Arguments for and against the death penalty

The degree of civilization of a society is always determined by the attitude to women, children and the elderly. Perhaps, in this test on civilization, not the least important point, enter

attitude towards death execution .On path of civilization mankind has

gradually getting rid of the barbaric brutal habits. This also applies to justice - once on the entire planet was considered normal or maim painfully executed. Why are sophisticated executions of the Inquisition - the rack, quartering,

the wheel, burning alive - only a small portion of the known methods of

human sacrifice. Now, we are quite difficult to imagine a guillotine at the Paris area or

suspended rib thugs on the streets of Moscow and Iran and Afghanistan,

which for certain offenses publicly beaten with stones, rather an

exception to the global practice. And yet, in twenty-two countries around the world are still actively used the death penalty. But what is death kazn- extreme measure of punishment or an act of humanism? And whether the right of one person, even if endowed with the authority and acting on behalf of the state, to deprive another of life?

Let's start with those who are in favor of capital punishment. First, the injustice of the replacement penalty to life imprisonment. The punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. The offender should receive their just deserts. If you killed a man, then he shall lose his life. It is unlikely that a life sentence can be considered a fair measure

against killers and terrorists, on the conscience of which - the

hundreds of innocent victims. The answer suggests itself: the death penalty - an adequate punishment for

such a serious crime as intentional deprivation of human life. Life imprisonment as a punishment in this case is simply unfair, since the killer will continue to breathe, to see, to walk, to eat, drink,

albeit in a limited space.

Historically, the death penalty has arisen from the principle of blood revenge, "An

eye for an eye - a tooth for a tooth": only physically destroying the

offender, the victim's relatives feel otmschёnnymi. Thus, the death penalty for murder is an act of revenge, for which the victim is entitled, and which it is unable to perform without the help

of the state.

If potential offenders believe that would be executed if they are killed

deliberately, that many of them reflect on the possible crime and its

consequences. The most challenging and probably the unanswered question remains about whether fear potential killer to answer for the crime. The killings still occur very often. Criminals ignore the warning of a possible penalty for various reasons. But the fact remains, some criminals, who go over the edge and go for the kill in the end decide to spare the victim.

In a broader sense, the death penalty is the last warning against all prestupleniy.To have a powerful deterrent to criminals: according to

studies, this type of punishment has the highest preventive factor - the

fear of death "protects" people from unlawful acts.

Another of the arguments of the supporters of the death penalty is humane. Life imprisonment is no better than the execution. This is the same penalty, just stretched for life. "Death on the installment plan" ... Humanity as an argument in favor of the death penalty led Churchill in the 1940s. Life imprisonment, in his words, "doomed to many years of terrible hardship and suffering of the mind and soul of those who wanted to do

good".

Opponents of the death penalty, too many reasons to be taken into account. First, the penalty creates cruelty in society. Since ancient times people crowd gathered in public squares to look at how hanged, burned or beheaded criminals. However, in more ancient times, the execution was even more cruel and

sophisticated - worth at least pouring boiling pitch, or pushed onto the

count. However, the methods are not deterred the audience, on the contrary - the people wanted more bloody spectacles. In an atmosphere of violence and new crimes committed detachment punctually. But that was then, and one could say that society has changed and ennobled. Actually, no: 2006 UN report was shown that in countries where the death penalty is permitted, the crime, "worthy" of this punishment,

happen more often.

In addition, the main factors that provoke crime are poverty, lack of education, inequality, deviances. By killing the criminal, the state is not for the reasons that led him to the crime.

One of the strongest arguments in the arsenal of the opponents of the death

penalty is a possibility of a miscarriage of justice. No one has yet been able to create a justice system that works without errors. With regard to this position expressed by many scholars, public and political figures. There is not a single example where the death penalty is administered entirely by mistake an innocent person. The human factor plays a crucial role in the judicial system, since it is

the decision of the judge depends on the fate of a possible perpetrator.

And if a person just framed? Or he was in the wrong place at the wrong time? This phenomenon is well shown in the movie by Frank Darabont, "The Green Mile." John Coffey was sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit. When we see or hear of such examples, we have broken the heart of a terrible injustice to innocent people.

It is also believed that the death penalty is contrary not a deterrent. The results of the research, the offender rarely think about the consequences of their actions and possible punishment. Especially if the illegal act is committed, for example, in the heat of passion or under the influence of drugs.

Next argument- the need for the executioners. If there is a penalty, it should be palachi- people whom the state pays money for the killing of their own kind. In countries where the death penalty is allowed, the executioners are in fact legitimate killers. The difference between them and those they executed, only in the fact that

the first act for the good of the state, the constitution which, in

turn, stipulates that the murder of a man is a criminal offense. It turns out that the State so justifies murder in the public

consciousness and undermines the fundamental principle of public

morality, as the full sanctity of human life. One contradicts the other, and a vicious circle.

One of the most compelling argument in support of the abolition of the death penalty does not punish kazni-. The punishment is a state compulsion measure applied in respect of a person

found guilty of committing a crime, and which consists in a certain

narrowing of its legal status, endowing it special rights and

responsibilities. Execution involves deprivation of the right to life of the convicted person.

And nakonets penalty does not provide correction capabilities. A serial killer, wherein special brutality to their crimes can not be

justified in the eyes of the people and the relatives of the victims,

but did not exactly have a chance to think about their behavior and to

benefit society - it's no time. Moreover, the expectation of death often motivates and discourages sentenced to thinking: nothing will change. The same UN report states that life imprisonment and isolation from society scares criminals is much stronger than the death penalty.

From the above it can be concluded that the issue of the death penalty will

always be discussed in society, as the arguments of both sides are not

without foundation, and have every right to exist. Now I'm not an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, but not an ardent supporter. Perhaps opponents of the death penalty and the right in their arguments, but I can not fully agree with all of their arguments. The punishment and the death penalty in general, in particular, are not

omnipotent and is not the best tool in the fight against crime. Since crime is multifaceted and profound, which is due to a number of reasons, and combat it must also be comprehensive. I believe that neither the opponents nor supporters of the death penalty

may not be the final decision, and given that any rule can be

exceptions, give utterance prominent of French jurist Raymond Forni:

"The question of the death penalty in France, finally resolved, however,

it is not. means that there can be no exceptions. If Hitler did not commit suicide and

it would have to be judged today, the verdict is unlikely to be limited

to life imprisonment. the same applies to the Nazi executioners ... ". Pretty interesting statement, because the law is the law. And if I had to execute Hitler, it would have to take a new one. Therefore, I believe that as more committed cold-blooded, horrific and

cynical crime, the death penalty should be retained, to a limited extent, for a

narrow range of offenses and, of course applied only to mentally

healthy people. However, if the society itself will be humane, and not only his power,

abolishing the death penalty, then it will not commit such a crime,

which would require the use of the death penalty.

перевод эссе