Capital Punishment (the death penalty) Essay. Should be allowed or not?

Topic: Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment in essential to control violence in society.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

To execute some of criminals will not make our lives more secure than before. People are facing a number of crimes such as robbery and assault on the streets which are putting our lives into more risks.

Since it started to be debated by the lawmakers whether it is essential or not, capital punishment has ben removed from a large number of countries' criminal codes in the last few decades. United Nation takes the main role in Europe. However, some countries such as Iran, China and a part of United States stil put capital punishment into practise. In my opinion, there is no benefit of keeping death penalty as a punishment for people who is harmed.

As dying is one of the most common fears of people, it can be claimed that death penalty can be considered as an exemplery for the individuals who cause crimes of violence in the society. However, I believe that people who have potential to cause such a big crime of violence that will en up with a death penalty will not be capable of directing their emotions and behaviours in the right way to make the right decisions unless they recieve psychotherapy or any other help. Furthermore, there had not been a considerable decrease in the amount of crime of violence while death penalty was put into practise.

One the other hand, it can be argued that governments are doing these criminals a favor by putting them into jails and providing food and place to live instead of executing. They also say that the economy of the nations are effected in the negative way. Nowadays, most nations' governemtns are complaining about the crowd of criminals and having difficulties to provide place for more. However, supporting to execute some criminals in order to make room for more does not include a rational point of view.

Putting criminals into jails is already an effective way to punish them. Depending on the 'severity'(not sure this is the right word) of the crime, they might be sentenced to live there for the rest of their lives. Not supporting capital punishment does mean to protect the criminals. Moreover executing them wwill not make our lives more secure. Our lives will still be secure as long as they are not in social life untill they are aware what they have done wrong. Sometimes it not even enough.

Okay, this is much better, content-wise. You have enough material, you just need to refine your logic a little bit:


How does your second sentence here support your first one?


Do they implement it in the same way? Does the way it is implemented have an effect on its effectiveness as a deterrent?

Your third paragraph is really quite strong, as far as content goes.


Why not? Seems perfectly rational to me. You can argue that one should not do this, but it is not self-evident that the course of action you have outlined here would be ineffective.


Only your third paragraph really argued this. Perhaps you could strengthen your essay more by replacing your fourth paragraph with one that discusses statistics involving crime rates and death penalties. Also, the opposing argument, which you might want to deal with, lies in the argument advanced by the hangman in the novel Going Postal, in which he opines that, while he has no statistical evidence to show that the death penalty deters crime, he supports it because he has never had to hang anyone more than once, and so figures that the death penalty must be cutting down dramatically on recidivism rates.

I tried to mean that they are already facing to crimes on the street which is enough to make them feel insecure. And these are happening more than other crimes.


It seems rational to me for some cases too but i wanted to hold my argument stronger instead of pointing two different views even though I sometimes feel it is rational.

I can imagine how tiring this is for you. If you dont mind, can I ask you to give me a topic to write about. I noticed that I am writing about topics that seem easier to me. That wont be same in the exam.

What kind of crime does one have to commit to be sentenced to death?
* 300 years ago, being a witch.
* 100 years ago, being black.
* Today, being a terrorist, pedofile, cop-killer, psycho, or Bernie Madoff.

If I were you, I'd focus on the fact that fear and hate have been at the center of capital punishment as a reason to not support it -- the implication being that we shouldn't allow something that evokes such strong emotions to govern life and death.

Another interesting idea. I would consider this idea if I thought of it before I finished. Unfortunately, I will not have such a long time to arrange my essay with these great ideas, as I will have 40 minutes at total to finish the essay. Thanks alot for your comment.

Yes, that is the right word.

make sure you look over this essay for some easy spelling mistakes. but i beleieve it sounds pretty good.

What do you think is worse: Life in prison or execution? I think people who get the death penalty are being done a favor because I would rather be dead than spend my life in prison. You could argue that capital punishment is a more cost effective and more humane way to deal with criminals. Those who are getting life in prison dont have a chance to be released and reform themselves anyway. Most of them have also committed grotesque crimes. So why not execute them? Its better for society and better for the criminals too.

If you really aim solely to punish people then life in prison is the way to go. I would argue that this is a much more cruel punishment for criminals than execution. When an animal is suffering and has no chance of recovery do you just leave it and let it slowly and painfully die? That would be cruel and inhumane. Life imprisonment sentences cost the government more money and make criminals suffer more as well. But why the hell should my tax dollars go towards punishing criminals? I dont care if they are punished or not I just dont want them to commit another crime. (sure I guess I would like to see them punished but not with my tax dollars. Vengeance is petty and immature and should not be indulged in at the expense of other more essential things.) If you kill them then you dont have to deal with any chance of recurrence or wasted money.

For that matter, if the death penalty is acceptable, why not use the criminals as slave labor, instead? I imagine a great many of the people on death row would prefer the latter to the former, and it seems as if using criminals as a resource would be better for society than merely killing them or locking them up.

...if only (at least in the United States) there weren't a documented history of replacing slavery with imprisonment, especially in the southern states. Anybody who is interested in this topic can Google "prison-industrial complex" Along with share cropping and other forms of debt servitude, chain gangs replaced slavery post-emancipation as a means of continuing to get free labor from bound people, especially people of African descent.

I was thinking more of getting free labor from bound people, especially people who have proven themselves criminally inclined. Those who have violated the rights of others have forfeited their own -- which is why the state has the right to imprison or even to kill them. But imprisonment is costly, and provides shelter and food for the convicts without getting society anything in return except for the continued existence of people who have been deemed too dangerous to be allowed out into society. This seems . . . odd. I have my own problems with the death penalty, though undoubtedly for very different reasons than you, so forcing convicts to do some honest labor seems like a reasonable third option.