Hi, My name is Linnéa and I’m planning to write about the arguments for and against death penalty. You can say that death penalty saves lives, in the way that murderer that only gets a lifetime in prison, often fall back into crime and kill people again. That’s why death penalty is the only way that we can be totally sure that these people never get the chance to commit a crime again. You can also say that there’s no other way to get a murderer or a person that has committed a really cruel crime, the punishment he/she deserves, other than death. There’s no other way to create justice, if a person has killed an other one, than to take the murderess life. You can also argue that when a person has killed someone, he has automatically spent his own right to live. No one should be able to kill and torture someone and still get to keep his own life.
One the other hand you can say that through death penalty it’s a chance that a totally innocent person gets executed. And even if this only happens one time only, it’s one too many. And doesn’t everybody has the right to live? Doesn’t each life matters? It’s not humanly to kill, it’s barbaric. And we shouldn’t allow this barbaric thing like it was a normal thing to do, what kind of society would that be? It just doesn’t seem right to show that it’s wrong to kill through killing.
Here in Sweden we don’t have death penalty, but it has been a lot of debates about whether we should have it or not. What’s it like in Italy?
Hi, My name Frida and I am going to write about the different arguments for and against the death penalty. To many the death penalty is the only reasonable response for certain heinous crimes. It will satisfy the sense of vengeance/justice the effected people might feel. Many also feel that it will discourage people from killing and committing crimes that are punishable by death. Once a convicted criminal is executed there is no chance for this person to break out of jail and kill or injure someone again. It could be claimed that it gives people a sense of security.
On the other hand the death penalty turns our society to an “an eye for an eye”-society where we lower the value of a human life for the purpose of revenge? The without a doubt biggest arguments against the death penalty is that you might execute an innocent person. Evidence is not always 100% correct, and eye witnesses might lie for their own personal gain. So how can you be certain beyond all doubts that a person is guilty? What happens if the executed was found not guilty after being executed? You can’t bring back the dead.
In Sweden and the rest of EU the death penalty is abolished for all offences, it’s a requirement to join EU. In Sweden the majority of people are against Capital punishment/the death penalty and about 23% think that there are crimes that should lead to a death sentence*. How is it in Italy? Is it about the same or are people more or less against capital punishment?
In response to Linnéa. Murderer's that get a lifetime in prison never sit a lifetime, they get out and can kill people again, just as you said. So why not keep them in prison for a lifetime? Is death penalty really the best way to punish someone?
I have one thought. Wouldn't it be more of a punishment if the murderer got to spend his lifetime in prison? What I mean is that when you are dead you are not there anymore, you cannot feel or see the consequences of your crime. Maybe death penalty can be som kind of freedom too, you can do someone a "favor" by taking his or hers life. Then they do not have to think about what they did anymore.
I do not really know where I am going with this thought, and I have no conclusion. My aim was to share it with others and maybe get a comment back to see what you guys think.
And last but not least I think death penalty is wrong way to punish people. Just for the simple fact that they can be innocent.
In response to Frida Hi Frida! This is Claudia. I think this topic is one of the most interesting among those that are on our blog, also because I have a clear idea on the matter. I’m against the death penalty! Thinking that nowadays there are states (like even the high democratic and liberal USA) that still practice this kind of punishment make me angry. The death penalty is wrong! Killing is wrong and the life is sacred. Anybody has the right to take somebody’s life: neither a person, nor the State. The death penalty is not useful at all! There isn’t any proof about its deterrent effects against serious crimes. Of course, the author of a crime must be punished and the State must assure the punishment; the State must also provide instruments to facilitate the re-education of those who are suffering a condemnation. I think this one is the only way to discourage future crimes, together with preventive measures and a good education given to children into schools in order to avoid the spread of criminality. However, I don’t argue on the various aspects that could or not justify the death penalty. From my point of view, it’s not correct to face to this issue by discussing on, for example: the better method to carry out it; the right of juvenile or ill people to be exempt from it. I disagree also with the idea of those who support its abolition only by considering the risk to carry out this barbaric punishment against a victim of an injustice. A bold step by international community was made on last December when it was approved a UN resolution establishing a global moratorium (not binding) of the execution of the death penalty. “This is a further evidence of trend towards ultimately abolishing the death penalty”, the UN Secretary General said. I hope this could become reality, also by trusting in the role of the new American administration on human rights. As you know, Italy, like the rest of European states, doesn’t have the capital punishment. The first pre-Unitarian Italian state to stop it was the Grand Duchy of Tuscany (1786), who was influenced by the book by Cesare Beccaria “On crimes and Punishments” (1764), in which was demonstrated not only the injustice, but also the futility of death penalty. After the dictatorial period, the Italian Constitution (1948) cancelled the death penalty for all common military and civil crimes during peacetime. In 1994, it was eliminated also from military penal code (of course, by then, no execution had been carried out). Finally, in 2007 a constitutional amendment was adopted in order to ban it completely. In the light of these important results, I think that any research shouldn’t be made about people’s thought on the matter. Even if I believe that most people wouldn’t express a position in its favour, however I think that urging them on this kind of subject could determinate impulsive and not well reasoned answers, by considering the angry feeling for the spread of serious crime in the society. This is the reason for which I do not give so much value to statistics in this issue. Well, I’m concluding now. I’ve tried to explain my position that is absolutely against the death penalty. Now, if you want, you can explain yours.
