Capital Punishment Should Not Be Abolished
- Submitted by: mike19850628
- Views: 1260
- Category: Politics: Moral Issues
- Date Submitted: 01/26/2011 02:10 AM
- Pages: 3
- Report this Essay
Capital Punishment Should not be Abolished
There is a controversy over capital punishment in many countries. Some people consider that it is also murder and assert that those brutal murderers have their human rights. However, much evidence shows that if there is a death penalty, the rate of serious crime will decrease. In addition, the reason that humans are different from other species is that we know what we should and should not do. Therefore, if a person kills another person, than he or she no longer has a “human right”.
Opponents of capital punishment say it is an inhuman and immoral punishment. However, they do not consider what the criminal did. The criminal who is sentenced to the death penalty must have done something unforgivable. The criminal must have killed someone who has a blood relationship with himself, or must have done a brutal crime such as rape, rob or torture victims to death. Furthermore, it must be a premeditated murder. If the criminal killed people for self-defense, he or she will not be sentenced to a death penalty. Therefore, the criminal considered for a death penalty must be a brutal murderer who deservers to die.
Opponents also maintain that life imprisonment is a better punishment for the murderers. However, for the victim’s families, it is not fair that a killer can live a good life in prison and wait for the day when they might be free again. Moreover, some people say it is a waste of revenue. The murderers have three meals a day and have free time to do what they want to do. One day they might have a chance to get out. According to research, most of the criminals will commit other crimes when they get out of prison. Therefore, for serious killers, capital punishment is more suitable.
The last argument advanced by opponents is that capital punishment is a system that is flawed because once the person is executed, there is no turning back. There have been some cases where a person is proven innocent after...
There is a controversy over capital punishment in many countries. Some people consider that it is also murder and assert that those brutal murderers have their human rights. However, much evidence shows that if there is a death penalty, the rate of serious crime will decrease. In addition, the reason that humans are different from other species is that we know what we should and should not do. Therefore, if a person kills another person, than he or she no longer has a “human right”.
Opponents of capital punishment say it is an inhuman and immoral punishment. However, they do not consider what the criminal did. The criminal who is sentenced to the death penalty must have done something unforgivable. The criminal must have killed someone who has a blood relationship with himself, or must have done a brutal crime such as rape, rob or torture victims to death. Furthermore, it must be a premeditated murder. If the criminal killed people for self-defense, he or she will not be sentenced to a death penalty. Therefore, the criminal considered for a death penalty must be a brutal murderer who deservers to die.
Opponents also maintain that life imprisonment is a better punishment for the murderers. However, for the victim’s families, it is not fair that a killer can live a good life in prison and wait for the day when they might be free again. Moreover, some people say it is a waste of revenue. The murderers have three meals a day and have free time to do what they want to do. One day they might have a chance to get out. According to research, most of the criminals will commit other crimes when they get out of prison. Therefore, for serious killers, capital punishment is more suitable.
The last argument advanced by opponents is that capital punishment is a system that is flawed because once the person is executed, there is no turning back. There have been some cases where a person is proven innocent after...