The death penalty, or better known as capital punishment, was designed as one of the many methods used to punish criminal offenders. Currently, there are 68 countries worldwide still employing the death penalty, including Malaysia and Singapore; while some have abolished it, like the Philippines in June 2006. With that said, I disagree that the death penalty should be abolished. As a caveat for purposes of this essay, only murderers qualify for the death penalty.
The death penalty complies with the 'an eye for an eye' theory, which is considered to be a very fair system of punishment. For example, the very instant a murderer deprives his victim of the right to live, it is only reasonable and logical that the same consequence should befall the murderer.
The death penalty complies with the 'an eye for an eye' theory, which is considered to be a very fair system of punishment. For example, the very instant a murderer deprives his victim of the right to live, it is only reasonable and logical that the same consequence should befall the murderer.
In many instances, a non-death penalty has proven to be an ineffective form of deterring crime. Not all convicts, upon release of jail, turns over a new leaf and promises a non recurrence of any crime for that matter. On the contrary, the same cannot be said for the death penalty as once the death sentence is carried out, there is an absolute certainty of non recurring convictions by the same criminals.
It is worth mentioning that the life of a convict is largely supported by taxpayers'. From the moment they start servicing their sentence, so does the spending of taxpayers' monies. Having said that, it is illogical and incredulous to think that the hardworking, law abiding and rational citizen should pay for the living expenses of criminal offenders. Not only are huge opportunity costs incurred but it further burdens taxpayers'. Taxes spent on convicts could have been spent building schools, hospitals or even donated to victim's family members.
In addition, there is a high possibility that ex convicts may seek revenge on individuals who had an involvement for their prosecution. This would inevitably detriment society's welfare and is seen to have a negative impact as criminal activities would surge. Thus, conflicting with the fundamental objective of a punishment, that is to deter crime. The death penalty, on the other hand, though unable to eliminate, is able to greatly reduce the realization of such possibilities.
It can be discerned that the death penalty should not be abolished and should remain to be enforced as it is proven to be an effective form of deterring crime; it is practical, economical and significantly reduces taxpayers' burden. Society's can be guaranteed that convicts will never repeat their crimes, or even seek revenge on them; society is assured that those who commit crime shall face the gallows; as such acts will not be condoned.