Hi, I'm also completely against capital punishment for many of the same reasons as you are. I don't feel like the state has the right to decide who lives and who dies, it lowers the value of the human life.If a person murdered someone does that give the state the right to kill that person? I feel like there is a form of double standards.
The an-eye-for-an-eye mentality that it creates frighten me in some ways, you stole my car I will steel your car, you killed my mother i'll kill you mother.No one wants the eye-for-an-eye punishment in other crimes, but when it comes to murder it's okay. How is that? Then there's the fact that you might start to use it to lightly, crimes that are not ordinarily punished by death might be come. Since it's only a criminal, it doesn't really matter.
It is often the under defended that get sentenced to death, the ones that couldn't afford a well educated lawyer that will take the time to look at the case properly and do their best. Many of those who are sentenced to death are mentally ill or was abused as children. Do they not have the right to help that other people have? Of course they should be held accountable for what they have done, but do they not deserve to get the help they need?
I feel like I could go an and on about this, but I'll wrap it up for now.
I totally agree with you Therese, I think it should be a life-time in prison for a crime like murder. It is escaping from you punishment with death penalty. I read in a magazine about a woman who killed her children and then tried to kill herself but she didn't die. She was sentence to death and when they gave her the injection, she said "Thank you". This is wrong, this woman got what she wanted and not a punishment for her crime.
In response to Frida You have well explained some other reasons that confirm that the death penalty is unacceptable. In any case, whatever is the point of view from which you argue on the matter, you can always test how the capital punishment is against all the fundamental principles that should govern a society. As you noticed, I think, for example, to the deeper and complexes defence that a trial for capital crimes requires and that should be assured equally to everyone, especially in this kind of trials; but there isn’t any guarantee about the respect for this principle one. The list of the arguments against the death penalty could be infinite, but I think that one above all can be enough: the life is sacred and nobody has the right to take somebody’s life!
Hello I'm Maria and I'm writing about the death penalty.
Death as a punishment has been a part of most human cultures for as long as we know and it is still prectised in many countries today. Those who are for the death penalty may argue that it is a just punishment in the sense of "an eye for an eye" (when a punishment for murder), that your life should be taken if you have taken someone elses life. It could also be regarded as a punishment preventing criminals from comitting the same crime again, and that it discourages other to comitt them. Some arguments say that the death penalty is the only way for a murdervictims relatives to get real closure and that the death penalty is actually cheaper for the community than keeping criminals in prison for a long time.
Those who oppose to the death penalty say that if we punish people for killing, it would be equally wrong to kill the murderer in turn. The death penalty is also an irreversible punishment, so once a person is killed there is no way to take it back should that person really be innocent. There is also the question of religion as many religions is opposed to killing.
In Sweden and most of western Europe the majority is against the death penalty and many believe it to be barbaric and inhumane, but in many countries such as USA, India, Japan, Pakistan and China it is still in use.
The debate still goes on whether we should seek justice by killing those who kill, or if we should refrain from taking peoples lives no matter what crime they have comitted
In response to Therese I think you raise an interesting question. Maybe it would be more of a punishment for someone to spend their life in prison rather than be put to death, but in my opinion it shouldn't be about what is the worst punishment. I think punishment in general is a short-term solution, whether it is about preventing crime or just raising children. There is a reason why it is not called punishment (straff) in Sweden, but rather consequence (påföljd). The real goal should be to rehabilitate and look for long-term solutions. Scaring and intimidating people into doing what you want is not a good method according to me. Now, I can agree that some people can seem like a lost cause, and that they are past the point of rehabilitation, but I still think we need to keep our faith in people's goodness and their ability to change. Maybe that sounds naive, but to kill another human being should never be considered a solution.
My name is Frida Bæckström and I have chosen death penalty as my essay subject. Execution as legal punishment is practiced in many places, including three of the biggest democratic countries in the world. Death penalty is the subject of fiery discussions, and politicians debate whether or not it should still be used in modern times. In my essay I will present the pro- and con arguments and weigh them against each other.
Many argue that the death penalty puts a stop to terrible people who have done terrible things and are likely to do so again. Execution also works as justification for the people who have been affected and as an alarming example that hopefully will discourage people from committing crimes. Religion has a major part in the argumentative discussion about death penalty. Many people use the Bible as an argument that death penalty should continue to be executed. There are several places in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) where people a punished to death after committing ‘deadly sins’.
To most Swedes it’s pretty difficult to understand the thought of having capital punishment as a part of our modern society and it has not been legal in Sweden for almost a hundred years. The strongest argument against the death penalty is the fact that innocent people can be sentenced to death. Why should a court jury have the right to sentence a person to death when murder is a crime in every other context?
