Some people think that the best way to reduce crime is to give the death penalty. Whereas, others, believe there are better alternative ways of reducing crime. I would go with the latter solution for most of the crime cases, but in cases where the degree of the crime exceeds a limit then the former solution would be a better choice of punishment.
For first and second-degree crimes such as theft, wrongful gathering, drug possession, trafficking, attempt to murder, etc. the person involved in these crimes can be charged with the appropriate law and charged with a fine or put behind bars to reflect on their wrongdoings. There are also juvenile crimes, in these cases, the law can’t give the juvenile the death penalty. Instead, the offender can be sent to juvenile prison or rehabilitation centers to improve upon themselves. There are some serious juvenile crimes but in such cases, the depth of the case should be investigated, and then only if necessary death penalty should be given.
In cases of third-degree crimes where the person has committed some heinous and gruesome crime such as murder, serial killing, psychopathic killing, sex offenders, terrorism etc. the offender should be given the death penalty. If such people are given another chance then this would not only increase the probability of them continuing their crime but would also encourage other people to do the same. So giving the death penalty to such criminals would instill fear in other offenders from doing such crimes thus reducing the crime.
In conclusion, I would say that the degree of the crime needs to be investigated first before passing any serious judgment. For menial crimes, charging fines, and sending offenders to jail or rehabilitation centers would be a better choice. But in the case of third-degree crimes, the death penalty would be the right choice.