I am writing about capital punishment for my classical argument.
I think it is a really controversal issue, and I always believed it should be abolished for some reasons.
However, while I was researching about why people support capital punishment and why capital punishment should be abolished, to be honest, I was confused which side I should be on for a moment because I thought about the victims and their families' and friends' suffering. Who will compensate for their suffering? They can never forget the incident that happened to them. When I imagined how hard it will be for them, I asked myself a question, "Am I wrong? and is capital punishment only way to punish murderers for victims?"
But later I made the decision that capital punishment still needs to be stopped. I thought that even though the murderer kills someone, it seems like a contradiction to kill the murderer for killing. Does anyone understand what I'm saying? I think its kind of hypocritical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's one of the longest debated issues in world history. On one hand, you have the whole "an eye for an eye" rule, but then there's the "commandment" "thou shalt not kill." Was the "eye for an eye" law a law that was for people who couldn't handle not having revenge because that's not any different than capital punishment. "An eye for an eye..." and then "a life for a life."
ReplyDeleteI wonder if our society can handle not having the capital punishment even though it is hypocritical just because many people in those situations cannot help but seek the person at fault's punishment/revenge. Would the family of the person wronged seek revenge on the murderer's family creating even more murders? When people get hurt like that, sometimes they don't know how to cope. I still am not sure that it's our place to choose whether someone should die or not- or the court's either. That's a tough one, and I'm not sure I'll ever have a firm opinion on it.