After the heinous murder of ten-year-old Jeffrey Curley, the state of Massachusetts gave new thought to the issue of whether or not capital crime should be punishable by death.

Yes, this was an especially horrible crime and the murderer should be brutally punished, but do we really have the right to take another person's life when this is exactly what we're punishing the killer for?

"There is no credible scientific research that supports the contention that the threat or use of the death penalty is or has been a deterrent to homicide," says a report by Michael L. Radlet and Ronald L. Akers, lawyers and researchers on the death penalty. This report also states that 80% of the experts in criminology agree that the death penalty is not an effective way to reduce crime.

So, if there is no concrete proof that the death penalty is effective, why are 70 % of the people in favor of it? The only answer is vengeance. People argue that the murderers should get what they deserve, but is this right? The death penalty may only be an excuse for the public to take its anger out in a legal way.

Crime does need to be reduced; there is no question about that. Perhaps punishing killers with a life sentence with no parole is a better solution. In a way, that is almost like the death penalty, except the person is slowly killed through the course of many years instead of swiftly killed in seconds. ?