains unpunished?
It is the State's duty to protect the public interest, punishing a crime, but how, maybe with another crime or by committing another crime? Sometimes there’s a possibility that a convicted person sentenced to death is innocent: then what is the punishment to be imposed for an entire company that wrongfully caused the death of an individual? Reason: only the consideration that human judgement is fallible is supposed to be a convincing argument for abolishing the death penalty.
Of course a family who lost a loved one can feel anger towards the killer and his/her family, it is natural to fail to justify and to forgive a crime. Revenge generates only other violence, has absolutely nothing to do with justice, does not meet, but generates more feelings of guilt.
To win the crime the right way is prevention and social commitment; it’s sure that death penalty is easier and immediate solution, but also the worst, considering that life is the most important value that exists in the world.