Saturday, 30 January 2016

Death penalty

          Capital punishment is being used for serious crimes in many countries such as, the USA, China, the Phillipines and Iran. Some people believe that is a retribution to the offenders, but others say that is the ultimate punishment and it is unfair for the criminals. Personally, I think that it is an ambivalent issue and many parameters should be considered to make a final decision.
            First of all, as a large number of people claim, the death penalty is what a doer of serious crimes, for example, terrorism, homicide or arson deserve. They took a life, so their life should be taken too. Furthermore, advocates of capital punishment insist that without the death penalty as a deterrent, more lives will be lost because the murder rate will go up. Therefore, if the issue is saving lives, we ought to have capital punishment, even if a few innocent people lose their lives. In addition, this punishment may satisfy the family of the victim.
             On the other side, opponents of this view say that is the worst punishment which violates the right to life. Moreover, it cannot be used as a deterrent because countries where this ultimate punishment is approved, have a bigger murder rate than those who do not. The real purpose of all the punishments is penal, so the criminals can understand their mistake. What is more, opponents of capital punishment say that as the death row increasing the convicted people have to wait for years until they finally be executed. As a result of this, they may suffer from psychological problems.
            Taking everything into consideration, I believe that this issue has significant advantages, but also important disadvantages. As I see it, the best option is to develop a better judicial system in which the death penalty will be approved only with the confirmation of the Minister of Justice for very serious crimes such as, massive terrorist attacks.

No comments:

Post a Comment