Without capital punishment, our lives are less secure and crimes increase continuously. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

With regard to the law of retribution, some people argue that communities’ security could not be maintained with the lack of death penalties, while others may not be on the same wavelength. Personally, I hold no opposition to this form of sanction as long as it is wisely and precisely conducted only on deserved criminals. On the one hand, its efficiency in safety insurance is undeniable. In the context of a complicated world, violence can be easily triggered, resulting in a sharp increase in the number of dreadful crimes. They have posed extreme threats to residents, which requires drastic actions, including capital punishment. For instance, a serious offence of raping-then-murdering committed by a group of middle-aged men did shock and anger a whole country. They were then condemned to death, satisfying the society, since it was a reasonable compensation for their mercilessness. On the other hand, this form of retribution must be chosen and applied cautiously because of its severity. In fact, it is every now and then that wrong conviction and execution occur. Take the case of a Vietnamese man being arrested for murdering as a telling example. Not until 10 years later did the real criminal appear and the poor man was released from jail, yet his life was already ruined. Moreover, easy and frequent conduction of capital punishment may encourage violence among the society. When the information about the deprivation of existence can be regularly accessed, there is high possibility for people to think the sanction is so common that they are able to implement it themselves. To conclude, capital penalty is highly encouraged to diminish communities’ brutality, especially in areas where the number of criminals is alarming. However, it should be enforced only to ones severely perpetrating violence and viciousness.