Those who have committed a crime, which goes against The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cannot then expect to defend themselves by that declaration. This means that if you have killed, for example, which is against The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you can be killed for breaking it. That is a very good concept, as you should be punished for your crime.
Knowing you may die for your crime is not a deterrent – the threat of death doesn’t stop people from driving dangerously or under the influence of alcohol. Unless you were really stupid you wouldn’t commit a crime if you knew you would get caught for it. People commit crimes thinking they wont get caught, and for the minority this is true.
There was a recent story about someone from Sunderland who had a random D.N.A sample took, this proved him to have committed a rape in the mid 1990’s they have him and he is being tried for his crime, he thought he had go away with it. He has claimed he was under the influence of alcohol. People still commit crimes even if the price to pay if they get caught is high.
The death penalty acts as a form of deterrent making possible murderers re-consider their actions. If you were going to murder someone you might think about the consequences, but in most cases they don’t think about them. Just as I said in the previous paragraph most people commit crimes thinking they won’t get caught and have to pay the price. Bringing the death penalty back might seem good but I doubt the crime rate would fall a bit or at all.
The judicial system is imperfect, and innocent people are often sentenced for crimes they didn’t commit. By bringing the death penalty back there would be no way of reopening a case where the accused has been killed, the only other thing to do is try the person who has been arrested for new evidence.
Society needs to be secure and free from murderers. The elderly and other generations of people will feel a lot more safe if they knew the ‘filth’ and murderers from the streets were gone. People would get out more, and let their children out more if they knew people like this were gone forever.
The process of waiting for the death penalty to be enforced makes the death penalty itself premeditated and cold-blooded. A premeditated murder is a planned murder; you plan how to kill the person, which in effect is worse compared to doing it on the spur of the moment
Taxpayers’ money should not be spent on supporting those who have committed inhumane acts against that community. It costs on average about £8,000 a month, to keep someone in prison. If it is a prisoner who has murdered someone, they might not change their attitude and come out of prison and murder or commit crimes again. This would be a waste of a lot of taxpayers’ money, which could be spent on something else or bring the tax rate down. It would be easier to have the death penalty and remove the person from the world, also the victims family might feel that justice has been carried out.
It is impossible to show that killing is wrong if that is the punishment given for such crimes. You can’t stop people from killing if the punishment for it is the same, so you can’t say it is wrong to kill. This may make people think that the way to get rid of problems from the world is to kill them.
The state/country must show its disapproval of serious lawbreakers. To have the death penalty the country must agree to the punishment for certain crimes. If someone kills, even if it was accidental, they should receive the same punishment as other killers. Even if it is DEATH. A life for a life is a good concept.
No one has the right to take away the life of another person. Life is very precious and you should enjoy every moment, that is why it is wrong to take life away, even if the convicted has done wrong. They should be made to pay another way.
However, it is not fair for the victims’ family that a murderer should go on living. Revenge is wanted from many families of murder victims, the only way for this to happen is to use the death penalty on the murderer. This would satisfy the families need for revenge and would make the town of which the convict lives a safer place.
Redemption is better than revenge; two wrongs don’t make a right. Both of these mean the same thing. If you kill a killer you aren’t making anything better because the victims family are still suffering. A murder victim won’t be brought back if you kill the murderer, so in theory this doesn’t prove anything.
We should not risk dangerous criminals being released at some stage in the future in case they commit the same crime again. If you put someone in prison they might come out and not commit their previous crime again, for some this is true but some might go out and redo their crime without thinking of the punishment. If you had the death penalty the convict wouldn’t be able to commit that crime again, which once again would make the world a better and safer place.
Life imprisonment is a suitable punishment and answers most of the publics demands. If the people of the town find this punishment suitable then that’s what should be used. The majority always comes before the minority. So if the majority don’t want the death penalty then it shouldn’t be us. By having life imprisonment a life has been saved, although some wont agree this is a good.
If we had the death penalty the lives of your friends and family, or your own life, could be saved one day. If you are part of the jury to decide if the person goes in jail or not you may be under risk of being tracked down when he/she is free from prison. If the death penalty is enforced then there us no chance of this happening, which would save the lives of other people. Also he/she might not come for you or your family but could hurt someone else in the world, the death penalty stops this from happening, which will or could save a lot of lives.
After reviewing the issues surrounding whether or not capital punishment is a viable sanction, I have discovered that there are many controversial issues, which people never agree on. It becomes apparent that for every pro capital punishment argument, there is a valid and relevant counter argument. Although my own personal feelings would lend me to believe that execution is a suitable punishment, I am still able to recognise the contradiction that such a contentious issue will raise. In my opinion, these issues will continue to cause controversy now, and in the future, as something as final as the legalised taking of a person’s life, (no matter how evil), could never be summed up in 1200 words.
