Death penalty is the punishment done to any murderer or any criminal who does serious crimes. However, is it right that the death penalty should be done to the criminal? Is it right for anyone to kill another human being? Life has been given by god and no human have the right to remove someone else’s life. Then people would argue,” but these people did something wrong we need to punish them.” However, does punishing someone mean that one wants to make sure the criminal does not repeat his fault? Does death penalty really helps to deter others? If the criminal was allowed to live again after being hanged, will he still dare to repeat the crime? If yes, then is the death penalty still considered a deterrent?
The death penalty has always received support from people. Putting ourselves in the point of the victim’s family, any normal person would want revenge or in their words “justice done”. As the saying goes, ”an eye for an eye”, people will want revenge done for those who are innocently killed.
However, if the murderer is one who did not kill the victim on purpose, or was not in a right state of mind to think rationally, or felt that he was actually doing a service to the victim in saving him from his sufferings, would the reason of punishment still be valid? Not just any other punishment, but the death penalty. The punishment that gives the criminal no second chance. For a murderer who cannot think with the proper state of mind, is it better to help him “become normal” or just sentence him to death since he is abnormal and did something “seriously wrong” like murder.
As seen from the response of the public towards the term ’death penalty’, how much they are against it, we could conclude that people are frightened by the word “death penalty” and do not wish to die in such a way. Therefore issuing a death penalty to hard core criminals or those who have committed serious acts as a deterrent to others who might have the intention to err. People who are tempted to kill might think of the consequences of having a death penalty, which might scare their wits out of them or do not wish to die in such a horrible manner, such that they are able to kick the intention of killing out of their mind.
Only to a certain extent could this death penalty be of deterrent effect. In the past, the hanging was done in public, such that everyone and anyone could see the consequences of taking the wrong step. So that they could see how painful and gross and horrible the death would be like. Causing the deterrent effect to really settle in. In today’s death penalty, it is done in a quiet corner in the prison and done in the middle of the night. Also, even if one is invited to watch no one would go. Therefore, who would know how the actual “scene of crime” looks like? And without seeing just by hear-say, is the impact still as great? The deterrent effect has greatly been reduced.
I believe hearing the following explanation, many would agree to the death penalty. Criminals of serious crimes if not subjected to the death penalty, would most probably be subjected to life imprisonment. These hard-core criminals when they live in the prison are provided with lodgings, food, drink and other necessities. And who provides these facilities to the hard-core criminals, who pay for them? If you do not know, it is us or maybe our parents, the tax-payers. We are so called supporting the criminals that we hate if we send them to life imprisonment, therefore, it is definitely more economically sound to sentenced them to death penalty.
Killing is said to be so serious a crime that the murderer is sentenced to the death penalty. However, what about the person conducting the death penalty? Is he also killing, if so, would the ultimately fair judge sentence him to death as well? So how can the death penalty be the right punishment, since it makes a person commit a very serious crime while carrying out this punishment? If we are such law abiding, the executor would also be sentenced to death penalty, and the cycle would then repeats itself. Therefore, to stop this cycle of people killing more people, we should say “NO!” to the death penalty.
The death penalty has already been a standard punishment across the board, making it impossible to abolish it with a significant shift in public opinion. Although the reasons to punish a person might be valid, but anyone who reacts in any way is influenced by his surroundings, his upbringing, the people around him and how people treat him. Thus, I believe anyone brought up in the same way as any hard-core criminal or murderer would act in the same way as them given the same situation, as it is just their ‘normal reaction’. Therefore, should these people be punished or should we punish the core of the problem which is the influence he gets from the surroundings and the people around him.
The death penalty has always received support from people. Putting ourselves in the point of the victim’s family, any normal person would want revenge or in their words “justice done”. As the saying goes, ”an eye for an eye”, people will want revenge done for those who are innocently killed.
However, if the murderer is one who did not kill the victim on purpose, or was not in a right state of mind to think rationally, or felt that he was actually doing a service to the victim in saving him from his sufferings, would the reason of punishment still be valid? Not just any other punishment, but the death penalty. The punishment that gives the criminal no second chance. For a murderer who cannot think with the proper state of mind, is it better to help him “become normal” or just sentence him to death since he is abnormal and did something “seriously wrong” like murder.
As seen from the response of the public towards the term ’death penalty’, how much they are against it, we could conclude that people are frightened by the word “death penalty” and do not wish to die in such a way. Therefore issuing a death penalty to hard core criminals or those who have committed serious acts as a deterrent to others who might have the intention to err. People who are tempted to kill might think of the consequences of having a death penalty, which might scare their wits out of them or do not wish to die in such a horrible manner, such that they are able to kick the intention of killing out of their mind.
Only to a certain extent could this death penalty be of deterrent effect. In the past, the hanging was done in public, such that everyone and anyone could see the consequences of taking the wrong step. So that they could see how painful and gross and horrible the death would be like. Causing the deterrent effect to really settle in. In today’s death penalty, it is done in a quiet corner in the prison and done in the middle of the night. Also, even if one is invited to watch no one would go. Therefore, who would know how the actual “scene of crime” looks like? And without seeing just by hear-say, is the impact still as great? The deterrent effect has greatly been reduced.
I believe hearing the following explanation, many would agree to the death penalty. Criminals of serious crimes if not subjected to the death penalty, would most probably be subjected to life imprisonment. These hard-core criminals when they live in the prison are provided with lodgings, food, drink and other necessities. And who provides these facilities to the hard-core criminals, who pay for them? If you do not know, it is us or maybe our parents, the tax-payers. We are so called supporting the criminals that we hate if we send them to life imprisonment, therefore, it is definitely more economically sound to sentenced them to death penalty.
Killing is said to be so serious a crime that the murderer is sentenced to the death penalty. However, what about the person conducting the death penalty? Is he also killing, if so, would the ultimately fair judge sentence him to death as well? So how can the death penalty be the right punishment, since it makes a person commit a very serious crime while carrying out this punishment? If we are such law abiding, the executor would also be sentenced to death penalty, and the cycle would then repeats itself. Therefore, to stop this cycle of people killing more people, we should say “NO!” to the death penalty.
The death penalty has already been a standard punishment across the board, making it impossible to abolish it with a significant shift in public opinion. Although the reasons to punish a person might be valid, but anyone who reacts in any way is influenced by his surroundings, his upbringing, the people around him and how people treat him. Thus, I believe anyone brought up in the same way as any hard-core criminal or murderer would act in the same way as them given the same situation, as it is just their ‘normal reaction’. Therefore, should these people be punished or should we punish the core of the problem which is the influence he gets from the surroundings and the people around him.
