By Jasmine Wang

Debates against the death penalty have been ongoing and largely controversial for a number of years. Although the death penalty does question many moral issues, it should not be abolished, but instead be used only in sparse and specific circumstances.

The death penalty, when prescribed for murderers, becomes relatively reasonable when one realizes that the killers are receiving what they have given to others – similar to the eye for an eye principle. However, this death penalty should not be given to all murderers, because some have the possibility of changing for the better during their times in prison. Additionally, there is always a chance that the accused person did not actually commit the crime. So, while it should not be abolished, the death penalty should definitely be used sparingly and all cases surrounding the future of the person as well as other situations – such as whether or not the death penalty is the worst punishment or if there is something else that may be even worse – should be considered.

Admittedly, it is difficult to single out which crimes and which situations deserve to result in a death penalty, it is possible to write out strict laws that outline the certain circumstances in which it may be used. Additionally, when faced with unusual cases, a process can also be outlined.

The death penalty should not be abolished, and it will be a suitable punishment, given the right circumstances – and only under controlled situations. The penalty should be used very sparingly, and it should only be used after much research and certainty that it will be the worst punishment for the convict.

Sources: