Is the capital punishment debate conforming to the human rights?

Human rights is the major argument to make people oppose capital punishment. Human rights are defined as any fundamental right that human must have such as need for food, and safety. They included civil and political rights, such as the right to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression....etc. The Abolitionists think every human’s life is priceless, even though the murderers. No one can deprive their right to life. So they think capital punishment is unreasonable. Human rights entail both rights and obligations. At the individual level, while we are entitled our human rights, we should also respect the human rights of others. The supporters think every murderer has been disregarding victims’ right to life; they don’t have authority to protect by human rights. Right to life means having intrinsic value and worth. Before a person commits murder, he/she is acting rationally knowing in advance the consequences of his/her actions; therefore he/she loses his right to life. A person also loses his/her right to life if he/her chooses to do so. Human rights law does not prohibit the use of the death penalty as a punishment for crimes but it does encourage its abolition and seek to limit its use. There have some people think imposition of capital punishment would not cause the violation of human rights. It would protect the wider range of human-rights violations instead by protecting the lives of many innocents. There have an example from an article; the author heard news, a 62 year-old grandmother, Betty Beets, had five husbands. She had already killed the fourth one, and served a prison sentence for murder, and she got out of prison early. She murdered the fifth husband by shot him, and buried him in her back yard. In the case, cause of the government excuse Betty Beets, and then make an innocent person die by the murderer. Is it conforming to the human rights? It doesn't protect other people’s safety.