Capital Punishment
- Submitted by: alban
- Views: 1377
- Category: Politics: Crime and Drugs
- Date Submitted: 06/08/2010 04:34 AM
- Pages: 2
- Report this Essay
Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a person by a process as a punishment for an offense. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes. Although in Europe the death penalty is prohibited by low, it was here that they first invented the guillotine and the tripods for hanging.
In the medieval times, it was common to punish people by death for even crimes that today would be considered minor ones such as burglary or insulting of an important person. In modern times, life has taken more value. Now days most countries forbid the capital punishment or have a lot of time without carrying out an execution. There is an ongoing debate in some countries for the death penalty. Those who oppose it claim that by executing we take away the prisoners right to life so we give less valor to it. Those who agree with the capital punishment claim that by not taking the life of a murderer we give less value to life. In my opinion capital punishment is a good thing because if the government does not punish a murder as it should, people would take control themselves. This could lead to blood feuds or so called vendettas. The system should be able to give the death penalty when needed so it could show that no bad deed goes unpunished.
When I say death penalty, I mean a socially acceptable way of doing it. In ancient times severe historical penalties used to include breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing (including crushing by elephant), stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, , or neck lacing. It is a fair way to make justice. Kill and you shall be killed, as simple as that. An other argument I have about this topic is the known fact about the Scottish Minister of Justice, Kenny MacAskill. He decided to grant "compassion" to Abdelbasef Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, the mass killer convicted of murdering 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am...
In the medieval times, it was common to punish people by death for even crimes that today would be considered minor ones such as burglary or insulting of an important person. In modern times, life has taken more value. Now days most countries forbid the capital punishment or have a lot of time without carrying out an execution. There is an ongoing debate in some countries for the death penalty. Those who oppose it claim that by executing we take away the prisoners right to life so we give less valor to it. Those who agree with the capital punishment claim that by not taking the life of a murderer we give less value to life. In my opinion capital punishment is a good thing because if the government does not punish a murder as it should, people would take control themselves. This could lead to blood feuds or so called vendettas. The system should be able to give the death penalty when needed so it could show that no bad deed goes unpunished.
When I say death penalty, I mean a socially acceptable way of doing it. In ancient times severe historical penalties used to include breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing (including crushing by elephant), stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, , or neck lacing. It is a fair way to make justice. Kill and you shall be killed, as simple as that. An other argument I have about this topic is the known fact about the Scottish Minister of Justice, Kenny MacAskill. He decided to grant "compassion" to Abdelbasef Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, the mass killer convicted of murdering 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am...