Death penalty

"The death penalty is murder and should be abolished." Do you agree?

Proclaiming death penalty as murder is very subjective because circumstances differ from case to case. Murder refers to the killing of a life, regardless of whether it is accidental or done with an agenda. But in the eyes of the law, planning to kill is murder whereas accidental killing is treated as manslaughter. So which crimes actually warrant the death penalty is a questionable doubt by itself.

In my opinion, a criminal who planned and killed another human being is a murderer and sentencing a death penalty on him is the price he has to pay for his actions and is justified. Although I do not support strongly the statement a life for a life, sentencing a murderer to death is not murder because I look at it as punishment for his deed. In this case, the death penalty should not be abolished because it serves to prevent and deter potential murderers.

Another crime that warrants the death penalty is the trafficking of drugs in Singapore. Usage of drugs destroys one's health and is able to take a person's life directly hence trafficking and selling drugs is also considered as murder. Though these people supply the drugs, they do not have the ability to force a person to consume these drugs. It is the choice of the individual to consume the drugs and go on the path of self-destruction. Therefore, the drug traffickers or sellers should not be held responsible fully and sentencing the death penalty on them would be too harsh and in this case, the death penalty seems difficult to justify.

My take on this is that where the death penalty is justified, as I have provided an example of earlier on, it is not murder. It is meted out to punish the criminals. On the other hand, the death penalty is still the taking of a life nonetheless. Despite the severity of the crime, does one human actually have the authority to end the life of another fellow human being? According to some religions, it is allowed.

The pro of death penalty is that it serves as deterrence to potential law-breakers. It is a severe form of punishment that is sufficient to drive fear in people and restrict. The con of the death penalty is that it is irreversible. Any death penalty carried out wrongly cannot be undone. It would be a life-long regret and a tragedy.

In conclusion, the death penalty is justifiable for some crimes, such as planned killing, and is a punishment for the criminals. I do believe that people can turn over a new leaf, repent and start anew. But I do not believe this is so for every single one. I cannot empathise with a cannibal and never can. To me, the eating of another human's flesh is just not humanly possible. The minds of these cannibals are sadly twisted. So putting these people to death is the right choice as they pose harm to the society.

I think that the death penalty should not be abolished because it is useful. Though newspapers do not report that a crime was not committed because the potential criminal was afraid of the death penalty, this does happen. The death penalty may be a cruel punishment but it cannot be done without because a person who does not fear death is almost fearless. But in this age and day where humans have evolved both physically and mentally, it is possible for a person not to fear death but to fear the smallest of all things. Hence nothing is absolute. My perspective is that the death penalty more than suffices as punishment.