Owing to the appearance of numerous deleterious crimes, the death penalty was initiated as a punishment for these assaults. However, a portion of the population subscribes to the assertment that life imprisonment is a more suitable punishment for these criminals. Personally, I partly agree with this statement owing to the humanitarian issues and the likelihood of recommiting crime.
To commence, death penalty would be necessitated for malicious murderers who commit serious crimes and wreak an irreparable havoc on the sustainability of society. Additionally, not every offenders always show remorse for what they have done, which can be taken into consideration for receiving capital punishment. Besides, another noteworthy point is that there is also likelihood that they could recommit petty crimes several times, adversely affecting the society. In such cases, the criminals should be sentenced to death.
Nonetheless, life imprisonment can be a more reasonable sentence for them. Firstly, one of the major rationales is the humanitarian crisis. In other words, humans have rights to stay alive and continue their lives, which means that these offenders should be given chances of reforming themselves. Furthermore, some contend that capital punishment can be regarded as malicious since homicide, even on the government’s account, can allegedly go against the laws and regulations. More importantly, those who express profound regret for their past actions or have mental disorders can also deserve life sentence in the light of their redeeming features.
In conclusion, both death penalty and life imprisonment are suitable to be put into practice. However, from my standpoint, the governing authorities should consider numerous factors, including mental health, family background, redeeming features and among others before sentencing someone.