Now, Death Penalty or Capital Punishment can be defined as the punishment to a perpetrator which takes away his life due to the heinous act s/he has enacted. Now, on when is the Death Penalty justifiable morally? I believe when s/he kills someone. Now, my first argument concerns to why it is moral enough to kill the criminal.
So, as I said before, I think Death Penalty should be allowed in cases when the perpetrator has killed someone else. Why? Because he has KILLED SOMEONE. That's clear enough, I suppose. Now, you might argue on that that person has a right to life as well but I believe that person has forfeited his right to life when he has gruesomely stolen someone else's right to life. Because no body has the right to do that, to violate other's right. And, here we are not talking about any other less-concerning rights, but we are talking about the right to life and I believe that is the most ulterior form of right that any human being inherently possess after he is born in this earth because that is the very basis of our society and human race. Nothing exists without life and right to life is something that cannot be taken lightly. And, we are here talking about someone who has very cruelly taken someone else's right to life. I believe that the very fact of the severity of this heinous act makes capital punishment to that person a just punishment.
Now, you might argue, well what about the right of the criminals to live? Well, he no longer has that right at all. Why? Because he has taken the right of someone else to live and I believe that is enough for you to lose your right to life as well. Because nobody has any right to violate other's rights, let alone deprive him of every single right imaginable. And the criminal here is doing the exact same thing, isn't he? Yes, he is. He is making a person deprived of every single rights that the victim is inherently entitled to, that includes right to freedom, right to vote, right to equality and all other stuff. When you are killed, you cannot enjoy any of those rights.
And, now let's analyze what we have here. A person, a Criminal I should say, an irrational human being, has had the courage to deprive another human being of all the rights that he is entitled to and mainly, the right to LIVE. And, in such, is it justifiable enough to let him live still? I think not! So, simply looking at the severity of the deeds of the perpetrator, I believe Death Penalty is justifiable and should be allowed.
Return To Top | Posted:
In Saudi Arabia, 47 people have been executed in just one day. In Pakistan, hundreds are hung, including juveniles and the mentally ill. In Egypt, activists and journalists face death sentences in wave after wave of repression. In the US, states are using untested combinations of misused medicines to kill prisoners, while passing secrecy laws to hide their tracks.
So-called ‘crimes’ that are punished by execution include homosexuality, adultery, and blasphemy. Authoritarian regimes across the world use the death penalty and torture as tools to silence those who dare to oppose them.
So, one of your arguments was about killing someone who took a life themselves. The person who killed them was obviously a bad person, taking another's rights away and all, but do two wrongs really make a right? I do believe that this person should be punished. Just remember murder can equal a life sentence in prison, which ultimately deprives them of their rights too. It's also much more painful wasting your life in a jail cell, knowing there is no escape than getting killed right then and there.
With me, are thousands of activists across the world who believe that protecting human rights means standing up for the most vulnerable. Together, they fight for those facing execution and other extreme human rights abuses with a combination of legal action and public pressure.
At least 1,032 people were put to death around the world in 2016 according to research by Amnesty. 23 countries executed people last year, and just four of them account for 87% of global executions. These statistics exclude China, where execution numbers are a state secret. It is likely that China executes thousands of people each year, meaning the true number of executions worldwide is at least double the recorded total.
In 2016, people were executed following unfair trials, torture, and ill-treatment. People were executed for crimes committed under the age of 18, for non-violent and political offenses, and despite evidence of mental and intellectual disabilities.
But 104 countries have now completely abolished capital punishment – the highest it has ever been.
The facts of the global death penalty show how far we have come and how far we still have to go.
To conclude, the death penalty is a cruel, and disgusting way to strip people of their human rights and I do not believe it's something we should indulge ourselves into.
Hope to hear back from you soon!
Return To Top | Posted:
And, you also said something like 'Does a wrong and a wrong make any right?'
And, why do we, the prop thinks capital punishment can't be compared with life imprisonment (as you proposed) is because of two reasons. First, that criminal no longer has any right to live whatsoever (Why? I have explained that in my first arguement) and someone who doesn't have any right towards something should not be provided with that something at any cost (life, in this case) and second, such an individual is an unnecessary burden to the state and its taxpayers because what justice would it be if the criminal will live a decent enough life (the state of prisons nowadays is as good as the real world) even after killing someone and from whose money will he be living that decent life? The same victim's family's money as they are also a taxpayer to the state. Where is justice here?
Now, on with my second argument. Why is the state legally and morally obliged to put the criminal to death? Well, there is something called 'Social contract theory' and it basically says that the civilians have sacrificed some of their rights to the state and entrusted the state to enact on their behalf if their right has been violated in any manner whatsoever. It is the very reason why criminal justice system, the state, the police, everything exists in the first place. It is one of the founding principles of the human society. Now, let's see how this theory applies to this situation.
Here, we can clearly see that a murderer has killed a civilian and more importantly, his right to live. And in such, the victim's family has an inherent right to kill the criminal back. But, since the social contract exists and since all the people in the society including the victim's family has entrusted the state on carrying out certain aspects of their right. So, in accordance with the social contract, it becomes the moral and legal responsibility of the state to enact on their behalf, i.e. to kill that criminal in order for justice to prevail in the society. If the state doesn't do so, it is not living up to its words as promised in the contract and not only that, it can also raise serious concerns over the very foundation of the state and seriously disrupt one of the founding stones of human society, i.e. the social contract.
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Posted: