Whether the death penalty is a valid or an invalid form of executing punishment, the concept has elicited debates for a long time now, with various arguments rooted on different articulation and subscriptions. While some arguments focus on justice, retribution, and deterrence, some assert the possibility of executing the innocent, as well as rehabilitative and incapacitation, while some still hold that, this form of execution in its entire form is murder. Conversely, crime is one of the horrific acts rampant in the society today, calling for a practical solution in order to address the vice. Indeed, any form of crime threatens people’s peace, rights, and freedoms. However, the manner in which it should be handled requires a methodology of action to combat crime in its entire sense. The death penalty as argued in various nations is attributed to offenders of atrocious and enormous crimes dating from the Babylonian empire to the modern day USA (Garland, McGowen and Meranze 1). For example, the medieval church and the Roman Empire in that epoch justified the use of death penalty in a liberal ascription that made it plausible. In the modern day world, the death penalty is a form of punishment practiced by various countries whether formally or informally in heinous and murder crimes. This paper seeks to present a critical evaluation of the effectiveness of the death penalty focusing on its deterrent, retributive, and just nature, while examining the counter arguments in order to obtain a middle ground for contention.