Should all civilised societies abolish the death penalty? In our modern society, the laws for punishing criminals have evolved through the years. In Singapore, the death penalty is considered the heaviest punishment for the worst offences, in other words, the nightmare of all criminals. What is the definition of civilised societies? A civilised society is a highly developed and sophisticated society, with continuous intellectual and moral advancement. Being an advanced and humane society, Singapore fits the description aptly. In my opinion, not all civilised societies should abolish the death penalty.
All societies are not the same. Depending on which part of the world they are from, they differ according to differing conditions and traditions. Hence, the style of governance will also be different. Until today, the laws that the government has set for us have worked. The death penalty is the key to our falling crime rate. Due to our draconian laws and insistent stand on the death penalty for heinous crimes, Singapore is one of the most secure countries in the world. The death penalty effectively deters future criminals from committing crimes, as they may never get a second chance.
Furthermore, the notion of humane in the case of the death penalty is problematic. There are many viewpoints regarding this issue. The first type of death penalty subjects criminals to a life time behind bars. Many human rights activists argue that it is inhumane to curtail one's freedom till his dying breath. Moreover, it would be a waste of resources to provide food and necessities for the prisoners. Other types of death penalty include hanging, which is undoubtedly the most painful way of dying. Instead of using these methods to punish criminals, the government should consider more humane forms such as lethal injection, which is fast and painless. The death penalty as a form of punishment is justifiable, but the way it is executed can be improved.
In a democratic society similar to Singapore, the state has rights too. By being citizens, we inadvertently give up some of our rights. The government has to protect its citizens, and protection granted comes in the form of law and regulations. In a way, the death penalty actually protects law-abiding citizens by acting as a deterrent against crime. Usually, a person is sentenced to the death penalty when he or she commits crimes such as murder or drug trafficking. Such crimes are obviously a transgression against the rights of others. In order to protect the rights of society and uphold our national values of equality, the government has an obligation to intervene and address the situation. The death penalty ensures that dangerous criminals will be duly punished. The physical and mental pain of the death penalty is a strict but practical way to account of the loss of innocent citizens.
Since Singapore values every human life, we should not abolish the death penalty. The abolishing of the death penalty not only has a possibility of increasing the crime rate, but also signals a lessened regard for every victim's suffering, humiliation and personal integrity. Most importantly, it shows a lessened regard for the value of a victim's life. From the viewpoint of the victim's kin, they will not be satisfied with any punishment lighter than the death penalty. Exacting the highest penalty affirms the highest value of human life. A life for a life, an eye for an eye, the death penalty is fair even in a civilised society.
All societies are not the same. Depending on which part of the world they are from, they differ according to differing conditions and traditions. Hence, the style of governance will also be different. Until today, the laws that the government has set for us have worked. The death penalty is the key to our falling crime rate. Due to our draconian laws and insistent stand on the death penalty for heinous crimes, Singapore is one of the most secure countries in the world. The death penalty effectively deters future criminals from committing crimes, as they may never get a second chance.
Furthermore, the notion of humane in the case of the death penalty is problematic. There are many viewpoints regarding this issue. The first type of death penalty subjects criminals to a life time behind bars. Many human rights activists argue that it is inhumane to curtail one's freedom till his dying breath. Moreover, it would be a waste of resources to provide food and necessities for the prisoners. Other types of death penalty include hanging, which is undoubtedly the most painful way of dying. Instead of using these methods to punish criminals, the government should consider more humane forms such as lethal injection, which is fast and painless. The death penalty as a form of punishment is justifiable, but the way it is executed can be improved.
In a democratic society similar to Singapore, the state has rights too. By being citizens, we inadvertently give up some of our rights. The government has to protect its citizens, and protection granted comes in the form of law and regulations. In a way, the death penalty actually protects law-abiding citizens by acting as a deterrent against crime. Usually, a person is sentenced to the death penalty when he or she commits crimes such as murder or drug trafficking. Such crimes are obviously a transgression against the rights of others. In order to protect the rights of society and uphold our national values of equality, the government has an obligation to intervene and address the situation. The death penalty ensures that dangerous criminals will be duly punished. The physical and mental pain of the death penalty is a strict but practical way to account of the loss of innocent citizens.
Since Singapore values every human life, we should not abolish the death penalty. The abolishing of the death penalty not only has a possibility of increasing the crime rate, but also signals a lessened regard for every victim's suffering, humiliation and personal integrity. Most importantly, it shows a lessened regard for the value of a victim's life. From the viewpoint of the victim's kin, they will not be satisfied with any punishment lighter than the death penalty. Exacting the highest penalty affirms the highest value of human life. A life for a life, an eye for an eye, the death penalty is fair even in a civilised society.
I agree with your point, death penalties should be retained. Although the purpose of punishments is not for avenging the victim as you stated "an eye for an eye", I feel that sometimes death is required to stop perpertrators from continuing their crimes. However, I think that we must not impose death penalties for more minor crimes like robbery or Singapore would be regarded as a Draconian society.
ReplyDelete-Han Yang