There is an ongoing debate about the most effective ways to deal with heinous crimes such as murder, torture, and rape. Advocates of capital punishment claim it is the most appropriate response, while more liberal-minded experts put forward a range of alternatives. These differing approaches need to be examined.
On the one hand, those who concur with taking the lives of convicted killers and rapists make several points. They remind us that a prisoner who has been put to death can never re-offend. This is certainly not true of other forms of punishment. They also claim that the death penalty acts as a deterrent: would-be killers decide not to carry out their plans because they fear the consequences. Again, this cannot be said of strategies like rehabilitation programs. Finally, proponents suggest that it is far cheaper than other approaches to serious crime, such as imprisonment or re-education.
On the other hand, opponents of capital punishment, reject some of these arguments and put forward others. They dispute the assertion that the death penalty is comparatively inexpensive, citing legal cases that have gone on for decades and proved immensely costly. Besides, there is no empirical evidence that the prospect of being hanged or electrocuted rarely deters villains as well as scientific findings by psychologists which support this view. They often state that using prison is by far the most effective policy and that attempting to rehabilitate inmates so that they can become law-abiding and productive citizens is the only humane way of dealing with a horrific crime.
In conclusion, it seems fair to say that this issue is complex, and agreement between victims, lawmakers, and criminologists is unlikely. There are vehement-held views on both sides. I would urge governments to carry out extensive research into the effects of different punishments to try to reach a definitive understanding of the consequences of these different approaches.
There is an ongoing debate about the most effective ways to deal with heinous crimes such as murder, torture, and rape. Advocates of capital
punishment
claim it is the most appropriate response, while more liberal-minded experts put forward a range of alternatives. These differing approaches need to
be examined
.
On the one hand, those who concur with taking the
lives
of convicted killers and rapists
make
several points. They remind us that a prisoner who has
been put
to death can never re-offend. This is
certainly
not true of
other
forms of
punishment
. They
also
claim that the death penalty acts as a deterrent: would-be killers decide not to carry out their plans
because
they fear the consequences. Again, this cannot
be said
of strategies like rehabilitation programs.
Finally
, proponents suggest that it is far cheaper than
other
approaches to serious crime, such as imprisonment or re-education.
On the
other
hand, opponents of capital
punishment
, reject
some
of these arguments and put forward others. They dispute the assertion that the death penalty is
comparatively
inexpensive, citing legal cases that have gone on for decades and proved
immensely
costly.
Besides
, there is no empirical evidence that the prospect of
being hanged
or electrocuted rarely deters villains
as well
as scientific findings by psychologists which support this view. They
often
state that using prison is by far the most effective policy and that attempting to rehabilitate inmates
so
that they can become law-abiding and productive citizens is the
only
humane way of dealing with a horrific crime.
In conclusion
, it seems
fair
to say that this issue is complex, and agreement between victims, lawmakers, and criminologists is unlikely. There are vehement-held views on both sides. I would urge
governments
to carry out extensive research into the effects of
different
punishments
to try to reach a definitive understanding of the consequences of these
different
approaches.
Funny
Love
Wow
Angry
Sad