Diskusi:

This

House supports the death penalty

Capital punishment is the sentence of death, or practice of execution, handed

down as punishment for a criminal offence. It can only be used by a state, after
a proper legal trial. The United Nations in 2008 adopted a resolution (62/149)
calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, however fifty-eight
countries, including the United States and China, still exercise the death penalty.
As such, the topic remains highly controversial. Abolitionist groups and
international organizations argue that it is cruel and inhumane, while proponents
claim that it is an effective and necessary deterrent for the most heinous of
crimes.

Pro:
-

I support the death penalty because it can create a better world.

However, that does not mean the death penalty should be used for
every crime. If it is used for clear reasons such as repeated crimes by a
serial killer and huge damages caused by a terrorist, it is a benefit to our
world. Some people say to give a chance to the criminal so that he or
she can reflect on their crime and feel remorse. Some of these crimials
gets released from the jail and repeat their crimes.
Think about this, if one of your family members were killed by a serial

killer, you

would not want another family to suffer the same tragic loss.

-Death penalty helps to prevent crime by not allowing the most dangerous
people to live and inherently by showing the other criminals where they are
going to end up if they continue acting illegally. Death penalty also brings
certain benefits to everybody. First, it gives closure to the family of the victim,
who by then has suffered a lot. Also, it prevents criminals from escaping from
prison or keep doing illegal things inside the prison. Lastly, it helps by reducing
the prison population, who in the past years has grown exponentially. This tool
should only be used in the extreme cases, and not for every single crime. Death
penalty is helpful to prevent the criminals to continue acting illegally, and it
serves as an example to prevent other people from doing the same things. For
those reasons, I support death penalty.

KONTRA:
-This is a really bad argument - you want to kill someone to increase suffering
yet further? Since you have now inflicted the same suffering on another family
do they get their wish that either the judge or the excecutioner should be
excecuted now so as to be able to inflict that suffering on yet another family?
The aim of the law should be to protect people and reduce suffering not
increase it.
And in response to Mohammad rizki adi pradana this does not seem like a
better world to me - how can it be a better world if there is more suffering?

I am clearly against the death penalty

It has been argued that ''if it is used for clear reasons such as repeated crimes by a serial
killer and huge damages caused by a terrorist, it is a benefit to our world.'' But who has
the right to determine who is a benefict to our world or not, until the the point to send
them to death? You may be thinking that judges have had this right by studying and
preparing theirselfs for this job, but no one gave them the right to take someone's life out.
And by this, I don't mean that this people is not enough prepared to accomplish this job,
the fact is that I don't belive in perfection. I think every person is going to be wrong at
some point of their lifes. So, i also belive that a judge may make a mistake by sending an
innocent to death. This is why I am against death penalty, the human being is
prone to make mistakes in one way or another, and no one should
determine other's death.