Ohio is one of the states in America that allows the ultimate punishment for crime, death. It has been part of the Ohio legislature since 1981, and since then, it has been part of an ongoing debate on whether the state should retain or abolish the death penalty. 

Before we can decide whether the death penalty is good or bad, we need to know the very intention of such punishment. We can only determine the integrity of implementing the death penalty if we understand the rationale for permitting this extreme action of depriving people of their right to live.

It is often said that the main reasons for the death penalty are deterrence and retribution. In this sense, the gravity of the punishment will deter people from committing heinous acts worthy of death. In addition, the death penalty eliminates danger from society by removing a criminal from the populace. Those against the death penalty continue to reveal studies that show its inefficiency as a deterrent, but history and people's instincts prove otherwise. 

Fear has always been a strong deterrent for people; the fear of pain, the unknown, retribution, and punishment all shaped civilization's course of how it is today. Another reason for the death penalty is the sense of retribution. It points not only to the efficacy of punishment to prevent people from committing crime or sin but providing justice for the aggrieved. 

The death penalty can also be found in the texts of some major religions. In Israel's genesis, Moses received a commandment putting to death people who deliberately disobeyed God and the laws of the burgeoning society. The Quran also emphasizes that though the death penalty is an extreme punishment, it is sentenced to crimes of such severity that severe retribution is the only fair way to repay the severely aggrieved. 

The right to life, liberty, and property are all protected as a person's inherent rights, which one forfeits if one commits a crime against the law. It is thereby fair and constitutional to deprive a person of liberty, property, and in extreme cases, the right to life.

Yet, some argue not the constitutionality of the death penalty but its morality. Is it an insult to society's moral fabric to allow a community to kill criminals arbitrarily determined worthy of death?

Morality is an abstract concept only observed in societies of a certain degree of civility. However, a society's primary concern is not the individual's benefit but the welfare of everyone in that society. Therefore, it is morally sound for a community to prevent, expel, and extinguish threats that may destroy a society's peace and welfare. 

Thus, in this light, it is easier to allow the death of a person convicted of an extreme crime than let such a person of evil fiber affect society's stability. The death penalty, of course, depends on our judicial system's effectiveness. So, it is proper to focus on our ability to judge cases fairly and justly instead of on the punishment itself. 

A wrong conviction is, in any manner, a more severe insult to a person's human right than condemning a proven criminal to severe punishment. 

So, it is my opinion that the State of Ohio should not repeal its current death penalty laws and instead improve its judicial ability to provide justice and fair retribution for those who experienced cruelty and severity of wrong from those puppeted by evil intentions.