Death Penalty Must Be Retained

Gemma Wang

Third Draft

Death Penalty Must Be Retained

  According to the history, it shows that death penalty can be traced back to the ancient periods. In 1793, Louis XVI was executed on guillotine. In ancient China, it turns up the punishment of dismemberment and the lingering death. No matter in the west or east countries, this capital punishment is always executed on those who commit severe crimes. Take China for example, dealing drugs and corrupting in politics also lead criminals to death. Moreover, people can discover that every country has its own way to put criminals to death. Though the execution is dreadful, death penalty still occurs in some powerful countries such as Japan, Singapore, China and even the United States.

  Recently, when people read newspapers in the morning, people will find out some politicians are having an intense debate that whether Taiwan should keep this penalty. Since the guillotine until the gun execution, the issue has been discussed and argued for a long time. However, some people still doubt that if it is necessary to put prisoners to death. Honestly, I agree to retain this punishment. Death penalty warns people do not rashly break laws and make them stop committing crimes. Moreover, to put criminals to death comforts the victim’s family and promotes the justice. Besides, the government can decrease the payment on prisons.

  Death penalty gives a warning to criminals not to challenge the judicature. Yet people who against death penalty say that the crime rate still rises. It seems that there’s no evidence to prove that put criminals to death can really stop them committing crimes. To tell the truth, I find it hard to deny the saying. However, the government executes this punishment not for the “benefit” of decreasing crime rate, but for the message which tells criminals there will be a severe punishment if they commit serious crimes. Moreover, I have a strong evidence to refute who agree with abolishing death penalty. In Singapore, it is a country that executes the most capital punishment. Though people think it is cruel, they have a perfect public security. In Philippines, it had been abolished death penalty once, but just a year, the crime rate quickly grows up. According to news report on Chinanews, it says that the law expert mentions it’s less possible to raise the crime rate by abolishing the capital punishment. In the report, Dao De Hong, who is a professor in China University of Political Science and Law, says there’s no relation between the crime rate and the execution. Since the death penalty is not used to solve all the crime cases, and it just solves the gravest part. One more example is You Yi Hou - the principal of Central Police University, he thinks that death penalty can concretely stop criminals killing people by force, and it is nothing to do with the public security. Besides, prisoners won’t be sentenced capital punishment if they didn’t kill anyone nor had great crimes. I want to ask those who agree to abolish death penalty that whether they can bring up any perfect schemes which can make sure the crime rate won’t rise if there is no death penalty. According to the Internet information that I search, I only see the fake humanity thesis.

  In addition, it can soothe victim’s family and promote justice. For people who disagree on death penalty, they think that put prisoners to death cannot bring the victims back to life. Also, they consider that the government has no rights to decide who should die. Furthermore, they suggest victim’s family to forgive those criminals for they think it’s a kind of release. Although those statements aren’t wrong, criminals also have no rights to deprive of others’ lives. The deceased can’t speak for his rights because they’ve already been killed by those cold-blood criminals, so the victim’s families play a role in promoting the justice for their beloved. We can discover a lot of news which talks about criminals do not repent. After releasing on parole, criminals start to kill people again. According to the case of Kun Ming Chen, who was sentenced the death penalty, killed a woman after he paroled. The victim’s family couldn’t bear losing their beloved and accused the government for the awful system. If Kun Ming Chen was still in jail, the woman would not be killed. Furthermore, You Yi Hou says he had worked on a case of Jin Xing Chen, and when he interrogated Jin Xing Chen the process of how he killed people, Jin Xing Chen was laughing and thought he accomplished a perfect work. Can you let this kind of animal still live happily and enjoy his killing game? In my opinion, for people who are not the victim’s family members have no rights to abolish the death penalty. They do not know the feeling of losing a dear. It’s easy to tell the victim’s family members to forgive prisoners and forget the pain of losing their dearest, but it’s extremely difficult for them to do it.

  One more reason why I agree with the execution is that the death penalty can let the government spend less money on prisoners. Yet a report says that death penalty costs 1.26 millions in America, and life imprisonment only costs 0.74 millions. Although people who against the execution claim the statistics shows that death penalty spend more than we imagine, I still agree to have death penalty. Perhaps we have to pay more to prepare some delicious food for criminals before they are executed and have to bury them; I think it is worth to do it. If we just consider the spending, how can we ignore the value of victim’s life? Moreover, the government should play a role in promoting justice and let people live without danger. But when I saw the news that mentions the cost of death penalty, it seems that the government abolishes the execution not for people but for itself. Imagine there is a scale, the left side is the cost of death penalty and the right side is a person’s life. Which side you think is the most important? I absolutely choose a person life which I think it is priceless. If there is no death penalty, the government has to “raise” the criminals. Frankly, I’d rather give the food to the poor than to the prisoners.

  Based on the social security and the pain of victim’s family, it is essential to have death penalty. Death Penalty alarms the criminals do not try to against laws and comfort the victim’s family. It can let the government decreases the budget for the prisons as well. Of course, death penalty is not entirely perfect. We still have to revise the law regulation. Maybe some people think the execution is inhumanity. Although it is not the best execution, it is better than against it.

 

Resources:

http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E6%AD%BB%E5%88%91

http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E6%96%B7%E9%A0%AD%E5%8F%B0

http://www.cns.hk:89/gn/2010/08-28/2497107.shtml

http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/apr/5/today-p7.htm

http://big5.chinanews.com.cn:89/gn/2010/08-28/2497107.shtml

http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/9/2/19/n2434836.htm

http://qq0526.blogspot.com/2007/04/blog-post_25.html

http://www.taedp.org.tw/index.php?load=read&id=228

 

Katie’s Comment: You have done a wonderful job! I think this is an excellent essay because your position toward death penalty is clear and that you have provided lots of evidence to support your points, which makes your essay very convincing! There are some grammatical mistakes bit they do not affect our reading it.

 

 

Comments