Could you please check my essay for errors?

Forums: English, Grammar, Essay
Email this Topic • Print this Page

What are two sides of the death penalty? Is it a cruel murder or just punishment? Can it be deterrent to crime?

Death penalty will always be a controversial topic, nobody can be sure about what to think about it because between our rational thinking and religious we believe in there is a big difference. Dual nature of death penalty make it a common topic of political and public debates over many years in every country.
From one side death penalty is an adequate punishment for some kind of crimes. Serial killers, murderers of little kids or terrorists who caused death of dozens of humans deserve in our eyes for the biggest punishment. All life in jail doesn’t seem to be an adequate punishment for such a crimes. Especially when criminal doesn’t even regret his crimes. Researches of many psychologist show that part of serial killers, for example, are proud for what they have done and they would do that again if they would go out from prison. When there is no chance to make from murderer a better person and there is no doubt he is guilty, death penalty is right and theoretically killing a murderer should be justified.
Nevertheless, conscience and sense of morality of human aren’t so easy to get along with killing other human even if everything says he deserved that. The problem of second side of death penalty lies inside us. Almost everyone believe in some religion which used to say about forgiveness and giving sinners another chance to make their life better. Death penalty is something what religion cannot accept. We, us good humans are more likely to don’t use too radical method of punishment and we deterrent it to a crime. Although effects of death penalty feels all community in country where it’s allowed, the most of bad effects focus on these people who are the most involved in punishing, judges and executioners. Especially for the second group a border between justified killing of a criminal and murderer of innocent human can disappear. It’s not a normal, usual profession, it takes peace from life of executioner, lies as a shadow on their consciences and can make from them insensitive people for others suffering.
It is hard to create a balance between an obvious right of death penalty in some specific cases and our religious beliefs. Our goodness and clemency argue with our willing for justify. Murderers are still humans, deciding to allow kill them in the name of justice makes us more similar to these criminals. Because of two different sides of death penalty it takes time to develop an individual opinion without any doubts of its rightness.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 761 • Replies: 9

No top replies

@wicherek,

These are my suggestions.
del =delete = leave out a word or letter from your version

wicherek wrote:

What are two sides of the death penalty? Is it a cruel murder or just punishment? Can it be deterrent to crime?

The death penalty will always be a controversial topic. Nobody can be sure about what to think about it because between our rational thinking and our religious thinking we believe delete there is a big difference. The dual nature of the death penalty makes it a common perennial and universal topic for political and public debate.
From one side the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for some kind of crimes. Serial killers, murderers of children or terrorists who caused death of dozens of humans deserve it in our eyes because it is the maximum punishment. To spend the rest of life in jail doesn’t seem to be an adequate punishment for such del crimes, especially when a criminal doesn’t even regret his crimes. Extensive psychological research shows that some serial killers, for example, are proud for what they have done and they would do it again if they were released from prison. When there is no chance for reform, and there is no doubt he is guilty, the death penalty seems right and theoretically killing a murderer would be justified.
Nevertheless, conscience or a human sense of morality seem at odds with killing another human even if it overwhelmingly seems he might deserve it. This secondary problem of the death penalty lies within us. Almost everyone believes in some religion which has something to say about "forgiveness" and giving "sinners" another chance to make their life better. The death penalty is something that some aspects of religions reject. We, as "good humans" are less likely to del use too radical method of punishment as a deterrent to a crime. Although the effects of death penalty apply to all the community in which it is allowed, its major detrimental effects apply to those people who are the most involved in the sentencing process, such as judges and executioners. Especially for the second group a boundary between justified killing of a criminal, and the murder of an innocent human can disappear. It’s not a normal, usual profession. It can disrupt the life of an executioner, by lurking as a shadow on his conscience and can make del him insensitive to the suffering of others
It is hard to strike a balance between the social justification for the death penalty in del specific cases and our religious beliefs. Our common decency argues with our desire for justice. Murderers are still humans. The act of del killing them in the name of justice, can make us seem no better than the criminal himself. Because of these two different sides to the death penalty, it takes time to develop an individual opinion free from doubt regarding its correctness.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

These are my suggestions.
del =delete = leave out a word or letter from your version
wicherek wrote:

What are two sides of the death penalty? Is it a cruel murder or just punishment? Can it be deterrent to crime?

The death penalty will always be a controversial topic. Nobody can be sure about what to think about it because between our rational thinking and our religious thinking we believe delete there is a big difference. The dual nature of the death penalty makes it a common perennial and universal topic for political and public debate.

