Some countries are re-evaluating the implementation of the death penalty for heinous crimes. Supporters claim it helps prevent crime and esures justice, while critics highlight the risks of human rights abuses and wrongful executions. While there may be some disadvantages of this topic, I believe that the stronger side of this tendency are more significant.
On the one hand, punishments for serious crimes might have a number of weaker points. The first point is that its potential for human rights abuse. To be more specific, according to the all high-level rules all people have right to live and even they commit a crime you can’t punish them with death, but there are some people who misuse this law as they wish, even taking the lives of others, which makes them lawbreakers themselves. However, there is no guarantee that if you give these kinds of criminals a second chance to live, they have never engaged in criminal activity.
In my opinion, the advantage side of this trend clearly outweigh the drawback. One of the major stronger side is that if government punish one of the criminals with death penalty, it causes deterrence of crime. To be more precise, individuals always fear the laws and try to abide by them, however there are myriad lawbreaks at the streets and someone has to penalize them. Some of them have minor crimes, like burglary, fraud, but the rest have heinous crimes like, commit murder. Government should punish the latter due to their crimes and if government does that, other criminals will fear and start to obey the laws. Additionally, serial killers will get death punishments there will be justice for them and also family. For instance, families which their loved ones killed, the only thing they can hand onto is the punishment of the criminal and this can bring them some relief.
In conclusion, even though everyone has right to live, this weaker side is clearly overshadowed by two major advantages: deterrence of crime and justice for victims and their familys.