Death sentence is right ! or not?

Recently, there was a very hot topic in Taiwan which was a disturbance about baning death penalty or not. How did you think about this problem?



De jure, the prisoner who was be convicted of a death sentence should be punish, but did it really need? Why did so many country start to consider the cessation of the death penalty? Did you think it by yourself before? or did you just think the idea that "the person who killed another one should pay for it", didn't you?

Before the implication, we should figure out why we should set law. As we all know, the targets of our setting law are because of our protecting good people from the anti-social people and decreasing the crime rate. However, the punishments are not no limitary. We mean it need to fit the crime. It cannot be large or less. It means, for example, the petty thief must get "small" punishment if any, instead of being forcibly retained until we may be comfortably certain the guy can be released and no longer offer offense. Big crimes are convicted of serve punishments, and small crimes get a minor punishments. In addition, what is the central idea of legislation? For instance, there is an idea that the goal of penalty is for returning to the state before crime. The other example against the above one is for letting the punishment as a deterrence.

If we agree the first idea, there is nothing new. But, this is a little wired; did we really get back to the original state? I don't think so. All I can see is killer should pay for it and the life is lose anymore, isn't it? And so, this should be called like vengeance not return.

If we agree the first idea, dose it mean that death is the only penalty for deterrence? I don't think so, too. In fact, we have statistical data to tell us this is wrong! Must of the reason are mental problems. Unfortunately, we still don't will know how those aberrant convict though.

In my opinion, I don't consent that the death sentence should be executed; nevertheless, I don't consent the reason why we don't executed is because of human rights, too. I stand at the side benefiting the humankind's development. It means the two things. First of all, the decreasing crime rate is necessary, and the other is the financial argument.

If we keep those flagrant killer alive, they are very good material for experiment to verify why human can commit so terrible events. When the psychologist find out what happened, we can base on those theorem to educate people to be distant from severe crime. In an ideal, we might lower the crime rate. From the financial aspect, there was a statistical number by Florida prisons that the cost that we took care of a condemned person is three times of the cost we took care of a common prisoner.

I don't say death penalty contradict to the sense "Do not kill people!", and I don't discuss this issue by the human rights. I consider the benefit, and it still lead to stop kill. Although, I don't think the death sentence can be canceled right now. But, as a summarization, I hope we can abrogate DEATH in the long run since DEATH is not the only solution and not the best solution.