WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL?

The Discussion over the merits of capital punishment has endured for years, and continues to be an extremely indecisive and complicated issue... Some argue that the society must be kept safe at all cost from murderous by taking away their lives. At the same time, we must consider the fact that there are likely cases that some innocent people might end up losing their life’s and again some killers find their way out into the society and continue to take the life’s of innocent people when they are never convicted or sentenced to death for a crime that they did commit.

Many contend that the use of capital punishment as a form of deterrence does not work, as there are no fewer murders on a per-capita basis in countries or states that do have it, then those that do not. In order for capital punishment to work as deterrence, certain events must be present in the criminal's mind prior to committing the offense. The criminal must be aware that others have been punished in the past for the offense that he or she has done, and that what happened to another individual who committed this offense, can also happen to him/ her.
While there are those people who argue that capital punishment should be abolished at all cost like the humanitarian organizations and some countries who have drawn up the bill to condone it, some countries still uses it as the best option to pay back the price to the deceased families of those who have lost their member(s) in conjunction to the killer(s).
Some people argue that Individuals who commit any types of crime ranging from auto theft to 1st-Degree Murder never take into account the consequences of their actions. Deterrence to crime is rooted in the individuals themselves. As such every human has a personal set of conduct. How much they will and will not tolerate. How far they will and will not go. This personal set of conduct can be made or be broken by friends, influences, family, home, life, etc..
There are those who claim that capital punishment is in itself a form of vengeance on the killer. But isn't locking up a human being behind steel bars for many years, vengeance itself? And is it "humane" that an individual, who took the life of another, should receive heating, clothing, indoor plumbing, 3 meals a day, while a homeless person who has harmed no one receives nothing? Adversaries of capital punishment claim that it is far more humane than having the state take away the life of the individual…
As far the states condemn murder, they turn against their will indirectly by capital punishment. They kill their murderous for killing their victims. And what they killing the culprits for, murder. And so what is the difference between what the accused killers did and what the government will be doing? The only difference is that while some are prepared to pay their price others are hiding behind the lines and executing directions to avoid their debts. Even the bible reads that no man shall take anyone’s life.
One might ask them-selves, what exactly am I trying to say? Well, to put my point straight, I do not see capital punishment as a way to deter crime and all the man slaughters around the world. I do not see a point to kill someone when you do not tolerate it yourself. They are committing crime hiding behind the word “law.”
Who has the right to take someone else life? Should it be the government who condemns murder?