However, there is the argument that the executioner will become a murderer if he kills the criminal. Therefore in theory the executioner should be executed. That would mean the person who executed the executioner should be executed and a loop is created. So, in theory, the only way to stop this loop is if the death sentence is abolished for good.
A lot of money is spent on keeping prisoners in jail and this money should be spent on things that could make a difference such as more hostels for homeless people or more funds for education. The death sentence rids jails of the murderers as well as the rest of the country and frees money that can be spent on these things. Also, the money is used to give the prisoners quite a comfortable time in jail; they are given good meals, showers and so on. They are also taught in jail and are given jobs such as jail librarian. This could be seen as the prisoners gaining no punishment at all for what they have done and the pain they have caused. There is also a chance that the life sentence given will not be fully carried out. Usually the convicted person is let out after just a few years. If the convict has not learnt their lesson they may still commit murder and keep doing it.
However, to kill these people is a violation of Human Rights. Also, to treat these people in a bad way such as torture is a violation of human rights. The Human Rights act clearly states that humans should not be subjected to torture or degrading punishment and that it is every person’s right to live life. Amnesty international also argue that ‘ the death penalty is wrong, it is a violation of human rights’
A counter argument to this is that if every human has a right to live than what about the person who was murdered? What justice is it that the victim is derived of his/her life and the person who wrongly took that life is put in jail to live a relatively comfortable life? The family of the victim, if any, would not feel satisfied if they had lost a loved one and the person who took that loved one away is only put in jail and can be released in only a few years. The family of the victim would expect there to be justice and that they will get revenge.
The Bible states that all humans are made in gods image and that killing them is like killing god. This makes the executioners and all involved just as bad as the murderer and if they are Christian they will go to hell. The Ten Commandments state that ‘ Thou shall not kill’.
Again, if all humans are made in gods image, the murderer has as good as killed god. Therefore they should be rightly killed. Christians would want the convict to be punished in some way. The killer has also defied the commandment that states ‘ Thou shall not kill’. The Bible also says ‘ an ear for an ear, an eye for an eye’.
If the person who committed the murder was mentally retarded they could not possibly be responsible for their actions and should therefore be treated better than a murderer who deliberately committed the murder. However, if Capital Punishment were to be brought back they would be treated the same and would still be executed. This cannot be right and proves that the death sentence is unfair and a waste of time.
Even if a person was not in full control of himself or herself, they still committed the murder and justice should still be paid. One could argue ‘why were they not in a hospital or care home’. The family of the victim have still lost a loved one and would want justice served no matter about the mental state of the murderer.
My personal view is that the death sentence should be brought back to Britain. Both sides make a very good argument but I think the ‘for’ makes a better argument. I think that if we brought back the death penalty there would be a lot less murders and Britain would be a better place to live in. Gangs would eventually be eliminated and in areas where there is more crime people would feel safer because eventually the gangs and yardies etc would be gone.