Hi! I think this is one of more interesting topics too. I can tell Swedish students that here in Italy dealth penalty topic has found a large room in public opinion. Our governement has been the promoter of a motion for the abolishing of dealth penalty all over the world, motion that, I think, it has been voted by O.N.U. a few months ago. Like the majority of Italians, I also disagree with dealth penalty for different reasons. I think it's wrong to think that dealth penalty "saves lives". If someone commits a crime, he won't commit it again simply by remaining in prison for all the time established by law (for all life, as well). But a very important thing to underline is that prisons should offer much more rehabilitation than the current ones. Listening to TV or radio about facts of very terrible crimes, a lot of people can think on first impact that the best penalty for these killers, murderers, etc. is the dealth one. But the justidge isn't made of emotions and revenges: in conclusion, I believe that dealth penalty is terrible like a crime. Fabio
In response to Therese. I totally agree with you. I think that death penalty is just a way for the murderer to get out of it. When the person is dead he/she can't think about the horrible things he/she have done. So I totally agree that death penalty can be in favor for the murderer. Therefore the best thing to do is to make 'a life time punishment' really a lifetime punishment! When someone gets lifetime in prison, he/she should be in prison for his/hers entire life! And that is a much bigger punishment then death. So, the main thing that should be focus at is to make a lifetime punishment really a lifetime, not whether death penalty is a good thing or not. Cuz it's not.
I agree with you, death penalty shouldn't be used just for the simple fact that a totally innocent can be killed. When you think about that it's just crazy how people even consider death penalty as a good thing, and that it do excist in some countries.
I agree with you Maria, there must be other solutions to consider than death!
In respons to Maria. It's not the worst punishment I'm trying for find, maybe I could have chosen other words. The point is just that death penalty can be a way to escape your own thoughts and guilt.
In response to Linnéa. I totally agree with you. Death penalty is not a good thing I don't understand why it exists. But now it does and I believe, like you, that we have to focus on other ways to "punish" people; for example that a lifetime will be a lifetime. Maybe it don't have to be a lifetime in prison only sitting inside a cell, why not add some rehabilitation or others..
Hi Frida… I would like to write something I think about this controversial topic that is the one associated with death penalty. I think, so as most part of people, that who commits crimes has to be punished and it’s important to commensurate the sentence with the crime which was committed. The sentence has to be strong so as to demotivate criminals to commit the same crime and other crimes again. I live in this country where justice is living a very difficult period and it seems to be difficult to make people respecting laws. Politicians are the first to be involved with different kinds of crimes: relation with criminal associations, bribery and corruption, drug, and so on… In the last few years lots of crimes have been decriminalized or penalties connected with lots of crimes have been reduced. Members of criminal associations give orders also while they are serving time. People feel unsafe especially for those crimes, which are connected with immigration that seems to be completely out of control. But death penalty is not the right method to demotivate criminals to commit crimes; with death penalty justice replaces God in deciding about life and death of human beings and it becomes guilty of murder. I think that life sentence is the right sentence to punish these criminals for their crimes. People are often sentenced of death without due processes or without any process, without having the right to defend their own rights; people are sentenced of death for crimes which seem to be futile, for example women who have committed adultery… And also countries which are considered examples of democracy and progress, like lots of States in USA, sentence criminals of death. People often are condemned in name of God or of religion. Sometimes their guilt is not certain. An innocent sentenced of death? It’s better a guilty at large. All this is terrible. In Italy we often speak and write about death penalty, which seems to be the unique really right penalty for atrocious crimes like paedophilia, brutal killing of innocent people… But it’s because government and justice are unable to give people answers, that is safety, certainty of penalty. Fear and insecurity make people become more aggressive and full of hate and anger; that is why the first step is to create a more equal and right society. Not an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but strong sentences: also if they will not demotivate criminals to commit crimes they are the essence of a society which wants to be defined “civil” and they are the only way to make how-to justice decrease.
In response to Linnéa and Therese: Hi, I totally agree with you! I think death-penalty isn’t the best way to punish criminals. I think too that a real life-time-imprisonment should be the best solution. They have time to think their through and hopefully turn their lives around to a new way of thinking, so they can help other life-scented prisoners to be better persons, so they can help others and so on. That would be the best of scenarios. (It would be like an American movie!) In real life maybe not so many would turn out to be good persons in the end…but you can always hope for it! Every man has the right to live, I think. If you use the death-penalty as a punishment, it would be a risk of having an innocent person killed! /Kerstin
Hi, as my initial idea would not fit within the structure of our assignment I have decided I will write on the pros and cons of the death penalty instead. However rather than looking at the general arguments relating to the death penalty I would like to consider one specific aspect of the death penalty and this is the death penalty for crimes committed as minors. Can a child or teenager under 18 (and consequently unable to vote or be considered an adult in the eyes of the law), a person who has not yet matured fully either emotionally or phhysically and who commits murder or other violent crimes be sentenced to death, is there an ethical basis for this? What are the pros and cons for sentencing minors to death? The one country which stands out in the execution of people for crimes committed as minors is the USA - since 1985 the US has executed more juvenile criminals than all other countries combined.
I think I would argue that the execution of minors is unethical and should be stopped. Of those countries that still have the death penalty the United States is almost alone in executing minors. The only other countries that execute juveniles are Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. The execution of minors is also in contravention of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the execution for crimes committed under the age of 18. Only the U.S. and Somalia have failed to ratify the convention guidelines.
I fully agree with you that executing minors are unethical, and should be stopped.
At the same time I have to ask. If two people commit the exact same crime that is worthy of the death sentence. For the same reasons, the do it the same way and both were fully aware of what they were doing. The only difference between them is that one is an adult and one is a minor, should they be sentenced to different punishments?
Whether two identical murders one involving a minor and one with an adult should be sentenced in the same way is relatively clear in my view from a legal standpoint. Personally I am against the death penalty anyway but for minors there is the specific issue that legally you can only be tried for murder if you acted with full conscience and premeditation and had full knowledge of the consequences of your action. I.e. you planned the murder. If you are legally considered to be unable to act for yourself and to have your own legal personality (you will always have to be represented by a guardian or your parents) how can you be considered to have the mental capacity to commit premeditated murder?
There was a case in the US recently of an 8 year old who murdered his father and his father's friend with a shotgun. According to the news reports the boy had intended to shoot the men but was also in shock at the result. Should he be tried for murder and executed as a result of this? Can he be considered to have acted with his full capacities? Is there not a clear difference between this eight year old murdering two men and an offender in their 30's doing exactly the same thing with a shotgun? I would argue that neither should be sentenced to death as that would not improve anything but there are clearly more significant legal issues involved with the minor offender than with an adult with their full capacity committing premeditated murder.
The issue becomes more clouded when considering two offenders aged 17 and 20 for example but even so the cut off must be somewhere for reaching majority and it is currently at age 18 in many countries.
I agree with what your saying, but I had to ask since a lot of people I know can't answer that question. They're for adult death penalty but not for minors, but when confronted with the question they can't really make up their minds.
I'm Debora, I would like to express my opinion about this interesting topic! We are lucky because in Italy we don’t have death penalty. I’m totally against it because nobody can have the right to kill a person even if he is a murder. Here in Italy we have great trouble with justice and a lot of mistakes so it’s a little bit dangerous to allow death penalty in our country. For example, a week ago a man was discovered to be innocent after 30 years spent in a jail. It’s unbelievable, if there was death penalty in Italy this man would have died without committing a crime! This is because I’m against death penalty! I often dream about stopping it in all over the world!
The main problem I have with the death penalty is that there is a possibility that a person is wrongfully sentenced. I admit that I sometimes I feel that certain criminals deserve death. But killing a person because he has committed murdered is quite contradictory. By doing so you inadvertently admit that killing a person is Wright in some circumstances. I think that a life in prison is enough the person that is a danger to the society is taken away so they can do no more harm. When it comes to mentally ill people I think that life in prison also should apply. Although they should be permitted treatment for their mental illness.
Hi all My name is Malin Ambjörnsson and my topic is death penalty. Death penalty is practiced in many places around the world, but some countries have abolished this form of punishment to human people. This debate whether you should use death penalty or not is still a very big issue for politicians around the world. I am going to write about this subject in my essay and look at the different arguments about this penalty. Religion and death penalty are one of my questions and how they are related to each other.Which countries are still using death penalty and why? For or against are my arguments about this punishment, pro or con this penalty? Here in Sweden most of us is in general against death penalty,I am going to study that question more in my essay,and that form of penalty don´t exist here. Another thing I am going to write about is,which country was the first with death penalty? In my essay Í will compare pro and con questions, but my personally opinion is that I am against death penalty, and why it´s because you could be innocent.In Italy are you more pro or more con? Feel free to comment. //Malin
It’s interesting that you say that the subject of death penalty has found such a large room in public opinion in Italy. I don’t really agree with my fellow Swedes that it is the same in Sweden. Sure, the subject is sometimes discussed in classroom debates in schools and other ‘homish’ situations, but death penalty is not a frequently discussed subject in social and political contexts (not in my experience anyway). In general Sweden has very low sentences and lifetime in prison is extremely uncommon. Maybe that’s the reason why capital punishment seems so grotesque and barbarian to me… I simply can’t grasp the fact that it is still very much reality in some of the most modern and democratic countries in the world.
In response to Mari:
I think you’re absolutely right! We’re playing God by deciding who gets to live or die. Sometimes I think of all the things that are done in the name of God. If Jesus only knew… I mean he was the greatest anarchist and pacifist of all time. I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t get punished and looked up for the crimes the have done but sometimes it feels like countries like America should try to read the new testament as well as the old. ‘Turn the other cheek’ would have been a nice strategy when it comes to the Iraq war. Did you know that the eye for an eye law in the bible was actually created to stop people from hurting each other? The idea was to scare people into behaving because the exact same thing would be done back to them. Well, it didn’t work then, why should it work today?
Hi, My name is Rose-Marie and I have choosen to write about the death penalty. Can a modern society take somebodys life in the name of justice? 2/3 of the worlds countries have abolished the death penalty. 5 countries stands for almost 90% of all executions: China, Iran,Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the USA.
Capital punishment is often the subject of controversy and I´m planning to write about both sides of the coin. There are a lot of pros and cons. Some people who are for the death penalty argues that it saves both money and lives. The other side says that it is cheeper for the society with imprisonment for life.Supporters believe that it is deterrent to others and that it prevents any danger of re-offending. The other side shows that American states with capital punishment have higer crime rates than those without and that the danger of re-offending also is solved by imprisonment for life. The most important argument against the death penalty is the risk that innocent people get executed. I will write about how both sides argues around this.
In Sweden, the death penalty, was abolished 1910 and the majority of people are against it today.
