A man convicted of the mass murder of twelve people has his fate in the hands of his peers, he's mentally ill and on death row-should he face death? The death penalty is an extensively debated case by many on whether it is justifiable or not. I, for one, support the death penalty where it is deserved as it provides a fitting consequence and condemns them for infringing on another's freedoms.
When it comes to the death penalty, a big factor in claims advocating the penalty is that a criminal deserves to experience the eye for an eye. One with blood on their hands, of full intent or partial intent, is wrong. Stripping birthrights without reason, such as what Stephen Paddock committed, deserves punishment. This, inherently, ties into the unjust act of infringing on another's rights and expecting to retain yours.
Alternatively, one could say that any and all persons have the ability to be rehabilitated, which is possible yet a considerable risk. If a man is driven to believe their heinous crime is appropriate; that person is already far gone. An example would be Thugs that justify their lifestyle and criminal acts by using their poor living situation and 'oppressive' childhood. These are excuses made by the simple minded, the same excuses used by degenerate murderers.
To conclude, the death penalty is a sentence that has been around since humans evolved from south african apes, into a functioning bipedal species. Although barbaric, the sentence can still serve a standing purpose. To fully establish a use, the death penalty should be used as a last resort unless no hope is seen in the subject. Those sentenced to the penalty must have a reasonable support backing why they're being put to death.