From one side the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for some kind of crimes. The death penalty avenges the victim. Serial killers, murderers of children or terrorists who caused death of dozens of humans deserve it in our eyes because it is the maximum punishment. To spend the rest of his life in jail doesn’t seem to be an adequate punishment for such del crimes, especially when a criminal doesn’t even regret his crimes. Extensive psychological research shows that some serial killers, DELETE are proud OF what they have done and they WILL recidivate if they are ` released from prison. When there is no chance for reform, and there is no doubt he is guilty, the death penalty seems right and theoretically killing a murderer would be justified.

Nevertheless, conscience or a human sense of morality seem at odds with killing another human even if it overwhelmingly seems he deserves it. This secondary problem of the death penalty lies within us. Almost everyone believes in some religion which has something to say about "forgiveness" and giving "sinners" another chance to make their life better. The death penalty is something that some DELETE ` religions reject. We, as "good humans" are less likely to del use too radical method of punishment as a deterrent to a crime. Although the effects of death penalty apply to all the community in which it is allowed, its major detrimental effects apply to those people who are the most involved in the sentencing process, such as judges and executioners. Especially for the second group a boundary between justified killing of a criminal, and the murder of an innocent human can disappear. It’s not a normal, usual profession. It can disrupt the life of an executioner, by lurking as a shadow on his conscience and can make del him insensitive to the suffering of others
It is hard to strike a balance between the social justification for the death penalty in del specific cases and our religious beliefs. Our common decency argues with our desire for justice. Murderers are still humans. The act of del killing them in the name of justice, can make us seem no better than the criminal himself. Because of these two different sides to the death penalty, it takes time to develop an individual opinion free from doubt regarding its correctness.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Yes. I can agree with your modifications except perhaps for your choice of phrase "avenges the victim". The victim is dead and cannot be avenged. It may be that the his loved ones are avenged or that society as a whole is avenged, but either way it may be moving too far away from the OP intended meaning.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Yes. I can agree with your modifications

I 'm pleased that u do.
I feared that u might resent my interference.
I anticipated a very possible indignant attack,
but I deemed the matter at hand to be trivial.

fresco wrote:

except perhaps for your choice of phrase "avenges the victim". The victim is dead and cannot be avenged. It may be that the his loved ones are avenged or that society as a whole is avenged, but either way it may be moving too far away from the OP intended meaning.

I respectfully disagree.
Let us suppose that a malefactor inflicts a horrible and fatal injury upon me.
As I decline in life and consciousness, I take out a gun
and I try to get even by perforating him, but as I collapse, I fail to get even and I perish.

My friend witnesses these events.
He can get even for me by killing my attacker;
definitionally, by so doing, he avenges me.
The bad guy is no longer better off than I was because
(as the result of my friend 's vengeance) he is equally as dead as me.

I don t know of a conceptual distinction
that negates successful vengeance for decedent in these circumstances.

I remain in doubt qua the elements of your rationale to the contrary.
Perhaps u will explain.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

My view is that not everybody (including perhaps the originator of the thread) agrees with the concept of "revenge". The Christian ethic of "turning the other cheek" or "forgiving your enemy" epitomizes that point whatever you or I may think.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

My view is that not everybody (including perhaps the originator of the thread)
agrees with the concept of "revenge".

I agree that there might be someone, somewhere who
does not agree with revenge.

fresco wrote:

The Christian ethic of "turning the other cheek" or "forgiving your enemy" epitomizes
that point whatever you or I may think.

However that may be,
unless I mis-understood your earlier post,
u sought to make the point that it was IMPOSSIBLE
to avenge a victim IF he were deceased. I disputed that point of vu
and I hoped that u 'd elucidate the rationale of your opinion on that point.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Rationale:
Revenge involves experience/feeling , which by definition the dead don't have !

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Rationale:
Revenge involves experience/feeling,
which by definition the dead don't have !

Thank u. I think I see what u mean,
tho I understood the concept to have a different definition, to wit: GETTING EVEN,
regardless of the victim's emotions,
such that a victim (by clever preparation beforehand)
might succeed in avenging himself after his demise, e.g.
by arranging his Will along vindictive lines.

Additionally, I deny that the victim is really dead,
tho his human body molts off and is no longer functional.

I have been outside of my human body enuf times already
to know that I don t need it for me to LIVE. It does come in
handy tho; its good for eating.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Additionally, I deny that the victim is really dead

Steady on ! This guy has enough trouble with English. We don't want to saddle him with metaphysical conundrums as well do we ? Very Happy

0 Replies

Could you please check my essay for errors?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know