24 comments:
Hi,
My name is Linnéa and I’m planning to write about the arguments for and against death penalty. You can say that death penalty saves lives, in the way that murderer that only gets a lifetime in prison, often fall back into crime and kill people again. That’s why death penalty is the only way that we can be totally sure that these people never get the chance to commit a crime again. You can also say that there’s no other way to get a murderer or a person that has committed a really cruel crime, the punishment he/she deserves, other than death. There’s no other way to create justice, if a person has killed an other one, than to take the murderess life. You can also argue that when a person has killed someone, he has automatically spent his own right to live. No one should be able to kill and torture someone and still get to keep his own life.
One the other hand you can say that through death penalty it’s a chance that a totally innocent person gets executed. And even if this only happens one time only, it’s one too many. And doesn’t everybody has the right to live? Doesn’t each life matters? It’s not humanly to kill, it’s barbaric. And we shouldn’t allow this barbaric thing like it was a normal thing to do, what kind of society would that be? It just doesn’t seem right to show that it’s wrong to kill through killing.
Here in Sweden we don’t have death penalty, but it has been a lot of debates about whether we should have it or not. What’s it like in Italy?
Hi,
My name Frida and I am going to write about the different arguments for and against the death penalty.
To many the death penalty is the only reasonable response for certain heinous crimes. It will satisfy the sense of vengeance/justice the effected people might feel. Many also feel that it will discourage people from killing and committing crimes that are punishable by death.
Once a convicted criminal is executed there is no chance for this person to break out of jail and kill or injure someone again. It could be claimed that it gives people a sense of security.
On the other hand the death penalty turns our society to an “an eye for an eye”-society where we lower the value of a human life for the purpose of revenge?
The without a doubt biggest arguments against the death penalty is that you might execute an innocent person. Evidence is not always 100% correct, and eye witnesses might lie for their own personal gain. So how can you be certain beyond all doubts that a person is guilty? What happens if the executed was found not guilty after being executed? You can’t bring back the dead.
In Sweden and the rest of EU the death penalty is abolished for all offences, it’s a requirement to join EU. In Sweden the majority of people are against Capital punishment/the death penalty and about 23% think that there are crimes that should lead to a death sentence*. How is it in Italy? Is it about the same or are people more or less against capital punishment?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Sweden
In response to Linnéa.
Murderer's that get a lifetime in prison never sit a lifetime, they get out and can kill people again, just as you said. So why not keep them in prison for a lifetime? Is death penalty really the best way to punish someone?
I have one thought. Wouldn't it be more of a punishment if the murderer got to spend his lifetime in prison? What I mean is that when you are dead you are not there anymore, you cannot feel or see the consequences of your crime. Maybe death penalty can be som kind of freedom too, you can do someone a "favor" by taking his or hers life. Then they do not have to think about what they did anymore.
I do not really know where I am going with this thought, and I have no conclusion. My aim was to share it with others and maybe get a comment back to see what you guys think.
And last but not least I think death penalty is wrong way to punish people. Just for the simple fact that they can be innocent.
In response to Frida
Hi Frida! This is Claudia. I think this topic is one of the most interesting among those that are on our blog, also because I have a clear idea on the matter.
I’m against the death penalty! Thinking that nowadays there are states (like even the high democratic and liberal USA) that still practice this kind of punishment make me angry.
The death penalty is wrong! Killing is wrong and the life is sacred. Anybody has the right to take somebody’s life: neither a person, nor the State. The death penalty is not useful at all! There isn’t any proof about its deterrent effects against serious crimes. Of course, the author of a crime must be punished and the State must assure the punishment; the State must also provide instruments to facilitate the re-education of those who are suffering a condemnation. I think this one is the only way to discourage future crimes, together with preventive measures and a good education given to children into schools in order to avoid the spread of criminality.
However, I don’t argue on the various aspects that could or not justify the death penalty. From my point of view, it’s not correct to face to this issue by discussing on, for example: the better method to carry out it; the right of juvenile or ill people to be exempt from it. I disagree also with the idea of those who support its abolition only by considering the risk to carry out this barbaric punishment against a victim of an injustice.
A bold step by international community was made on last December when it was approved a UN resolution establishing a global moratorium (not binding) of the execution of the death penalty. “This is a further evidence of trend towards ultimately abolishing the death penalty”, the UN Secretary General said. I hope this could become reality, also by trusting in the role of the new American administration on human rights.
As you know, Italy, like the rest of European states, doesn’t have the capital punishment. The first pre-Unitarian Italian state to stop it was the Grand Duchy of Tuscany (1786), who was influenced by the book by Cesare Beccaria “On crimes and Punishments” (1764), in which was demonstrated not only the injustice, but also the futility of death penalty. After the dictatorial period, the Italian Constitution (1948) cancelled the death penalty for all common military and civil crimes during peacetime. In 1994, it was eliminated also from military penal code (of course, by then, no execution had been carried out). Finally, in 2007 a constitutional amendment was adopted in order to ban it completely.
In the light of these important results, I think that any research shouldn’t be made about people’s thought on the matter. Even if I believe that most people wouldn’t express a position in its favour, however I think that urging them on this kind of subject could determinate impulsive and not well reasoned answers, by considering the angry feeling for the spread of serious crime in the society. This is the reason for which I do not give so much value to statistics in this issue.
Well, I’m concluding now. I’ve tried to explain my position that is absolutely against the death penalty. Now, if you want, you can explain yours.
In response to Claudia.
