I thought I'd write about this topic because I feel strongly about it. I myself am against it, so if you don't agree, that's fine, it's just my opinion. Whether you agree/disagree is upto you. Be sure to let me know what you think afterwards.
I've known many people who say they are for or against capital punishment decide so quickly you'd think I asked them if they were a boy or girl. A minority of these people answer so quickly because they actually know the facts and therefore know where they stand. The remainder, however, don't have a clue. They either give an answer that seems the most logically correct, or do the opposite to stir up an argument.
I would like to share with you my opinion on this controversial topic. (By the way, I use 'he' in a general term, not as a divide between men and women.)
Number 1:
Capital punishment allows the murderer an 'easy way out'. When a murderer commits a crime, he should be aware of the consequences and knowing he would die won't necessarily instil fear in him because he knows that if he does feel any guilt (depending on whether he is human or not), he won't feel it for long because his life will be cut short. Surely he should have to live with what he has done, face up to it, endure the pain. He should suffer like he has made the family and friends of his victims suffer, and much worse. Prison life should not be better than the 'normal' life he lived. There should be no television, no radio, no newspaper, nothing to connect him to the outside world. Let him think about what he has done and the effect it has had on so many people, let him go mad. Only then has he truly suffered: when he realises how his life has turned out and how taking a life was not worth it, wishing someone would take his to rid him of his pain, his guilt. Let him suffer.
Number 2:
They could get the wrong guy. Say if you were out one day, then you end up at the wrong place at the wrong time, and next thing you know, you're being falsely accused of murder. Would you want to be sent to the chair for something you didn't even do?
Unfortunately, evidence is not always reliable, and it could all seem like one person is guilty of murder, when in reality it is someone else entirely, who perhaps framed the innocent defendant, who may not even be allowed to a fair trial if nothing is in his favour, however much he tries to convince people that he didn't do it. This will just result in the end of another innocent life, in which case, the executioner should surely be next in line, if the theory fits.
If you're still for capital punishment, watch Let Him Have It, or The Green Mile, and you'll see how unfair life can be.
I don't believe people should be killed because they killed, because that won't achieve anything. Some would say 'An eye for an eye...' which is all very well, but if every murderer got killed, then the people who killed them should in turn die, and so on, because it'll never be justified otherwise.
As Ghandi once said: 'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.'
I've known many people who say they are for or against capital punishment decide so quickly you'd think I asked them if they were a boy or girl. A minority of these people answer so quickly because they actually know the facts and therefore know where they stand. The remainder, however, don't have a clue. They either give an answer that seems the most logically correct, or do the opposite to stir up an argument.
I would like to share with you my opinion on this controversial topic. (By the way, I use 'he' in a general term, not as a divide between men and women.)
Number 1:
Capital punishment allows the murderer an 'easy way out'. When a murderer commits a crime, he should be aware of the consequences and knowing he would die won't necessarily instil fear in him because he knows that if he does feel any guilt (depending on whether he is human or not), he won't feel it for long because his life will be cut short. Surely he should have to live with what he has done, face up to it, endure the pain. He should suffer like he has made the family and friends of his victims suffer, and much worse. Prison life should not be better than the 'normal' life he lived. There should be no television, no radio, no newspaper, nothing to connect him to the outside world. Let him think about what he has done and the effect it has had on so many people, let him go mad. Only then has he truly suffered: when he realises how his life has turned out and how taking a life was not worth it, wishing someone would take his to rid him of his pain, his guilt. Let him suffer.
Number 2:
They could get the wrong guy. Say if you were out one day, then you end up at the wrong place at the wrong time, and next thing you know, you're being falsely accused of murder. Would you want to be sent to the chair for something you didn't even do?
Unfortunately, evidence is not always reliable, and it could all seem like one person is guilty of murder, when in reality it is someone else entirely, who perhaps framed the innocent defendant, who may not even be allowed to a fair trial if nothing is in his favour, however much he tries to convince people that he didn't do it. This will just result in the end of another innocent life, in which case, the executioner should surely be next in line, if the theory fits.
If you're still for capital punishment, watch Let Him Have It, or The Green Mile, and you'll see how unfair life can be.
I don't believe people should be killed because they killed, because that won't achieve anything. Some would say 'An eye for an eye...' which is all very well, but if every murderer got killed, then the people who killed them should in turn die, and so on, because it'll never be justified otherwise.
As Ghandi once said: 'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.'