Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Hi everyone! Can anyone please take a look at my essay and tell me whether I am on the right track? I am very lost on what kind of essay I should produce. If anyone could just take a look and give me some feedback I will be so grateful!!! Thank you so much

    Should death penalties be abolished?

    Death penalties are punishments designed to put one to death when one does something that can be considered to be cruel and inhumane. In countries like the United Kingdom where death penalties had already been abolished but they still exist in most of the countries. Whether to abolish death penalties is highly controversial. Whether to abolish death penalties depend on a variety of things and in the subsequent paragraphs I will try to discuss and arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

    Let me begin my argument by raising a much more elusive question: do us humans enjoy the rights of preserving our own lives no matter what? Some people believe that we were born with a universal right to live. While under most of the circumstances this statement is considered to be true, there are some circumstances that will make our right to live seems not so right anymore. Let us imagine a situation where there is a serial killer, who had taken many innocent lives away, does this person still enjoy the right to live anymore?

    Perhaps there are some circumstances where one can lose one’s right to live, but that does not mean death penalties should be preserved. Back to the scenario provided, clearly, if we let this person at large, it will hurt our society since the person will only want to kill more. But whether to imprison or to kill the person becomes quite debatable. Imprisoning one means keeping one behind the bars. In the case of a serial killer, the length of imprisonment could be forever. There are different ways to argue for such question, the easiest way would be to look at the criteria that can be quantified. For an example, looking at the costs is a rather straightforward way. Life imprisonment generates a large sum of costs. Since the prisoner is still alive means that one will consume food and water. Also, there must be someone guarding the prison and supervising criminals inside which generates labor costs. The money needed to support those criminals, however, is raised through taxes. Which means that the general public is the one who keeps the prisoners alive. But the criminals had already done so many things that could potentially hurt taxpayers, it seems unfair to ask the general public to pay for the living of those criminals. Death penalties, on the other hand, only requires an amount of money enough to support the production of the drugs used, which, is unlikely to be much.

    However, while costs and who to pay for those costs are factors that can be taken into our analysis, in the real world, such question should not be answered by drawing a cost-benefit analysis. Some people argue that death penalties should not be abolished since the crime the person committed was inhumane. Such argument drew a line between imprisonment and execution: namely, prisons are for those who committed crimes that are not inhumane. But another question arises from such statement: how do we draw the line here? What kind of crimes can be considered to be inhumane? It seems to me this question is impossible for us to answer. While people’s opinion on such matter diverges, it is legislators’ job to determine a line that most of us can come to an agreement with.

    One aim of the design of death penalties is to warn the general public, to make them realize what their ultimate destinies would be if they commit the same crime as the person who was executed. Although statistics diverge between countries regarding whether death penalties increase or decrease the crime rates, the general trend is that death penalties will make the crime rate lower. So, one determinant of whether to abolish death penalties or not can be the level of the crime rate of a country. Death penalties should be preserved for countries that possess high crime rates whereas life imprisonment should be introduced in more peaceful nations since taking one’s freedom of movement away eternally already seems hard enough.

    Overall, whether to abolish death penalties depends on many different things. It depends on the crime rates of the country, whether rights to live are universal and etc. It is up to our government to decide what sort of society we should live in and which criteria to prioritize.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    @Eve151609 , I am not sure you will get help on this matter here. But I know someone who can help you with your essay, she is a professional, she teaches LNAT essay writing and obviously she will charge for it. Please let me know if you would like me to get in touch with her.


    (Original post by Eve151609)
    Hi everyone! Can anyone please take a look at my essay and tell me whether I am on the right track? I am very lost on what kind of essay I should produce. If anyone could just take a look and give me some feedback I will be so grateful!!! Thank you so much

    Should death penalties be abolished?

    Death penalties are punishments designed to put one to death when one does something that can be considered to be cruel and inhumane. In countries like the United Kingdom where death penalties had already been abolished but they still exist in most of the countries. Whether to abolish death penalties is highly controversial. Whether to abolish death penalties depend on a variety of things and in the subsequent paragraphs I will try to discuss and arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

    Let me begin my argument by raising a much more elusive question: do us humans enjoy the rights of preserving our own lives no matter what? Some people believe that we were born with a universal right to live. While under most of the circumstances this statement is considered to be true, there are some circumstances that will make our right to live seems not so right anymore. Let us imagine a situation where there is a serial killer, who had taken many innocent lives away, does this person still enjoy the right to live anymore?

    Perhaps there are some circumstances where one can lose one’s right to live, but that does not mean death penalties should be preserved. Back to the scenario provided, clearly, if we let this person at large, it will hurt our society since the person will only want to kill more. But whether to imprison or to kill the person becomes quite debatable. Imprisoning one means keeping one behind the bars. In the case of a serial killer, the length of imprisonment could be forever. There are different ways to argue for such question, the easiest way would be to look at the criteria that can be quantified. For an example, looking at the costs is a rather straightforward way. Life imprisonment generates a large sum of costs. Since the prisoner is still alive means that one will consume food and water. Also, there must be someone guarding the prison and supervising criminals inside which generates labor costs. The money needed to support those criminals, however, is raised through taxes. Which means that the general public is the one who keeps the prisoners alive. But the criminals had already done so many things that could potentially hurt taxpayers, it seems unfair to ask the general public to pay for the living of those criminals. Death penalties, on the other hand, only requires an amount of money enough to support the production of the drugs used, which, is unlikely to be much.

    However, while costs and who to pay for those costs are factors that can be taken into our analysis, in the real world, such question should not be answered by drawing a cost-benefit analysis. Some people argue that death penalties should not be abolished since the crime the person committed was inhumane. Such argument drew a line between imprisonment and execution: namely, prisons are for those who committed crimes that are not inhumane. But another question arises from such statement: how do we draw the line here? What kind of crimes can be considered to be inhumane? It seems to me this question is impossible for us to answer. While people’s opinion on such matter diverges, it is legislators’ job to determine a line that most of us can come to an agreement with.

    One aim of the design of death penalties is to warn the general public, to make them realize what their ultimate destinies would be if they commit the same crime as the person who was executed. Although statistics diverge between countries regarding whether death penalties increase or decrease the crime rates, the general trend is that death penalties will make the crime rate lower. So, one determinant of whether to abolish death penalties or not can be the level of the crime rate of a country. Death penalties should be preserved for countries that possess high crime rates whereas life imprisonment should be introduced in more peaceful nations since taking one’s freedom of movement away eternally already seems hard enough.

    Overall, whether to abolish death penalties depends on many different things. It depends on the crime rates of the country, whether rights to live are universal and etc. It is up to our government to decide what sort of society we should live in and which criteria to prioritize.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.