The death penalty has no beneficial qualities in itself. Every action we take is done because we expect it to have some sort of benefit, right? Because if there is no benefit, it would be a waste of time. I'm sure most would agree with this statement. It is therefore obvious that any action we take against a criminal is expected to have a positive influence on our society. Yet the death penalty itself has no beneficial qualities in itself. What good is a dead man for society? Some claim that it helps the victim's family cope with the death of their loved one. Killing someone will not bring back a loved one, so this statement has no basis in reality. There is no way this 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 Corrections and Rehabilitation. Not “Punishment and Vengeance”. What I mean is that all actions we perform towards criminals do not necessarily have to be punishment or revenge, but rather one of nature that will influence positive change in that man. So one day, if he is likely to be released, he will return to society as an upstanding citizen. In the same way, I ask how can we truly improve a man 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 will dissuade 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 far from being the case since the number of executions in recent decades has increased considerably. Since the death penalty has existed, the number of murders has been in the news......we know that if we had been in the same situation, we would probably also have resorted to anger, hatred and violence . Most people who support capital punishment either don't live 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. Proponents of capital punishment 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. defense. war. In my opinion, there is a big difference there. The three examples given above represent our situations where the danger posed by the criminal is in the present moment. At any time, the criminal can still harm someone. So that’s justified there. But when a criminal is imprisoned for life, he can no longer harm anyone and his death is no longer necessary...

Essay / The death penalty has no beneficial qualities in itself. Every action we take is done because we expect it to have some sort of benefit, right? Because if there is no benefit, it would be a waste of time. I'm sure most would agree with this statement. It is therefore obvious that any action we take against a criminal is expected to have a positive influence on our society. Yet the death penalty itself has no beneficial qualities in itself. What good is a dead man for society? Some claim that it helps the victim's family cope with the death of their loved one. Killing someone will not bring back a loved one, so this statement has no basis in reality. There is no way this 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 Corrections and Rehabilitation. Not “Punishment and Vengeance”. What I mean is that all actions we perform towards criminals do not necessarily have to be punishment or revenge, but rather one of nature that will influence positive change in that man. So one day, if he is likely to be released, he will return to society as an upstanding citizen. In the same way, I ask how can we truly improve a man 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 will dissuade 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 far from being the case since the number of executions in recent decades has increased considerably. Since the death penalty has existed, the number of murders has been in the news......we know that if we had been in the same situation, we would probably also have resorted to anger, hatred and violence . Most people who support capital punishment either don't live 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. Proponents of capital punishment 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. defense. war. In my opinion, there is a big difference there. The three examples given above represent our situations where the danger posed by the criminal is in the present moment. At any time, the criminal can still harm someone. So that’s justified there. But when a criminal is imprisoned for life, he can no longer harm anyone and his death is no longer necessary...

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch