THOSE THAT ARGUE FOR RETENTION OF THE DEATH PENALTY HOLD THAT EXECUTION IS THE ONLY PROPER PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER, THAT THE DEATH PENALTY IS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN THE MORAL ORDER OF SOCIETY, AND THAT THE DEATH PENALTY IS A UNIQUE MEANS FOR DETERRING POTENTIAL OFFENDERS FROM COMMITTING CRIME. ABOLITIONISTS CLAIM THAT SOCIETY HAS NO RIGHT TO TAKE A MURDERER'S LIFE, THAT RETRIBUTION IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR A PENAL SYSTEM, AND THAT THE MORAL ORDER IS NOT THREATENED BY THE ABSENCE OF THE DEATH PENALTY. ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES CONTAIN ASSERTIONS THAT THE DEATH PENALTY DOES OR DOES NOT ACHIEVE CERTAIN AIMS. ALTHOUGH THE SCOPE OF THE DEBATE HAS NARROWED, THE ARGUMENTS FOR RETENTION OR ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY HAVE REMAINED LARGELY THE SAME THROUGHOUT HISTORY. A 1950 STUDY IN WHICH THE CRIMINAL HOMICIDE RATES IN SIX STATES THAT HAD ABOLISHED THE DEATH PENALTY PRIOR TO WORLD WAR I WERE COMPARED WITH RATES IN OTHER STATES FOUND NO DISCERNIBLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MURDER RATES AND THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. IN 1975, AN ECONOMETRICIAN CONCLUDED ON THE BASIS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL DATA ON HOMICIDES AND EXECUTIONS FROM 1933 TO 1969 THAT EACH EXECUTION DURING THIS PERIOD PREVENTED SEVEN OR EIGHT MURDERS. HOWEVER, THE METHODS AND FINDINGS OF THE ECONOMETRIC RESEARCH HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED. OTHER STUDIES SEEKING TO DETERMINE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGHLY PUBLICIZED EXECUTIONS AND MURDER RATES IN THE COMMUNITIES IN WHICH THE EXECUTIONS TOOK PLACE HAVE FAILED TO PROVE ANY SUCH RELATIONSHIP.