The death penalty has no beneficial quality in itself Every action we take is done because we expect it to bring some kind of benefit, right? Because if there was no benefit, it would be a waste of time. I'm sure most would agree with this statement. So obviously any action we take against any criminal should have a positive influence on our society. Yet the death penalty itself has no beneficial quality. What good is a dead man to society? Some say it helps the victim's family cope with the death of their loved one. Killing someone will not bring your loved one back there, so this statement has no basis in fact. There is no way I can ease their pain. And what about the criminal's family? Why make them suffer too? If I remember correctly, the branch of government that deals with criminals and prisons is called “Correction and Rehabilitation”. Not “Punishment and Revenge”. My point is that any action we perform towards criminals should not be a punishment or revenge, but rather a nature that will affect a positive change in that man. So one day, if he can be released, he will return to society as an upstanding citizen. Likewise, I wonder how can we truly change a man for the better by silencing him forever? Some argue that the death penalty actually has a positive influence on our society because it acts as a deterrent that scares citizens from committing crimes that could lead to the death penalty. This statement is absurd in many ways. Statistically (http://www.fdp.dk/uk/exec/index.htm) this is a long way off as the number of executions in recent decades has increased dramatically. Since the death penalty has existed, the number of murders in o...... middle of paper...... and we know that if we had been in the same situation we too would probably have resorted to anger, hatred and violence. Most people who support capital punishment are not the ones living on welfare or don't know when their next meal will be. Hunger is a force that will drive any man to kill if it becomes this extreme. Capital punishment supporters argue that the death penalty is no different from a man killing in self-defense, a police officer killing an armed criminal, or a soldier killing in self-defense. war. In my opinion there is a big difference there. The three examples above concern our situations where the danger posed by the criminal is in the present moment. At any moment the criminal could still harm someone. So it's justified there. But when a criminal is locked up for life, he can no longer harm anyone else, so the need for his death disappears.
tags