The importance of the right use of sanctions seems to be a widespread concern. It is argued that the ultimate punishment should not be enforced; however, others suggest that this form of punishment should be permitted for the most extreme offenders. This essay will examine both sides of the argument and provide my personal perspective.
On the one hand, abolitionists argue that the death penalty punishment should not be used, which I personally agree with. What I mean is that this type of extreme punishment is not an irreversible consequence, it is a permanent way to eradicate the criminal. To better explain, some prisoners are mistakenly convicted due to lack of evidence or badgering with evidence. If the prisoner is imprisoned mistakenly, even though the time wasted wouldn’t be given back, you can regain your freedom. In contrast, if an offender was wrongly convicted and than was executed there would be permanent and irreversible damage inflicted upon a victim of wrongful judgment.
These are the reasons why I believe that judicial executions should not be performed as a form of punishment.
On the other hand, the minority that supports the death penalty argue that in some extreme cases capital punishment should be allowed. To make it clear, some criminals are harmful to society even if they are imprisoned. If they affect a majority of society negatively it is a better option to eliminate the risk of them doing even more harm. Thus, the benefit of capital punishment should be overlooked.
In conclusion, as stated above, both views present valid arguments; however, I am in favour of the opinion that permanent punishment should not be allowed as it is an irreversible consequence.