For the death penalty
The use of the death penalty can provide a sense of revenge against the convicted perpretrator, and arguably may provide closure for the relatives of the victim.
Execution relieves the state of the responsibility for housing and feeding the convicted perpretrator for the rest of his or her life.
The death penalty is an effective method of ensuring justice is not overturned, in societies where the rule of law is fragile and the government's hold on power is insecure.
Against the death penalty
The strongest argument against the death penalty is that it is sometimes applied to convicted persons who have subsequently been found innocent. While it is possible to release a person who has been jailed, even after many years imprisonment, and to pay compensation if appropriate, it is not possible to restore life to a person who has been wrongly executed.
Using the death penalty to provide a sense of revenge in society arguably creates a culture wher revenge is socially acceptable. The public good is better served when justice is provided, but the state is not seen as a role model for revenge.
There is often little monetary saving in executing a criminal. In many cases, the sentence is delayedfor several years, while due process takes place. During this time, the criminal is housed and fed, while the state bears its share of the legal expenses involved in appeals. Where cost saving is a significant factor, the risk may be to extend the range and severity of crimes for whic the penalty is prescribed.
Many say that the death penalty diminishes the moral standing of the state.