DEATH PENALTY For/against It is widely argued maintained that the best way to punish the criminal is killing

her/him. Relating to this, there can be some truth in the saying ‘eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’, expressing that the criminal will pay the same consequences that he or she has done. What is more, lately there are a lot of crimes and this problems don´t seem to change in the future. Nonetheless, should this point of view be justified? On the one hand, it is true that killing the criminal does a lot of pain in the family and also, to the criminal. The life is the most important thing in a human life and without it, you are enable to do anything you want. Furthermore, there is no doubt that the death penalty will finish with the criminals who kill more than one person, as they will die with the first crime. Consequently, some of the problems will be resolved with this decision. On the other hand, as time goes on, it cannot be denied that this measurement does not resolve the problems. Killing a criminal is not a solution, due to the criminal does not understand the pain that he or she has done. Moreover, he or she doesn´t have the choice to apologise for the crime and in fact, he does not suffer anything; who suffer is the family eventually, and this is not the aim of the death penalty. It is worth remembering that the criminal can realize about the pain and learn after it, although there are people who don´t think so. In conclusion, this can be interpreted in different ways. Personally, the death penalty won´t resolve all the problems. Taking into account that all of us are humans and all of us can make a mistake, will the death penalty be the solution or will the pardon and imprisonment be enough?

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful