In a larger sense, capital punishment is the ultimate warning against all crimes.

If the criminal knows that the justice system will not stop at putting him to
death, then the system appears more draconian to him. Hence, he is less
inclined to break and enter. He may have no intention of killing anyone in the
process of robbing them, but is much more apprehensive about the possibility if
he knows he will be executed. Thus, there is a better chance that he will not
break and enter in the first place.
There are many victims of a single murder. The criminal gets caught, tried, and
convicted, and it is understood that the punishment will be severe. But the
person he has killed no longer has a part to play in this. Unfortunately, the
murderer has deprived his family and friends of a loved one. Their grief begins
with the murder. It may not end with the murderers execution, but the execution
does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeala
feeling which often fails to arise while the murderer still lives on.

The justice system basically attempts to mete out punishment that fits the crime.
Severe crimes result in imprisonment. Petty larceny is not treated with the
severity that is meted to grand theft auto, and the latter, consequently,
receives more time in prison. So if severebut non-lethalviolence toward
another is found deserving of life without parole, then why should premeditated
homicide be given the very same punishment? This fact might induce a would-be
criminal to go ahead and kill the victim he has already mugged and crippled.
Why would it matter, after all? His sentence could not get any worse.If murder is
the willful deprivation of a victims right to life, then the justice systems willful
deprivation of the criminals right to the same iseven if overly severea
punishment which fits the most severe crime that can be committed. Without
capital punishment, it could be argued that the justice system makes no provision
in response to the crime of murder, and thus provides no justice for the victim.

The Death Penalty is moral and just. Judicial death for the purpose of maintaining
justice or righteousness is well established in human history.
Have you ever thought about if the person next to you is a killer or a rapist? If he
is, what would you want from the government if he had killed someone you
know? He should receive the death penalty! Murderers and rapists should be
punished for the crimes they have committed and should pay the price for their
wrongdoing. Having the death penalty in our society is humane; it helps the
overcrowding problem and gives relief to the families of the victims, who had to
go through an event such as murder.
People are judged by their actions, and killing another human being is about as
profound as actions come
If we do not know whether the death penalty will deter others, we will be
confronted with two uncertainties . If we have the death penalty and achieve no
deterrent effect, than, the life of convicted murderers has been expended in vain
(from a deterrent point of view)here is a net loss. If we have the death
sentence, and deter future murderers, we spared the lives of future victims-(the
prospective murderers gain, too; they are spared punishment because they were
deterred). In this case, the death penalty is a gain, unless the convicted
murderer is valued more highly than that of the unknown victim, or victims
(Carrington, F., l978).
Capital Punishment is not excessive, unnecessary punishment, for those
who knowingly and intentionally commits murder in premeditation, to take lives
of others. Even though capital punishment is not used so often, it still is a
threat to the criminal.
Opponents say the State is like a murder himself. The argument here is, if execution is
murder, than killing someone in war is murder. Our country should stop fighting wars. On
the contrary, is it necessary to protect the rights of a group of people. Hence, the death
penalty is vital to protect a persons right to live! Is arresting someone same as kidnapping
someone? In the same, executing someone is not murder, it is punishment by society for a
deserving criminal.

By signing several international agreements, the Government of Iraq commits to respect, provide,
and protect the human rights of all its people. UNAMIs Human Rights Office works with the
Government, as well as members of Iraqi civil society, to support the promotion, respect and
protection of human rights in Iraq in an impartial manner. The Office, which also represents the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Iraq, works closely with other UN Funds,
Agencies and Programmes to ensure that the basic rights of all Iraqis are fundamental to their
activities.

In collaboration with the Government and civil society, the Human Rights Office focuses on key
areas, including the rule of law, the protection of civilians from the effects of armed conflict and
violence and the protection of those who are detained or being tried before the courts. The Office
also promotes the rights and protection of women, children, minorities and people with special
needs. Important also is the protection of freedom of expression, as well as economic, social and
cultural rights.

Universal Periodic Review of human rights in Iraq opened with a general address
from the Iraqi Deputy Minister of Human Rights Abdulkareem Abdulah Shallal AlJanabi, in which he made a repeated effort to highlight his countrys struggle with
terrorism and maintaining internal security.
Following his remarks that his government is determined to cleanse [the] land of
these [terrorist] groups, other UN member states took the floor to give their
response.
In their recommendations to Iraq, the one that was the most stressed was the
necessity of Iraq to adopt a moratorium on executions to pave the way for death
penalty abolition. Moldova, Namibia, Norway, Italy, and Chili were amongst the
nations that expressed their concerns for the increasing use of the death penalty,
and urged Iraq to halt its practice.
Iraqs response to member states critiques on the use of the death penalty
mirrored the reasons listed in the UNAMI report. We have exceptional
circumstances prevailing in our country [that] require a balance () amongst
civilians and those who threaten our civilians, stated Al-Janabi, deferring back to
the death penaltys supposed deterrent quality.
It appears that, in order for the Iraqi government to make any progress towards
death penalty abolition, it must first acknowledge that capital punishment is
playing little to no role in preventing future terrorist crimes.