There are two opposite perspectives that a number of people agree with having a death penalty for extremely severe crimes, while others argue that it is unethical to kill criminals. This essay will examine both views and express my viewpoint.
In the first system, the highly dangerous offender must be executed. There are various ways to do this death penalty, including poisoning, shooting, or electrical stimulation. This is due to anxiety about society or opposition to the behaviors of criminals. In the past, this lethal action was prevalent in most countries.
In contrast, the second system supports the idea that those people do not need to face capital punishment. Instead, the judge gives life imprisonment or incarceration for those individuals. This is because these crimes after the rehabilitation programs may become good citizens and respect the law. Nowadays, the penalty death is less common than before. Some countries have forbidden this action which is excruciating for the prisoners.
I think that capital punishment is extremely severe. The main reason is that we can confine this crime throughout their remaining life. Criminals not only accumulate virtue by doing some meaningful activities, but they can also regret their past behavior before becoming better individuals. Furthermore, if we kill them, we also become murderers and violate ethical principles. Besides that, killing culprits will cause them extreme pain regardless of the method used.
In conclusion, killing highly hazardous crimes is a complex issue that should be considered carefully. However, I do believe that society should give those individuals an opportunity to live and become decent people.