Capital punishment

After reading both articles and giving this issue some thought, i would have to be for the death penalty. Both authors gave some interesting points worth considering but Becker's arguments stood better.

Becker was on the dot regarding the point that arguments on this issue revolve around deterrence. He states that taking one's lives is considered very wrong, even if that person may be a murderer, however, if the action of killing may save more lives in return for one, then it can be justified. Through his examples, he has proven that the death penalty is considerably terrifying and serves well as a deterrent. More often than not, murder victim are socially more valuable than murderers and if killing one may deter few others from attempting murder, then that is the way to go. Through his article, i feel that capital punishment when matched with the severity of the crime and implemented properly, serves as an effective measure in deterring murder. The death penalty is something horrendous, but i see no reason in removing it as it is capable of stopping murder. I choose the lesser of two evils.

Cassese states in his article points for and against capital punishment but he himself believes that the death penalty goes againsts human rights. In his article, he mentions that even if death penalties were to be abolished, much action must be taken along with it. He believes that inhuman living condition along with poor treatment in prisons is no better than being sent to the gallows and these should be changed. Which brings me to my point; Imprisonment and capital punishment are supposed to be deter one from committing crime. If criminals are not to be subjected to the death penalty and what awaits them is a prison which fervently defends their rights, i myself see no deterrance to committing a crime. Criminals could commit crimes, and treat imprisonment as a small price to pay for being caught. One might even attempt crime right after release knowing that only imprisonment awaits them.