How to bring violent criminals to justice has always become a contentious debate. While some call for capital punishment should be implemented, others claim that life-long imprisonment is a better option. I support the latter view since the death penalty itself is an unethical way of execution.
There are understandable reasons why people demand the death penalty for severe forms of crime. The primary reason could be to provide the victims, or their families with emotional retaliation. For instance, if a person found guilty of calculated murder is sentenced to death, this gives comfort to the suffering side as the punishment is of equal weight to the criminal activity. Moreover, such harsh verdicts may send a strong signal to other criminals of the consequences, significantly reducing the potential incidences of similar effects.
Nevertheless, I disagree with the implementation of the death penalty since it violates moral values. Killing a person for their wrongdoings shows that the authority itself practices unacceptable activities, which undermines the morale of the society. If the executed criminal is acquitted after a certain period, there is no way of lifting the punishment. In contrast, we have witnessed many instances in which a criminal are released after a long serve and have been compensated for their suffering once they are found innocent. With the death penalty, correcting such legal mistakes is impossible. Finally, those serving lifelong imprisonment can be exploited in labor services, contributing to the development of society.
In conclusion, although the death penalty is thought by some to be the best punishment for a severe felony, I believe it is inappropriate morally. Instead, using life imprisonment may be a fair alternative, which makes it possible to undo legal mistakes and to exploit the criminals for the betterment of society.