Without capital punishment (the death penalty), our lives are less secure, and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Read the original writing alongside its overall assessment. Open a full review for criterion explanations and sentence-level feedback.
Estimated band5.5
5.5
5.0
5.5
5.0
Response 01
246 words
In Recent years, If we see some crimes. even death penality is not sufficient to punish the criminals of those crimes like Nirbhaya case in India, Terrorist attack on Taj hotel in India and famous attack on world trade towers. As i already mentioned inherited death will be there in all living creatures in this universe. We can user this fear of death to prevent crime in society by installing the fear in peoples mind by hanging the criminal in the crime like nirbhaya case in India.
If some ask the question, How far it is correct to kill a person with the name of punishment, then deffinetly my answer is "yes it is correct" Because we have to see the intention behind killing the person. A soldier killing an enemy is not at all a crime but a person who was killed other person for the sake of money is deffinetly a crime. Similarly killing a person who was killed other person is to prevent the crime and to make justice to the victim. Capital punishment is not a new concept to us, It is there from our ancient times.
So i can conclude my argument as capital punishment is essential to controle violance in society along with efforts to chnage the idiology and way of thinking of criminals .There should be strong system not to misuse the capital punishment,other wise it may cause furthermore violence in society instead of decrease violence in society.
Estimated band6.0
6.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
Response 02
369 words
Punishment in any form, when it is given to the offenders, must bring modification in behaviour. So, In the absence of the death sentence, human beings’ lives are at risk, and it can escalate brutality. So, it is considered that execution is indispensable in order to curb ferocity in society. I completely agree with the statement because it is a must to maintain law and order in society. Moreover, rebuilding the faith of people in a government makes it necessary to execute criminals.
First off, if criminals do not get punished for their crimes, then people feel insecure. Because they think offenders can harm them as well. So, it is essential to control the activities of the guilty people and deter violence in society. In this way, law and order can be maintained. Criminals will think twice before committing any abdominal activity. Resultantly, people would have a secure life. So, for the smooth running of governmental activities, it is indispensable to give the death penalty to criminals. However, it must be given by seeing the severity of the crime. For instance, many minor girls were raped and murdered. Thus, innocent children lose their lives without any fault, and those who survive confront psychological trauma. So, here in such cases, a death warrant is mandatory.
Moving further, Now, people have lost their faith in government. They consider that the government is doing nothing and culprits that free on bail. So, to rebuild the trust of the masses, it is compulsory to punish criminals. Many times, it has been shown that people do not get justice even after so many years. They believe that justice delay means justice denied. So, it is a must for rulers to get the trust of individuals; otherwise, people would have no other alternative but to migrate overseas for their safety. So, it is a stigma on the fair name of any country. Consequently, any government will lose its reputation.
To conclude, Thus capital punishment is essential to maintain law and order and deter people from committing criminal activities. Only then people can lead a secure life. Moreover, individuals would trust their government, and they will be ready to contribute to the betterment of their nation.
Estimated band6.5
6.5
6.0
6.5
6.0
Response 03
293 words
Before talking about the essential role of death penalty, you have to think about the meaning, and the purpose, of any kind of punishment. If you consider that the purpose is to prevent the guilty from being nasty again, you can be seduced by an argumentation in favour of the suppression of capital punishment. But you have to think about another aspect of the problem: a punishment is also useful to impress people, to make them fear the law. In fact, let's take the example of a young misfit, which has grown in a violent atmosphere, influenced by older delinquents, etc ... He lives in the streets, he's got no aim but to survive. This is the kind of person who could possibly kill someone for money, or even for fun ... Why would he fear prison? Life would be easier for him there. In addition, in many cases, when you behave normally, you can benefit from penalty reductions. This young misfit needs to be impressed, he needs to know that the law is a frontier. When you cross it, you can lose your life. That is why capital punishment helps keeping a distance between robbery and murder. If you abolish it, you suppress the difference between these two types of crime, which are completely different.
But there is also a limit to define: even if death penalty is unavoidable, it would be a crime to apply it to inadequate cases. If there is no premeditation or past facts which can justify such a punishment, it is far too strict to apply death penalty. That is why the lawmakers have to establish precisely the context in which capital punishment car be pronounced. That is the price to pay to limit violence without using excessive violence.
Estimated band6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.0
Response 04
322 words
With rising violence and ghost gun availability, normal people are more prone to danger now than ever. The whole judicial process consumes a lot of time and effort to punish the guilty. Furthermore, the lighter penalities fail to dither the culprit from repeating the crime placing the public in danger. I partially agree that capital punishment is needed to control violence and will try to explain the same below.
Many criminals repeat their offending behavioural pattern as soon as they come out of the prison after serving the sentence as prison fails to bring any change in their basic nature. Plenty of criminals jailed in sexual assualt cases and robbery continue such behaviour once they are out again. Many racists and terrorists with extreme nature also follow the similar kind of pursuit. Also ghost guns without serial numbers and unexcepted attacks inspired from online videos mak it difficult to guard against vulnerable victims. capital punishment thus sounds good to deter offenders depending on the gravity of the situation as such people are too risky to be left out in to the society again.
Nevertheless, awarding a death penalty to criminals cannot alone change their behaviour as observed in ISIS follwers who are prepared to die in their own attacks. Thus, death sentence cannot be a solution that reduces the crimes and secures public. Also, it assumes that perpetrators can never change rejecting the basic notion behind the punishment and legal process. Death is too severe and cannot be reversed in terms of penalty.
Thus, capital punishment fails to address the cause of concern in reducing the crime rate but it is imperative in few cases of extremely grave crimes. Just like how one shoe doesn't fit every foot, one punishment cannot address all the uprising violence in the society alone. It surely does apply to few scenarios and some other measures are to be taken to address the elephant in the room.
Estimated band7.0
6.5
7.0
7.0
7.0
Response 05
270 words
In a bid for additional security, controversy has marred whether to issue capital punishment or not. Experts and concerned citizens are divided over its implementation and if it actually deters crimes. I am of the opinion that death penalties are necessary to maintain a safe environment.
To start with, capital punishment has always been used as a method to deter crime, even before democracies existed. In monarchies, they were extensively used, and crimes were reduced partly because of the fear of being awarded the death penalty. In recent times, capital punishments, like in the USA and Taiwan, have been awarded for fending off criminals and maintaining a safe environment for the local people.
Moreover, death penalties should be awarded in extreme scenarios and should be used sparingly. People are innately afraid of death. Hence capital punishments act as a good deterrent against crime. It also helps the local police, acts as a measure to ensure that re-offending doesn’t take place, curtails retribution, and makes lives feel safer at the end of the day.
In addition to that, capital punishments reduce crimes, but an argument can be made for pleading human decency for the accused, as a democracy values all lives equally. Death penalties also set a wrong precedent for the people as those in power have misused them. All in all, death penalties need to be used sparingly and in extreme scenarios but should not be discarded altogether.
In conclusion, the topic of capital punishment is debatable and has strong views from either side. I feel it is a necessary evil that contributes to maintaining law and order in society.
