Those who choose to kidnap and torture children should be held to the highest extent of the law, which is the death penalty. Capital punishment should have been the punishment for Ariel Castro, who kept three Ohio girls in captivity for decades. Capital punishment would allow for these defendants to be punished without the ongoing waste of taxpayer’s money to keep them alive within prison walls. Kant’s consideration of justice and fairness shows “How would you like if I did that to you”, which is a direct application of the golden rule. Treating others like you want to be treated. The normative principle of how things ought to be and how you ought to behave comes into play as well. As humans we must have respect for people and how people are treated. Once Ariel was brought to light on his horrendous crimes, what is morally decent should not be outweighed by what he did to these girls and what his ultimate punishment should be. In court Ariel attempted to make others feel sorry for him when telling the courts of how he was abused as well. Even though he was abused himself, he saw nothing morally wrong with the way he held these girls against their will for all this time. He denied these girls their rights to life and liberty and intentionally harmed them. Most would find his actions evil since no one would want to be denied their rights to life and liberty and intentional harm. Instead of sentencing Ariel to the death penalty and ridding him of his life, he was sentenced to a life in prison. A life that would be paid for by everyone’s hard earned tax money. Those opposed to the death penalty would probably argue the chance of his rehabilitation and possibly the need to make him suffer throughout his time in prison. Handing out the ultimate sentence of the death penalty would not necessarily stop these horrendous crimes because many of those