The use of capital punishment is used as a permanent fixture since the earliest civilizations and is still in practice in several countries even as of today’s society. Capital punishment has been carried for crimes such as armed robberies as well as heinous crimes of serial killers. However, this form of punishment is inhumane, irreversible and also acts as a form of retribution for the criminal. Therefore, I feel that capital punishment is not ethically acceptable. Every man, including the worst criminals has his own rights, the inalienable right to life. Every human life is undeniably valuable and no man should be deprived of this value of their life. In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” As such, by executing another human, the state lessens the value of a human life and contributes to the growing sentiment that some individuals are worth more and are superior to others. Furthermore, capital punishment eliminates any future opportunity for the convict to turn over a new leaf and amend for his wrongdoings. As such, oppositions of the capital punishment would question the ethics involved in such punishments due to the mere fact that it is established on “revenge” and “retribution” and this brings me to the next point. During the US Catholic conference, it was said that ‘We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing’. Indeed, capital punishment serves as a permanent fixture for the victims and as a precaution that the convict would not put anyone in harm’s way again. However, endorsing the notion of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life by the state is merely a form of revenge which would only bring more pain for the family of the convicted, not justice to the victim. Laws and punishment shoul