Is a human depriving the life of another human an ethical, righteous act in the name of justice? Despite the official abolishment of death penalties have come to pass among most nations, some countries still perform death penalties against criminals legally. However, this is becoming a controversial issue among the world and many stands up to say it is against human morality and ethics, whilst some agree it is the appropriate method to deal serious criminals. But because of the constant development of the modernised views of human ethics today, the issue of death penalty is becoming a more of a weighty matter. The death penalty has been practiced for as long as civilisation first begun. Therefore setting a particular date of its beginning is impossible. Then why is the world today turning their backs on its long, historical retribution method?

Currently, a total of 58 nations actively practice capital punishment, whilst 96 nations having abolished it legally. Some of the countries that continues execution are Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq , Japan, Libya , Malaysia , North Korea, Singapore, Taiwan , Vietnam and USA. Surprisingly, even the top wealthiest countries like Japan, China and USA continue this practice in breach of human rights. International human rights organisation 'Amnesty International' is noted for its opposition to capital punishment and have commented concerning this issue, 'The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice.' They have revealed that capital punishment violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Also, their statistics disclose China alone had 1000+ executions, Iran 252+ and North Korea 60+ executions performed. Is this all really necessary? There are questions to ask ourselves to discuss this issue.

First is 'Is Death Sentence Moral and Just? Exempting whether or not the death sentence has a deterrent effect to lawbreakers, this is an ethically significant question for us to answer. It is up to no professionals or professors to answer this but us. Morals are principles and beliefs concerning right and wrong behavior. Is it right behavior to kill someone for killing another? There is indeed an old saying 'an eye for an eye' or 'a tooth for a tooth' but it may not be still relevant to the contemporary world. Realistically, we do not rape a rapist for raping someone nor do we injure someone back for injuring another person. The most fundamental human right is a right to their own life. It is most definitely undeniable that the killer had breached this basic right but retribution is not the 'moral' method. The death sentence is an emotionally incorrect, inappropriate method of vengeance to be materialised. Punishment by law and enforcement may be possible but punishment of their rights because they have made a sin is unethical. The correct punishment is not to repent one's life through death but to repent one's sin by rectifying their minds.

Secondly is 'Does Death Sentence Minimise Killing?'. Probably the death sentence was purely established in purpose of minimising further deaths. However the death sentence hasn't been much of a successful solution than the threat of a life sentence because outstanding change hasn't been observed. Regardless of the immolation of one's life, the outcome of a successful decrease in serious killing hasn't occurred. With no beneficial effect of a quiet police station nor a peaceful, safe social community, the purpose of killing a criminal is pointless and impractical. Many people believe capital punishment can perform as a deterrent or a hindrance to crime but it is unsuccessful and viably uncontrollable.

Thirdly is 'Do The Criminals Deserve To Die? Referred once again, which is better, serving punishment with a conclusion of death or repentance and suffering emotionally for their sin throughout their whole life? The fundamental concept lies whether or not a single person remorse for what they've done. A distressing, horrifying fact is that one out of eight convictions made by the juries are incorrect. Black people are more likely to be incorrectly convicted and more chances if the victim is a white. Humans have an inevitable tendency to have stereotypes that put innocent humans guilty and guilty humans innocent. This also connects with the fact that one out of ten convictions could be wrong and carried out with wrongful convictions. Unless we are all incarnations of God, we cannot be 100% confident to know whether or not a human is guilty. Unfortunately, countless executions have been later vindicated incorrect and many innocent lives have been regrettably emaciated.

The supporters of the death sentence discuss about the financial burdens the nation carries for the life of a criminal imprisoned - water, food, shelter, clothes and etcetera. The expenses are paid by everyone's tax and the supporters believe the idea of this is ludicrous. The fact everyone is paying for a criminal is seemingly very ridiculous and irritating. However, putting a person to death, with all the legal challenges and court battles, is far more expensive than housing a prisoner for the rest of his/her life.

As I conclude, I oppose capital punishment towards the criminals. Everybody is given a life equally and they should be given deaths equally too, according to their personal decisions. The bereavement of any deaths, whether the human is sinful or sinless, is equally tragic. It is imperative for the remaining nations that perform the capital punishment to abolish it for a further step towards the advancement of human rights and future generations. The concept of punishment means to suffer for repentance and this shouldn't altered or twisted for any social, political or financial profit or benefit in any way.

please check and comment your thoughts about my essay
i feel it is incomplete and unconvincing ;(