The question of whether or not there should be a death penalty is an issue that is argued all over the world. According to the information published by Amnesty International in 2012, more and more countries are abolishing the death penalty in favor of other methods for punishing criminals. Although this seems to be an international trend, there are still numerous and intensive controversies in Taiwan on this topic. Those who say that death penalty is necessary and cannot be abolished mostly support the Hammurabi Code, proposing a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, and only paying back the same way can do justice for the ones being killed. But some argue that punishing criminals with the death penalty deprives their human rights, and they advocate that no one should or could expropriate others' rights to live. Although this looks like a strong argument towards those who hold out for the death penalty, it does not completely make sense. If we defend for the murderers' human rights, then why can we allow him or her to strip the victims' rights to live? Before we consider protecting the rights of these heinous criminals, shouldn't we remember that the rights were taken from the victims mercilessly in the first place? Another reason some people support the death penalty is that they believe this punishment may have an deterrent effect on other criminals, thus, hopefully, decreasing the rates of homicides and other violent crimes. Those who repeal the death penalty pointed out that instead of deterring crimes, the death penalty has brought out some brutalization effects, which is defined as a period following the execution of a death penalty that encourages additionally violent behaviors of others. According to some researches on deterrence and brutalization, those with the impulse to commit violent crimes are provoked to action by the execution of a death penalty, while people who lack this impulse go under a deterrent effect. These re