The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder. Do you agree?

Death Penalty is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences according to Wikipedia.

The different types of death penalties are electric chair, hanging, lethal injection, firing squad and gas chamber, etc. These punishments are being used on murderers, drug traffickers, terrorists and people who try to threaten the national security.

Compared to the past, I do not think that capital punishments are more humane. In my opinion, it is just a longer route to death and to torture the criminal more. Back to the topic, I think that death penalty is a deterrent rather than a murder.

Death penalty is a deterrent warning to others, thus preventing repeat offences. It also sets an example of the felon. In the case of the australian drug trafficker who was sentenced last year, the whole of australia protested against the act of Singapore Government. They thought it was rather inhumane to give him the death penalty just because he was a drug trafficker. However, I feel that it is rather a good warning to others that drug trafficking is a straight death sentence, no matter who you are. Death penalty also brings justice for the victim and his family for example the murder of Huang Na. Moreover, it assures public that the felon no longer poses a threat to the society. This applies to terrorists whose have disrupted peace of country, creating fear in the citizens. Thus, preserving national security. In a country's economic point of view, it is better to execute the prisoner than to keep him in life incarceration. People will be complaining that the crinimal is living off their hard-earned money.

On the other hand, death penalty can be a murder too. Although death penalty suggests the existence of law and justice, I feel that death penalties should be considered by cases. A person who is once a drug trafficker does not mean that he will forever be one. I think that he should not be blacklisted for life. Two wrongs do not make one right, I feel that criminals should be given a second chance before giving him the death penalty such as counselling the criminal.
Death penalties should not be used to punish criminals with mental instability. No doubt they took innocent lives or disrupt the order of society, we should look at the motives behind the crime. If the crime is convicted on purpose, I will definitely support the death penalty.

The US university gunman, Cho Seung-Hui should not be sentenced to death if he was still alive. He committed the crime because of the humiliation he got from the rich and discrimination from the whites. As time passed, his mental condition becomes unstable and suffers from depression. He should be given a chance to change his mindset.

Death should be quick and less suffering, however modern methods of execution are definitely defying it. Thus, I think that death penalty is a murder to some extent which is irreversible. Those who are innocent might also become scapegoats. Shouldn't we be finding out the truth first before doing anything that might cost an innocent life?

In conclusion, I feel that death penalty should only be used when the criminal committed the crime on purpose. However, the question of whether he is mentally unsound is another area that we should focus on. Death penalty is tricky, should a person who commited a capital crime to be sentenced or should he not? Government practice death penalties just to protect the nation's security while death penalty might not be the ultimate solution to all crimes.

Everything has two sides to it, therefore we should look at these two perspectives before we can decide on anything.