Discuss when,if ever,Capital punishment the death penalty can be viewed as a valid punishment for crime.

Many claim that execution should be accepted as a valid punishment for offence whilst others thoroughly state that government should implement new strategies or alternatives in punishing. This essay will discuss both views in detail. It is worth giving punishments to people those who engage in heinous crimes: rapes, homicide, terrorism etc. The reason for this, if the government wishes to keep the law and order in the country, these types of punishments should be imposed in community. For example, most of the middle east countries use death penalty to maintain the peace in the society. Simply, people are scared to commit crimes because they know the consequences. In addition, government persuade its citizens to follow the existence rules in order to build up a good civilization. Therefore, the death penalty should be verdict to people who are known as rapists, terrorists and narcotic dealer. In contrast, some oppose the idea indicating that Capital punishment is a violation of human rights. In addition, they suggest that rulers should implement different type of punishment methods instead of taking off a person's life. Further, they argue that there is a risk that an innocent might end up the life due to poor investigation. For instance, in America a fourteen year old boy was executed for murdering a woman, but after seventeen years the local police was able to identity the real culprit. However, it was too late to turn back the judgment. So, it is clearly understood that, there can be issues in capital punishment. In conclusion, with the development of modern technology and the new investigation strategies, the offenders are identified more accurately than ever. Finally, I believe that imposing death penalty is more suitable and valid punishment for people who engage in heinous crimes, whilst other minor culprits can be directed to alternative methods such as rehabilitation, life- time prison etc.