You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
How far do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
Debate on capital punishment, especially for crimes of violence exists since the dawn of time. It is considered one of the most horrific punishments to send a strong message who even dare to imagine mischief. While some people consider it to be natural justice, few consider it to be unnatural and advocate that human must not play a demi-god. I firmly believe humans are not competent enough to decide one’s death based solely on an individual’s disruptive account.
Capital punishment powerfully depicts eye for an eye justice, which in its very form is a barbaric act. Hanging somebody to death won’t change the victim’s situation; neither will it bring back the dead. It may serve pseudo satisfaction of justice to the public, proving ephemeral, dyeing with media coverage. Instead, the victim must get a chance to introspect his very act, possibly by meeting the victim or victim’s family. History has shown that such exercise itself serves as the punishment as the criminal, in most cases, is taken by flames of repentance. Such a human deserves a second chance for sure.
On the other hand, few people may argue that capital punishment restricts criminals and makes the common feel safe, the establishment’s primary duty. In my view, it is not a capital punishment that instigates the feeling of safety. Specifically, in countries like India, timely results and transparency of the process will make people feel more secured because justice delayed is justice denied.
In summary, it is clear that appropriate punishment, timely results and transparency is the way forward and not playing the demi-god even in case of violence. Hence, I believe that capital punishment must not be the practice of the land.
If you want more ideas on the topic, watch the video.
The application of capital punishment that is culminating a criminal’s life by hanging, shooting, electrocution, and the like has always triggered spirited debate. Some people strongly assert it as an inevitable tool for maintaining peace in society, while others condemn it, appraising the right to life as a typical value. I strongly advocate the latter opinion.
Assessing an enlightened viewpoint, the right to life has always been regarded as a universal right by all the world’s civilised nations. Blood for blood is hardly a humanitarian concept of justice. It is a barbaric act. The matter of fact is that those who commit murders are generally unbalanced, insane and mentally perturbed. They need a cure and not brutal punishment to restore them to normalcy.
It should not be forgotten that by killing the murderer, we cannot undo the crime. We can only satisfy an abstract sense of revenge. “An eye for an eye” type of logic might have swayed the primitive mind. But it should have no appeal to the modern man. Historical pieces of evidence hold testimony to the certitude that capital punishment has never served as a deterrent to crime. This is because crimes are committed under the influence of an intoxicant or a violent emotion or passion that vanquishes the fear of all possible consequences.
It needs to be accentuated; the primary purpose of punishment is to reform and rehabilitate a criminal. The state’s business should be to punish the guilty person in such a way as to re-educate him and redeem him morally. Keeping in view the irrevocable feature of capital punishment, it should not be applied in any case. A life sentence may also serve the purpose. The culprit may get a chance to turn over a new leaf.
Assessing an enlightened viewpoint, the right to life has always been regarded as a universal right by all the world’s civilised nations.
In this sentence, the initial phrase ‘’Assessing an enlightened viewpoint, …” is called a dangling modifier. In simple words, someone is ‘assessing’ the enlightened point of view, and the writer must state this person after comma for the reader’s convenience. However, by directly posting an opinion, the author is committing a grammatical error. Instead, a simple modification can repair the sentence as follows,
After assessing the enlightened viewpoint, one could say, the right to life has always been regarded as a universal right by all the world’s civilised nations.
Similar kinds of problems are present throughout the essay.
It needs to be accentuated; the primary purpose of punishment is to reform and rehabilitate a criminal.
It seems that the author was determined to use the word accentuated, but it makes no sense.
Here are some more ideas for you to think about the given topic