Deterrence. The death penalty deters future murders.

Society has always used punishment to discourage would-

be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the
highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the
strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that
is the death penalty.
Proponents of the death penalty being legal argue that such a
harsh penalty is needed for criminals who have committed the
worst crimes, that the punishment deters crime, and that the US
Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty as constitutional.
Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to
capital crimes state that such a harsh penalty is needed to
discourage people from murder and terrorism.

Opponents of replacing the death penalty with life without

parole argue that LWOP is just an alternate death penalty and
parole should always be a consideration even if the prisoner
never earns the privilege. While other opponents argue that life
without parole is not a harsh enough punishment for murderers
and terrorists.

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed as

retribution argue that “an eye for an eye” is appropriate, that the
punishment should match the crime, and that the penalty is
needed as a moral balance to the wrong done by the criminal.
Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed to bring
about closure and solace to victims’ families argue that the
finality of the death penalty is needed for families to move on
and not live in fear of the criminal getting out of prison.

Proponents of alternate methods of execution argue that the state

and federal government have an obligation to carry out the
sentence handed down, and that, given the recent botched lethal
injection executions, other methods may be more humane.

Opponents of abolishing the death penalty because innocent

people may be executed argue that the fact that death row
inmates have been exonerated proves that the checks and
balances to prevent innocent people from being executed are in
place and working well, almost eliminating the chance that an
innocent person will be executed.
Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a moral
punishment state that “an eye for an eye” is justified to promote
a good and just society than shuns evil.

Proponents who argue that medical professionals can participate

in executions ethically state that doctors and others ensure that
the execution is not “cruel or unusual,” and ensure that the
person being executed receives medical care during the
execution.
Proponents of keeping the federal death penalty argue that
justice must be carried out to deter crime and offer closure to
families, and that the federal government has an obligation to
enact the sentences handed down by the courts.