Death And Opinion Penalty Of Society

Death and opinion penalty of society

Introduction

In the following trial work I will express my point of view and my knowledge about the issue of death penalty and according to society because it justifies it and the causes of why it is valid and justified before society and the government. This text is made with a lot of effort and dedication, I hope you enjoy it.

One of the current problems that excites society and causes a lot of discussion, intrigue, debate has been and remains the problem of death penalty.

At present, its importance is also associated with the fact that many states will now soften the legislation and abolish the death penalty. To this aspect, the question of the legality and admissibility of the death penalty arises, as well as its need and adaptation towards the circumstances of the same. Currently, there are many discussions on this subject, and I decided to express my point of view in this essay, in addition to having an interest in this socio-legal phenomenon.

Why has this type of punishment been so hard for centuries? What is the reason for its use followed? How effective and safe is the death penalty? How does public opinion influence the abolition or maintenance of the death penalty? Why in the modern world, as well as in the past, the death penalty continues to apply in certain countries? Are we so far from our cruel ancestors and without feelings? I will try to address these and many other issues in my essay, to analyze the legal, historical, moral and social aspects of this type of punishment.

A murderer is a man who has committed the crime of killing someone, to snatch his life. True justice is done when the judge punishes the murder and releases the innocent and punishes the bad. Opponents of the death penalty give a variety of arguments in defense of their position.

For example, the fact that society is responsible for its members who have committed a certain crime, and has no right to say a death sentence, since the assassin is not only the guilty. Up to a certain point, yes, society is guilty: a fall in morals, a general social situation, but why does society not exempt criminals from any responsibility? They say that society is to blame for everything. Why do completely different children grow in the same social environment, with the same parents? I do not agree with the theory of innate crime.

Each person chooses their own path in life, and this choice is free and free. Society only provides different living conditions: normal and criminal, and all choose these conditions, a circle of communication and objectives in life. It may be correct to say that ‘the abolition of the death penalty is the price that society must pay because of the fact that its member violated a severe prohibition’.

The Social Protection School also denies the death penalty, based on the fact that most of those executed are poor, they have no relevance, they are ‘colored’ and other socially unprotected population groups, as well as the classical law schoolCriminal, with its punishment objectives, such as atonement, intimidation and reprisals should not be applied in modern criminal law that ‘the abolition of the death penalty is the price that society must pay because of its fault because its member has brokena severe prohibition established before society ‘.

The death penalty, in my opinion, is evidence of certain costs as a result of society, which is in itself the culprit of the appearance of murderers, rapists, traitors, pedophiles, kidnappers and other extremely dangerous criminals. All forces of society must be aimed at crime prevention, to create a safe and normal environment in all areas of our reality. Originally, there is no perfect society, but in any society there will always be pathological murderers, rapists, maniacs that are not affected by the standard of living or by the general situation of society but by its mental state "by default".

I think the death penalty is justified if the offender is extremely depraved and dangerous for others, if he can violate and kill again and again without any remorse. In those cases, the imprisonment does not guarantee society the safety of its citizens, which is compressible.

The fears arise because, first, sooner or later, the imprisonment period will end and the offender will be free again, where he can become a wild animal released from a cage.

Secondly, for any convict there is always the possibility of escaping. Third, even in prison, the offender may violate the human dignity and life of cell partners who accompany, staff, guards or visitors. Given all these possible dangers, it turns out that execution is the only safe and effective way to protect many people from the threat of violence. From this point of view, the death penalty is justified.

But, on the other side of the currency, the death penalty is always the murder of a human being and, therefore, it is initially something extremely immoral and criminal. The right to life is the first principle of all other human rights that no one can take under any circumstances.

Of course, many crimes shiver the evil and cruelty with which they were committed. In this regard, the question arises: what punishment such ‘people’ deserve? No, I do not approve criminals and I don’t ask for connivance.

I am also afraid of being helpless against unbridled slag. Today we do (at least in a theoretical sense) a judicial error even if they are only criminals. And tomorrow, what will happen?… Regarding the death penalty, there are a lot of pros and cons. And, at least, it is worth knowing and taking into account their objectivity.

And one more detail. In recent years, more and more unsolved crimes, contract murders, disturb public opinion and shake the foundations of society. But there are very few cases in which those who committed them were on the bench. But criminals trapped are often punished with too much severity: they say that others should not get used to. But this ‘psychological’ impact method is clearly a dead end.

It barely seems a convincing fight against crime. Rather, he testifies to the incompetence of the authorities, and even their lack of will to change the same conditions that cause criminal increase and impunity against them. But the common citizens and the state police system become hostages of the situation, legality capital penalty when those who committed them were at the dock. But criminals trapped are often punished with too much severity: they say that others should not get used to.

But this ‘psychological’ impact method is clearly a dead end. It barely seems a convincing fight against crime. Rather, he testifies to the impotence of the authorities, and even their lack of will to change the same conditions that cause criminal arbitrariness and impunity. But common citizens and the state police system become hostages of the situation.

After analyzing the place of death in society, I reached certain conclusions. Before exploring this issue, I did not seriously think about the problem of the death penalty and, like most people, I believed that the death penalty should be maintained and applied on a large scale. I thought this was an effective measure to combat crime, and that the offender should be punished for his act.

But, as I understood the issue in this problem more and more and I studied it carefully, my attitude towards the death penalty began to change significantly.

Oppositors to the death penalty may be right in their arguments, but I can’t completely agree with all their arguments. The punishment in general and the death penalty, in particular, are not omnipotent and are not the best tool in the fight against crime. Since the crime has a deep character, due to a series of reasons, the measures to combat it must also be integral.

Therefore, I think that since crimes are still being committed in cold, terrible and cynical blood, the death penalty must be maintained, in a limited degree to the area and case to which it is applied, for a limited range of crimes and,,Of course, it only applies to mentally not suitable people.

However, if society itself becomes human, and not only its authorities will abolish the death penalty, then it will not commit such crimes that would require the use of the death penalty.

There may be several alternatives to avoid the death penalty such as:

• Life imprisonment in a prison away from society or far from the coast.
• Freeze criminals in hibernation mode.
• Intense psychiatric sessions.
• Semi -liberty.
• Perpetual chain lack of communication.

conclusion

In conclusion I am both for and against, because the death penalty judgment must be applied only in extreme cases and not in simple cases of murders for love or for money or for extremely irrelevant reasons. I consider that the death penalty can be an effective and safe measure, but it is morally incorrect.