Imagine a place where the whole society would run on the concept of an eye for an eye. Some people might think that it is fair and people deserve to be treated the way they treat others, but really, let us think about it carefully. Would you retaliate against a person who stole something from you? Would you ask the government to rape a convicted rapist? When it comes to vengeance in the case of theft or rape, people do not exactly want an eye for an eye. They think putting the convicted criminal in prison is acceptable for a rape or robbery, but why do they think that the death penalty is the only reasonable punishment for a convicted murderer? Why does life imprisonment not work in a murder case? In this essay, I am going to argue that the
…show more content…
Some people may get closure from executions, others will move with their lives. Yet, some individuals never find peace. So, it would not be right to say that the death penalty gives closure to the victim 's family. In addition to this, the proponents of the death penalty argue that it is moral to kill the murderers. They seem to believe in an eye for an eye justice. However, in my opinion, killing people can never be a humane act. Besides this, it is not always certain that all the convicted criminals are actually guilty. Some innocent people might get executed for the crimes they never did due to lack of proper evidences. If life imprisonment is practiced instead of the death penalty, such innocent people can be freed whenever their innocence is …show more content…
What about the people who could not show the evidence of their innocence because of inadequate resources? There might be many cases where innocent people were executed because they did not have enough resources and/or a good attorney. The government should be responsible for giving a better attorney and advisors to the criminal and provide them full resources to defend themselves. It should offer spiritual advisors to both, the convicted criminal and the victim’s families. In addition to this, execution should not be affected by the amount of money a person has, and the government should make sure that such inequities do not
Some people may get closure from executions, others will move with their lives. Yet, some individuals never find peace. So, it would not be right to say that the death penalty gives closure to the victim 's family. In addition to this, the proponents of the death penalty argue that it is moral to kill the murderers. They seem to believe in an eye for an eye justice. However, in my opinion, killing people can never be a humane act. Besides this, it is not always certain that all the convicted criminals are actually guilty. Some innocent people might get executed for the crimes they never did due to lack of proper evidences. If life imprisonment is practiced instead of the death penalty, such innocent people can be freed whenever their innocence is …show more content…
What about the people who could not show the evidence of their innocence because of inadequate resources? There might be many cases where innocent people were executed because they did not have enough resources and/or a good attorney. The government should be responsible for giving a better attorney and advisors to the criminal and provide them full resources to defend themselves. It should offer spiritual advisors to both, the convicted criminal and the victim’s families. In addition to this, execution should not be affected by the amount of money a person has, and the government should make sure that such inequities do not