Nigz 發問於 政治及管治政治 · 1 十年前

Should execution be allowed???

Should execution be allowed???

2 個解答

  • 1 十年前

    Arguments for the death penalty.

    Incapacitation of the criminal.

    Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much cheaper and safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or being released from it.


    Money is not an inexhaustible commodity and the state may very well better spend our (limited) resources on the old, the young and the sick rather than the long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists, etc.


    Execution is a very real punishment rather than some form of "rehabilitative" treatment, the criminal is made to suffer in proportion to the offence. Although whether there is a place in a modern society for the old fashioned principal of "lex talens" (an eye for an eye), is a matter of personal opinion. Retribution is seen by many as an acceptable reason for the death penalty according to my survey results.


    It is hard to prove one way or the other because in most retentionist countries the number of people actually executed per year (as compared to those sentenced to death) is usually a very small proportion. Death penalty is a deterrent, but only where execution is an absolute certainty.

    There are a number of incontrovertible arguments against the death penalty.

    The most important one is the virtual certainty that genuinely innocent people will be executed and that there is no possible way of compensating them for this miscarriage of justice. There is also another significant danger here. The person convicted of the murder may have actually killed the victim and may even admit having done so but does not agree that the killing was murder. Often the only people who know what really happened are the accused and the deceased.

    A second reason, that is often overlooked, is the hell the innocent family and friends of criminals must also go through in the time leading up to and during the execution and which will often cause them serious trauma for years afterwards. I

    There must always be the concern that the state can administer the death penalty justly, most countries have a very poor record on this. In America, a prisoner can be on death row for many years (on average 11 years {2004 figure}) awaiting the outcome of numerous appeals and their chances of escaping execution are better if they are wealthy and/or white rather than poor and/or black irrespective of the actual crimes they have committed which may have been largely forgotten by the time the final decision is taken.

    It must be remembered that criminals are real people too who have life and with it the capacity to feel pain, fear and the loss of their loved ones, and all the other emotions that the rest of us are capable of feeling.

    There is no such thing as a humane method of putting a person to death irrespective of what the State may claim .Every form of execution causes the prisoner suffering, some methods perhaps cause less than others, but be in no doubt that being executed is a terrifying and gruesome ordeal for the criminal.

    There may be a brutalising effect upon society by carrying out executions - this was apparent in this country during the 17th and 18th centuries when people turned out to enjoy the spectacle.

    The death penalty is the bluntest of "blunt instruments," it removes the individual's humanity and with it any chance of rehabilitation and their giving something back to society. In the case of the worst criminals, this may be acceptable but is more questionable in the case of less awful crimes.

    資料來源: Overall, execution has pros and cons, but still I think it can not put into practice in democracy.
  • 1 十年前

    I've personally thought of that question for weeks because I think there're some contradictions for people on different attitudes towards execution of criminals. For myself, I don't preclude the use of execution as a form of punishment but its use must be very careful for minimizing irrevocable wrong judgment. (Don't forget, irrevocable wrong judgment not only applies to death penalty but any length of imprisonment.) In other words, I'd only allow execution for very few cases. Once I state my standpoint, some may doubt why a Christian like me doesn't prefer abolition of execution, and I'd expect lots of objections against myself. It seems the majority (except Muslims), including Christians (though I don't prefer the abolition according to the principles in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible which state how to use the death penalty) prefers the abolition. However, I doubt on those people's thought, especially when they're the ones offended.

    Some may experience that they want to kill the people who hurt them very much (such as rape, chopping off a limb). We tend to think in contradictory manners for two different kinds of circumstances, say, when the cases are unrelated to ourselves, and when the cases are much concerned. If there's a rapist against a girl we don't know, it'd be easy for us to say forgiving, but it'd be very different if the girl were my friend, my relative or even myself! We admit that there're many cases for those victims (especially Christians) who forgave the offenders, but I don't think the majority of victims are willing to forgive. If they don't forgive, they would easily have a thought to kill the offenders.

    I renounce death penalty as a means of revenge, but I prefer limited use of execution as a means of justice. I only hope others to think if it's their genuine wish to abolish execution.