Recently, capital punishment has sparked a debate among people. While some people believe that it should not be used, others refute this and claim that capital punishment should be allowed for the most serious crimes. This essay will examine both perspectives before presenting my own view that death penalty should be restricted to rare and harsh crimes only.
On the one hand, some argue that capital punishment should be eradicated from judicial systems. In other words, offenders should never be sentenced to death, even if they intentionally killed another human. Instead of that, it would be better to sentence offenders to a life time in prison. This way, human rights will be promoted over aggression and death.
On the other hand, capital punishment can serve as a means to control violence, particularly serious crimes, at societal levels. For instance, If serious crimes, such as shooting an innocent person with a weapon, do not lead to execution, then the frequency and the potency of violence will increase. This is because offenders are informed that there are no harsh consequences for their offense.
Personally, I think that judicial systems should be allowed to judge based on the seriousness of the crime. This means that societies must be aware that there might be capital punishment in some rare and harsh cases; as a result, deterrence remains in force to reduce the intensity of possible violence.
In conclusion, although capital punishment, on its own, is in sharp contrast with the human rights, eliminating it might cause offenders to become more aggressive and commit serious crimes. I believe that societies should allow the judicial systems to judge case-by-case.