There seems to be an increasing number of serious crimes committed each year. While some think the best way is to use the death penalty as a deterrent, many people believe that other measures will be needed. Discuss both sides.

Over the years, there has been a tremendous increase in the rate at which criminal activities are being infiltrated. Although it is believed by some people that the ultimate penalty for such offenses should be death, others think that the government should inculcate other means of punishment. In my opinion, I agree with the latter assertion as this would help put criminals in check. On the one hand, it is believed that a death penalty should be awarded to all offenders because it will reduce criminal activities. This is because a punishment like this will serve as a warning to other intending perpetrators to desist from such practices, consequently, limiting the number of crimes being committed. To illustrate, ever since the Iraqi government slated the death penalty for all crimes, the criminal rate dropped from fifty percent to fifteen per cent within a space of two years. This reemphasizes the need for such laws in order to maintain peace in the land. On the other hand, I believe the government should have a fairer system such as the rehabilitation of criminals as not all criminals deserve to be killed. Community services, rehabilitating criminals are few methods that the state can uphold in order to punish them. This not only helps foster a more balanced judiciary system, but also goes a long way in reforming the offenders and getting back on their feet. A good example of such measures is the introduction of community services for milder offences by the Lagos State government. Not only did this help keep the state sane, but it also helped in rebuilding the lives of such criminals. To conclude, while awarding death sentences for a crime helps reduce the crime rates, I believe that criminals should be rehabilitated as these measures can help rebuild the lives of the offenders.