The death penalty is a form of legal punishment that takes the life of the guilty person being charged. When it comes to the death penalty being charged to a person who committed a murder, the context must be analyzed to determine whether it is a good punishment or not. The mentioned statement said that the death penalty could cause society to be guilty because they allowed the murder of an individual too, as done by the charged murderer. I agree with this statement as it is technically correct. However, it could not be applied to every context of the murder case in such a jurisdiction as the death penalty is the heaviest form of punishment for alleged crimes that cannot be undone.
There are some of the considerations to be determined by the judges or in a broader context for the members of the parliament to pass the bill on the death penalty, all for justice to prevail correctly. One of the considerations is the motivation for such an individual to commit a murder. The individual who committed a murder with the intention to rob or take possession of their victims have a higher chance of being given the death penalty. On the other hand, the individual who committed an accidental murder in self-defense against another person who tried to harm them should have a lower chance of being given the death penalty. The motivations of a murderer are important to determine more objectively whether they did the murder intentionally or not.
Other considerations that should be taken into account are the impact or severity of committed murder. Although the committed murder would always result in a loss of life, the importance of the person who has become the victim and the number of victims could determine the severity caused by the murder case in society. For example, while this may sound intriguing as the life of every person has the same value to be respected, the killing of a president would have a broader and heavier impact on the society in a country compared to the murder of a regular citizen. When the president of the country has been assassinated, geopolitical instability may arise in that country, causing further economic and societal crises. The number of people being murdered is also an important aspect to be considered. The higher number of people being murdered certainly posed a heavier impact and in several cases, it might be considered as a crime to humanity in the form of a genocide.
In my opinion, the death penalty for murderers of course not always the best option compared to life in prison. There are some complex considerations to be taken to determine whether such a murderer would be eligible to be charged with the death penalty or not. Another key takeaway from those considerations is that society should not be responsible or be taken guilty in the sense that they also commit murder to the murderer by imposing the death penalty. This is because the murderer had already committed the murder which will then be determined whether the committed murder is intentional or not or posing a serious effect on the society. There are some countries that imposed the death penalty and it worked effectively to reduce the number of murder crimes. For example, Indonesia has already imposed the death penalty for terrorism in the early 2000s and it helps them to suppress those harmful acts. Indonesia punished the mastermind of the Bali bombings in 2002 with the death penalty which killed more than 200 people. After the executions, the number of terrorism-related murders had declined significantly with no other incidents causing more than the number of victims in Bali bombings. This concludes and gives a practical example of how the death penalty is not always bad and either with life in prison is not always a better punishment for murderers.