The rate of heinous crime in the society appears to be on the rising annually. Therefore, some experts believe that the most appropriate way to tackle it is through death sentence while others prefer other alternative punishment. In this essay, I will delve into both sides of the argument and give a concluding view.
On the one hand, the proponents of elimination of criminals argue that when the lives of convicts are taken, it reduces their number and the crime rate. What I mean is that those who indulge in despicable deeds like genocide, terrorism, murder, human trafficking and their likes belong to a syndicate which mastermind these acts, when such offenders are apprehended and convicted, extermination of their lives does not just break the chain of crime but destroys the criminal gang, thereby reducing their number. Besides, eradication of lawbreakers sends a stern warning to those contemplating crime, thereby, making them have a change of heart or risk suffering the same fate. By this measure, the number of reported cases will drop.
On the other hand, those advocating for other ways of treating offenders believe that one of the essence of justice system is to reform culprits and make them useful in the society. Put it another way, the purpose of the court of law is to ensure that justice is served and criminals convicted, however, these felons must not be condemned to death, but should serve prison terms where their attitude will be reformed through various programs done while incarcerated. It goes to say that when law breakers undergo reformation, they can be reintegrated into the society and crime rate will be lowered.
In conclusion, there are valid arguments on both sides, however, I strongly believe that taking the lives of dangerous criminals will not just bring down the crime rate but pacify those seeking for justice against them.
