As more serious crimes happen today, some people think using the death penalty will stop them, while others believe different ways are needed to deal with this problem. Personally, I completely disagree with this opinion because I believe that other factors are more essential.
I think this is a high-risk death plan for the government and the accused because even after years of being seen as guilty under the law, someone can later be proven innocent, highlighting the intricate nature of legal processes and the potential for rightful vindication. For example, Cameron Todd Willingham: In 1992, Willingham was convicted of arson murder in Texas, and in 2004, he was put to death. Sadly, as a result, the Texas Forensic Science Commission discovered that the evidence in Willingham’s case was misunderstood, and they concluded that none of the evidence used against him was accurate. Furthermore, judges do not always truly decide for the accusers.
On the other hand, it is true that the majority of serious crimes have increased in recent years. I think a different measure should be used for this. For instance, first, the government should be aware of why criminals break the law, and the government should show the right way to lawbreakers. I believe it’s better to focus on ways to prevent crime, help people recover, and solve societal problems instead of just using the death penalty to stop serious crimes.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that the death penalty is not pivotal in dealing with criminals, and I advocate for the government to explore and implement more impactful measures to address crime effectively.