The argument that the death penalty fits the narrative of the “eye for an eye” idea is valid. However, the state does not seek to punish criminals with the same crimes they have committed but to isolate dangerous individuals from society and ensure public safety. Moreover, the fact that killing inmates in order for the crimes never to occur again becomes redundant since a life sentence also ensures those individuals can never harm another person. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that the state has the right to take away someone’s rights, which is exemplified by prison sentences and, needless to say, death sentences. Authorities are to make sure communities are safe, which cannot be done unless a system that punishes criminals is put in place. The same can be said about wars when a country defends itself by killing the aggressors. However, in this case, the aggressor is already in custody and does not impose a significant threat since they are not actively imposing danger onto society but are kept in secure and guarded places with little to no chance for escape.
In terms of bettering the system, the first argument is to address the reasons why one may be sentenced to death, combat such sentences for non-violent offenses, and punish only the most critical crimes such as murders, rapes, physical abuse, etc. On the other hand, this contradicts the argument of having an “eye for an eye” system since not all harshest crimes lead to death. Furthermore, the importance of having a fair and unbiased jury confided that the criminal has, in fact, committed a crime is certainly major. Switching from lethal injection to harsher punishments such as using guns for executions is, nonetheless, needlessly cruel since authorities are to prevent crimes, not take the roles of vigilantes. Moreover, daily punishments in jails also wholly contradict the whole idea of the death sentence system, which is crime prevention and stopping potential criminals from putting themselves in the same position.