Capital punishment should be abolished
There are almost 1,000 people sentenced to death because of committing heinous crime globally each year(Rogers,2012,para.10). However, some countries still insist on implementing the death penalty or capital punishment in order to reduce crime. In the twentieth century it is contended that value of life should be pursed, and everyone deserves the right to survive. For this reason, it can be argued that capital punishment should be abolished and whole life imprisonment should be implemented instead. Firstly, to define ‘heinous crime’ and ‘capital punishment’ is important. The definition of heinous crime differs depending on the country. Generally, it relates to crimes of ‘moral turpitude’, which are extremely violent acts including murder, rape, manslaughter and terrorism(Tooby,2012,para.1). In contrast, the definition of ‘capital punishment’ is more concrete. It is defined by the Oxford Dictionary(2012) as the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. This includes lethal injection, lethal gas, hanging, executed by firing sqard, stoning, beheading and electrocution. This essay will argue that capital punishment is against basic human rights, secondly will prove that criminals have been found to be innocent after they have been executed, thirdly it will verify the existence of unfair judgments. Finally, this essay will debunk counterarguments that support the death penalty, using cases from Saudi Arabia, China and America as its exemplar to argue that capital punishment is cruel and unnecessary.
To begin with, according to The Universal Human Rights Declaration(2012,para.3) “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”, therefore, based on this premise implementing capital punishment is against basic human rights. Everyone has the right to survive, no one can deprive people of this right, not even the government. Since the right of individuals...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document