Hi, I'm also completely against capital punishment for many of the same reasons as you are. I don't feel like the state has the right to decide who lives and who dies, it lowers the value of the human life.If a person murdered someone does that give the state the right to kill that person? I feel like there is a form of double standards.
The an-eye-for-an-eye mentality that it creates frighten me in some ways, you stole my car I will steel your car, you killed my mother i'll kill you mother.No one wants the eye-for-an-eye punishment in other crimes, but when it comes to murder it's okay. How is that?
Then there's the fact that you might start to use it to lightly, crimes that are not ordinarily punished by death might be come. Since it's only a criminal, it doesn't really matter.
It is often the under defended that get sentenced to death, the ones that couldn't afford a well educated lawyer that will take the time to look at the case properly and do their best. Many of those who are sentenced to death are mentally ill or was abused as children. Do they not have the right to help that other people have? Of course they should be held accountable for what they have done, but do they not deserve to get the help they need?
I feel like I could go an and on about this, but I'll wrap it up for now.
In response to Therese and Linnéa...
I totally agree with you Therese, I think it should be a life-time in prison for a crime like murder. It is escaping from you punishment with death penalty. I read in a magazine about a woman who killed her children and then tried to kill herself but she didn't die. She was sentence to death and when they gave her the injection, she said "Thank you". This is wrong, this woman got what she wanted and not a punishment for her crime.
I agree with you in what you have written.
In response to Frida
You have well explained some other reasons that confirm that the death penalty is unacceptable. In any case, whatever is the point of view from which you argue on the matter, you can always test how the capital punishment is against all the fundamental principles that should govern a society. As you noticed, I think, for example, to the deeper and complexes defence that a trial for capital crimes requires and that should be assured equally to everyone, especially in this kind of trials; but there isn’t any guarantee about the respect for this principle one.
The list of the arguments against the death penalty could be infinite, but I think that one above all can be enough: the life is sacred and nobody has the right to take somebody’s life!
Hello
I'm Maria and I'm writing about the death penalty.
Death as a punishment has been a part of most human cultures for as long as we know and it is still prectised in many countries today. Those who are for the death penalty may argue that it is a just punishment in the sense of "an eye for an eye" (when a punishment for murder), that your life should be taken if you have taken someone elses life. It could also be regarded as a punishment preventing criminals from comitting the same crime again, and that it discourages other to comitt them. Some arguments say that the death penalty is the only way for a murdervictims relatives to get real closure and that the death penalty is actually cheaper for the community than keeping criminals in prison for a long time.
Those who oppose to the death penalty say that if we punish people for killing, it would be equally wrong to kill the murderer in turn. The death penalty is also an irreversible punishment, so once a person is killed there is no way to take it back should that person really be innocent. There is also the question of religion as many religions is opposed to killing.
In Sweden and most of western Europe the majority is against the death penalty and many believe it to be barbaric and inhumane, but in many countries such as USA, India, Japan, Pakistan and China it is still in use.
The debate still goes on whether we should seek justice by killing those who kill, or if we should refrain from taking peoples lives no matter what crime they have comitted
In response to Therese
I think you raise an interesting question. Maybe it would be more of a punishment for someone to spend their life in prison rather than be put to death, but in my opinion it shouldn't be about what is the worst punishment. I think punishment in general is a short-term solution, whether it is about preventing crime or just raising children. There is a reason why it is not called punishment (straff) in Sweden, but rather consequence (påföljd). The real goal should be to rehabilitate and look for long-term solutions. Scaring and intimidating people into doing what you want is not a good method according to me. Now, I can agree that some people can seem like a lost cause, and that they are past the point of rehabilitation, but I still think we need to keep our faith in people's goodness and their ability to change. Maybe that sounds naive, but to kill another human being should never be considered a solution.
My name is Frida Bæckström and I have chosen death penalty as my essay subject. Execution as legal punishment is practiced in many places, including three of the biggest democratic countries in the world. Death penalty is the subject of fiery discussions, and politicians debate whether or not it should still be used in modern times. In my essay I will present the pro- and con arguments and weigh them against each other.
Many argue that the death penalty puts a stop to terrible people who have done terrible things and are likely to do so again. Execution also works as justification for the people who have been affected and as an alarming example that hopefully will discourage people from committing crimes. Religion has a major part in the argumentative discussion about death penalty. Many people use the Bible as an argument that death penalty should continue to be executed. There are several places in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) where people a punished to death after committing ‘deadly sins’.
To most Swedes it’s pretty difficult to understand the thought of having capital punishment as a part of our modern society and it has not been legal in Sweden for almost a hundred years. The strongest argument against the death penalty is the fact that innocent people can be sentenced to death. Why should a court jury have the right to sentence a person to death when murder is a crime in every other context?
Hi! I think this is one of more interesting topics too. I can tell Swedish students that here in Italy dealth penalty topic has found a large room in public opinion. Our governement has been the promoter of a motion for the abolishing of dealth penalty all over the world, motion that, I think, it has been voted by O.N.U. a few months ago.
Like the majority of Italians, I also disagree with dealth penalty for different reasons. I think it's wrong to think that dealth penalty "saves lives". If someone commits a crime, he won't commit it again simply by remaining in prison for all the time established by law (for all life, as well). But a very important thing to underline is that prisons should offer much more rehabilitation than the current ones.
