本文認為反廢死應專用於「若你的至親受此對待」及「被害者人權何在」等等以情感替死刑正當性辯護之人，即便他們也認為殺人者該死、死刑能嚇阻殺人、被害者才是重點，但支持死刑的論點對其而言僅是補充理由。藉由同理心以及「事實→思考→反應」的情感思索結構，可以發現反廢死對於安全責任只關注刑罰層次，這是因為兩質問創造了一個非得在罪人與親人之間選擇其一的脈絡，其強烈反身性讓人以主觀化情感思考作為推論方式，理所當然地得出執行死刑的結論。但整個推論過程中國家權力完全缺席，死刑成為人民與人民之間的關係，制度缺失被隱藏起來。唯有將焦點轉移回社會保護的層次，讓公權力受審，才能確實釐清制度中的漏洞，真正有助於社會安全保障。

One says only ＂If your family was the victim?＂ & ＂Where's the victims' rights?＂ is defending the death penalty with emotional feelings. Even they also agree that the murder should be sentence to death, the death penalty deters murders, and the victims should be the priority, yet the justifications of these propositions of pro-death penalty theories are just additional reasons to them. That's why this article calls them ＂the Anti-Abolition of Death Penalty＂ specially. Through the empathy and the fact-thinking-responding structure of emotional thinking, we can discover the Anti-Abolition of Death Penalty only focus on the criminal punishment level of social security. Execution is the certainly conclusion from the frame of the family vs. murder, which is made by the two reflexive questioning, through subjective emotional thinking. However, the absence of State Power in all this reasoning makes death penalty a people to people context, and all system defects are hided. Only put the public power under the spotlight could manifest the defects, improving social security.