Wednesday, April 24, 2019

Whether the Death Penalty is a Desirable Policy Essay

Whether the Death Penalty is a Desirable Policy - Essay ExampleApparently, wipeout punishment is a controversial debate, with both opposing camps presenting strong positions aimed at justifying their claim. Possibly, no one would wish well to stand on the neutral ground to advocate for both, or none. The major contention is whether death penalty is a desired policy for the organisation to implement. Notably, death penalty curtails the rights to life, which the constitution guarantees (Coughlin, 2004, p.99). The human rights activists contrive play an aggressive role in making sure that the brasss abolish either told constitutional provisions and by-laws, which crusade death penalty, a move that is prevalence in most parts of the world. In reality, most supranational studies have shown that death penalty has ceased to be the preferred method of controlling crime (Coughlin, 2004, p.47). Therefore, most governments have shifted their attention to other methods of dealing with crime, without resorting to capital punishment. For this essay, the focus is on whether the death penalty is a desirable policy, while comparing the position in the United Kingdom and in Malaysia. Notably, the 10th day of October all(prenominal) year is marked worldwide, as the day against death penalty (Piket, 2011, p.1). In essence, the day is marked with campaigns and conferences to get awareness on the need to abolish death penalty. This aims at achieving the EUs goal of eliminating the approach pattern in all countries worldwide. The Position of the Death Penalty in the United Kingdom According to the governments death penalty strategy of 2010, The United Kingdom Opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle because we believe it undermines human haughtiness there is no conclusive evidence of its deterrent value and any miscarriage of justice leading to its imposition is immutable and irreparable (Hammel, 2011, p.235). The statement is indeed bol d and encompasses legion(predicate) aspects about the value of a human being. In the strategy paper, one realizes that the U.K government does not have any provision to warrant any someone to terminate the life of another, under all circumstances (Hammel, 2011, p.235). Precisely, this shows the governments commitment to eradicating any heavy right to sentence an individual to death. In addition, the U.K government cites that the practice does not guarantee human dignity (Hammel, 2011, p.235). Here, it reveals something very important, that is the human dignity. Terminating ones life is like denying him/her the fundamental right to life, which is basic to all human beings. Perhaps, the U.K government realized that man does not create life, therefore, does not have the authority to terminate it. This implies that there should be alternative means of executing punishment to offenders other than subjecting them to death (Hammel, 2011, p.236). Still considering the statement, the gove rnment noted that none has ever verified that imposing death penalty causes deterrent behavior. In fact, many studies have concluded that despite the increasing number of criminals being killed, the executions have not deterred others from joining such(prenominal) crimes (Hammel, 2011, p.236). Therefore, it is clear that imposing death penalty on criminals would be a deterrent to their behavior until an gentle means of intervention, which is friendlier, is adopted. In addition, the government underscores the need to preserve life, indicating that misuse of justice, whose consequence terminates ones life, is permanent and cannot be altered by all means (Yorke, 2009, p.207). Truly, once a criminal has been executed, he/she cannot be brought back to life. It seems as if the United Kingdom

No comments:

Post a Comment