Listening to TV or radio about facts of very terrible crimes, a lot of people can think on first impact that the best penalty for these killers, murderers, etc. is the dealth one. But the justidge isn't made of emotions and revenges: in conclusion, I believe that dealth penalty is terrible like a crime.
Fabio
In response to Therese.
I totally agree with you. I think that death penalty is just a way for the murderer to get out of it. When the person is dead he/she can't think about the horrible things he/she have done. So I totally agree that death penalty can be in favor for the murderer. Therefore the best thing to do is to make 'a life time punishment' really a lifetime punishment! When someone gets lifetime in prison, he/she should be in prison for his/hers entire life! And that is a much bigger punishment then death.
So, the main thing that should be focus at is to make a lifetime punishment really a lifetime, not whether death penalty is a good thing or not. Cuz it's not.
I agree with you, death penalty shouldn't be used just for the simple fact that a totally innocent can be killed. When you think about that it's just crazy how people even consider death penalty as a good thing, and that it do excist in some countries.
I agree with you Maria, there must be other solutions to consider than death!
In respons to Maria.
It's not the worst punishment I'm trying for find, maybe I could have chosen other words. The point is just that death penalty can be a way to escape your own thoughts and guilt.
In response to Linnéa.
I totally agree with you. Death penalty is not a good thing I don't understand why it exists. But now it does and I believe, like you, that we have to focus on other ways to "punish" people; for example that a lifetime will be a lifetime. Maybe it don't have to be a lifetime in prison only sitting inside a cell, why not add some rehabilitation or others..
In response to Frida
Hi Frida… I would like to write something I think about this controversial topic that is the one associated with death penalty. I think, so as most part of people, that who commits crimes has to be punished and it’s important to commensurate the sentence with the crime which was committed. The sentence has to be strong so as to demotivate criminals to commit the same crime and other crimes again.
I live in this country where justice is living a very difficult period and it seems to be difficult to make people respecting laws. Politicians are the first to be involved with different kinds of crimes: relation with criminal associations, bribery and corruption, drug, and so on… In the last few years lots of crimes have been decriminalized or penalties connected with lots of crimes have been reduced. Members of criminal associations give orders also while they are serving time. People feel unsafe especially for those crimes, which are connected with immigration that seems to be completely out of control. But death penalty is not the right method to demotivate criminals to commit crimes; with death penalty justice replaces God in deciding about life and death of human beings and it becomes guilty of murder. I think that life sentence is the right sentence to punish these criminals for their crimes. People are often sentenced of death without due processes or without any process, without having the right to defend their own rights; people are sentenced of death for crimes which seem to be futile, for example women who have committed adultery… And also countries which are considered examples of democracy and progress, like lots of States in USA, sentence criminals of death. People often are condemned in name of God or of religion. Sometimes their guilt is not certain. An innocent sentenced of death? It’s better a guilty at large.
All this is terrible. In Italy we often speak and write about death penalty, which seems to be the unique really right penalty for atrocious crimes like paedophilia, brutal killing of innocent people… But it’s because government and justice are unable to give people answers, that is safety, certainty of penalty. Fear and insecurity make people become more aggressive and full of hate and anger; that is why the first step is to create a more equal and right society. Not an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but strong sentences: also if they will not demotivate criminals to commit crimes they are the essence of a society which wants to be defined “civil” and they are the only way to make how-to justice decrease.
In response to Linnéa and Therese:
Hi,
I totally agree with you! I think death-penalty isn’t the best way to punish criminals. I think too that a real life-time-imprisonment should be the best solution. They have time to think their through and hopefully turn their lives around to a new way of thinking, so they can help other life-scented prisoners to be better persons, so they can help others and so on. That would be the best of scenarios. (It would be like an American movie!) In real life maybe not so many would turn out to be good persons in the end…but you can always hope for it!
Every man has the right to live, I think. If you use the death-penalty as a punishment, it would be a risk of having an innocent person killed! /Kerstin
Hi,
as my initial idea would not fit within the structure of our assignment I have decided I will write on the pros and cons of the death penalty instead. However rather than looking at the general arguments relating to the death penalty I would like to consider one specific aspect of the death penalty and this is the death penalty for crimes committed as minors.
Can a child or teenager under 18 (and consequently unable to vote or be considered an adult in the eyes of the law), a person who has not yet matured fully either emotionally or phhysically and who commits murder or other violent crimes be sentenced to death, is there an ethical basis for this? What are the pros and cons for sentencing minors to death?
The one country which stands out in the execution of people for crimes committed as minors is the USA - since 1985 the US has executed more juvenile criminals than all other countries combined.
I think I would argue that the execution of minors is unethical and should be stopped. Of those countries that still have the death penalty the United States is almost alone in executing minors. The only other countries that execute juveniles are Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. The execution of minors is also in contravention of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the execution for crimes committed under the age of 18. Only the U.S. and Somalia have failed to ratify the convention guidelines.
Any comments would be appreciated.
G.
In response to Medeby/G
I fully agree with you that executing minors are unethical, and should be stopped.
At the same time I have to ask. If two people commit the exact same crime that is worthy of the death sentence. For the same reasons, the do it the same way and both were fully aware of what they were doing. The only difference between them is that one is an adult and one is a minor, should they be sentenced to different punishments?
//
Frida
Hi Frida,
Whether two identical murders one involving a minor and one with an adult should be sentenced in the same way is relatively clear in my view from a legal standpoint. Personally I am against the death penalty anyway but for minors there is the specific issue that legally you can only be tried for murder if you acted with full conscience and premeditation and had full knowledge of the consequences of your action. I.e. you planned the murder. If you are legally considered to be unable to act for yourself and to have your own legal personality (you will always have to be represented by a guardian or your parents) how can you be considered to have the mental capacity to commit premeditated murder?
There was a case in the US recently of an 8 year old who murdered his father and his father's friend with a shotgun. According to the news reports the boy had intended to shoot the men but was also in shock at the result. Should he be tried for murder and executed as a result of this? Can he be considered to have acted with his full capacities? Is there not a clear difference between this eight year old murdering two men and an offender in their 30's doing exactly the same thing with a shotgun? I would argue that neither should be sentenced to death as that would not improve anything but there are clearly more significant legal issues involved with the minor offender than with an adult with their full capacity committing premeditated murder.
The issue becomes more clouded when considering two offenders aged 17 and 20 for example but even so the cut off must be somewhere for reaching majority and it is currently at age 18 in many countries.
Greta
in response to Greta
I agree with what your saying, but I had to ask since a lot of people I know can't answer that question.
They're for adult death penalty but not for minors, but when confronted with the question they can't really make up their minds.
In response to Linnéa!
I'm Debora, I would like to express my opinion about this interesting topic!
We are lucky because in Italy we don’t have death penalty. I’m totally against it because nobody can have the right to kill a person even if he is a murder.
Here in Italy we have great trouble with justice and a lot of mistakes so it’s a little bit dangerous to allow death penalty in our country.
For example, a week ago a man was discovered to be innocent after 30 years spent in a jail.
It’s unbelievable, if there was death penalty in Italy this man would have died without committing a crime!
This is because I’m against death penalty! I often dream about stopping it in all over the world!
Debby
The main problem I have with the death penalty is that there is a possibility that a person is wrongfully sentenced. I admit that I sometimes I feel that certain criminals deserve death. But killing a person because he has committed murdered is quite contradictory. By doing so you inadvertently admit that killing a person is Wright in some circumstances. I think that a life in prison is enough the person that is a danger to the society is taken away so they can do no more harm. When it comes to mentally ill people I think that life in prison also should apply. Although they should be permitted treatment for their mental illness.
Hi all
My name is Malin Ambjörnsson and my topic is death penalty.
Death penalty is practiced in many places around the world, but some countries have abolished this form of punishment to human people. This debate whether you should use death penalty or not is still a very big issue for politicians around the world. I am going to write about this subject in my essay and look at the different arguments about this penalty.
Religion and death penalty are one of my questions and how they are related to each other.Which countries are still using death penalty and why?
For or against are my arguments about this punishment, pro or con this penalty? Here in Sweden most of us is in general against death penalty,I am going to study that question more in my essay,and that form of penalty don´t exist here.
Another thing I am going to write about is,which country was the first with death penalty?
In my essay Í will compare pro and con questions, but my personally opinion is that I am against death penalty, and why it´s because you could be innocent.In Italy are you more pro or more con? Feel free to comment. //Malin
In response to Fabio:
It’s interesting that you say that the subject of death penalty has found such a large room in public opinion in Italy. I don’t really agree with my fellow Swedes that it is the same in Sweden. Sure, the subject is sometimes discussed in classroom debates in schools and other ‘homish’ situations, but death penalty is not a frequently discussed subject in social and political contexts (not in my experience anyway). In general Sweden has very low sentences and lifetime in prison is extremely uncommon. Maybe that’s the reason why capital punishment seems so grotesque and barbarian to me… I simply can’t grasp the fact that it is still very much reality in some of the most modern and democratic countries in the world.
In response to Mari:
I think you’re absolutely right! We’re playing God by deciding who gets to live or die. Sometimes I think of all the things that are done in the name of God. If Jesus only knew… I mean he was the greatest anarchist and pacifist of all time. I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t get punished and looked up for the crimes the have done but sometimes it feels like countries like America should try to read the new testament as well as the old. ‘Turn the other cheek’ would have been a nice strategy when it comes to the Iraq war. Did you know that the eye for an eye law in the bible was actually created to stop people from hurting each other? The idea was to scare people into behaving because the exact same thing would be done back to them. Well, it didn’t work then, why should it work today?
/Frida
Hi,
My name is Rose-Marie and I have choosen to write about the death penalty. Can a modern society take somebodys life in the name of justice? 2/3 of the worlds countries have abolished the death penalty. 5 countries stands for almost 90% of all executions: China, Iran,Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the USA.
Capital punishment is often the subject of controversy and I´m planning to write about both sides of the coin. There are a lot of pros and cons. Some people who are for the death penalty argues that it saves both money and lives. The other side says that it is cheeper for the society with imprisonment for life.Supporters believe that it is deterrent to others and that it prevents any danger of re-offending. The other side shows that American states with capital punishment have higer crime rates than those without and that the danger of re-offending also is solved by imprisonment for life.
The most important argument against the death penalty is the risk that innocent people get executed. I will write about how both sides argues around this.
In Sweden, the death penalty, was abolished 1910 and the majority of people are against it today.
Post a Comment