Hi

Please review my essay


Is Death Penalty Effective?

Death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is normally considered for serious offences such as mass murder, child rape, and terrorism, among others. Hundred and forty six countries have abolished it in law or practice, but, surprisingly, nearly sixty per cent of the world’s population lives in the countries that have retained it. Its proponents argue that most heinous crimes deserve capital punishment. They contend that it would act as an effective deterrent. On the other hand, the opponents claim that death sentence violates the most fundamental human right, the right to life. They assert that there is no evidence that it will be a deterrent.

Those who support death penalty assert that punishment should fit the crime. Their contention is brutal crimes deserve tough punishments, and if it is a mass murder or child rape, the offenders should be punished with death. If the law punishes all crimes equally, it neither makes offenders realise the gravity of their act nor assuages the distress of the victims. Further, when the law does not act tough on heinous crimes, it emboldens habitual offenders and loses the trust of law-abiding citizens.

Proponents believe death penalty can be an effective deterrent. When perpetrators of horrific crimes are executed, fear of death can deter potential criminals. But, the situation today is capital punishment is not in law or practice in 146 countries, but three decades ago, only sixteen of them had abolished it. Those who campaign for death sentence assert that this has emboldened criminals. This is evident from the consistent rise in gruesome crimes universally especially in the last twenty years.

On the contrary, the opponents argue that death sentence violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Right to life. They contend that in some countries mentally and intellectually challenged people are sentenced to death following unfair trails. Further, people on death row spend many years, sometimes even longer than a decade, uncertain whether they will live the next moment or see their family members before they die.

Those who oppose death penalty argue deterrence should not be a reason to support it as there is no reliable evidence. Criminologists and others have been studying the changes in the murder rate against the likelihood of the murderers being executed. None of these studies have arrived at definite conclusions. Thus, opponents claim the argument that death sentence will be a deterrent is a fallacy and fails to take into account the role of social, economic, and cultural factors in the crime.

In conclusion, it is evident that there are viewpoints supporting and opposing death penalty. While both sides believe their arguments are reasonable, the decision to allow or end it should be based on extensive research.

Is the Death Penalty Effective?

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is normally considered for serious offences such as first degree murder, mass murder, child rape, and terrorism, among others. One hundred and forty-six countries have abolished it in law or practice, but, surprisingly, nearly sixty per cent of the world’s population lives in the countries that have retained it. Its proponents argue that most heinous crimes deserve capital punishment. They contend that it would act as an effective deterrent. On the other hand, the opponents claim that death sentence violates the most fundamental human right, the right to life. They assert that there is no evidence that it will be a deterrent.

Those who support the death penalty assert that punishment should fit the crime. Their contention is that brutal crimes deserve tough punishments, and if it is a mass murder or child rape, the offenders should be punished with death. If the law punishes all crimes equally, it neither makes the offenders realise the gravity of their act nor assuages the distress of the victims. Further, when the law is does not act tough on heinous crimes, it emboldens habitual offenders and loses the trust of law-abiding citizens.

Moreover, proponents believe the death penalty can be an effective deterrent. When perpetrators of horrific crimes are executed, fear of death can deter potential criminals. But, the situation today is that capital punishment is not in law or practiced in 146 countries, an increase from but three decades ago when only sixteen nations of them had abolished it. Those who campaign for the death sentence assert that this has emboldened criminals. This is evident from the consistent rise in gruesome violent crimes universally especially in the last twenty years.

On the contrary, the opponents argue that the death sentence violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Right to life. They contend that in some countries mentally and intellectually challenged people are sentenced to death following unfair trials. trails. Further, people on death row spend many years, sometimes even longer than a decade, uncertain whether they will live the next moment or see their family members before they die.

Those who oppose death penalty argue that deterrence should not be a reason to support it as there is no reliable evidence. Criminologists and others have been studying the changes in the murder rate against the likelihood of the murderers being executed. None of these studies have arrived at definite conclusions. Thus, opponents claim the argument that the death sentence will be a deterrent is a fallacy and fails to take into account the role of social, economic, and cultural factors in the crime.

In conclusion, it is evident that there are viewpoints supporting and opposing death penalty. While both sides believe their arguments are reasonable, the decision to allow or end it should be based on extensive research.

Thank you very much, AlpheccaStars.



I am facing a problems with the supporting sentences in paragraphs in argumentative essays.

In argumentative essays, we usually express the views of those support and oppose an idea.


I express that either proponents or opponents are of a particular opinion in the topic sentence. Even the ideas contained in the supporting sentences are theirs only, so do I need to use " they argue", "they add" before every sentence?

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
vsureshI am facing a problem
vsureshdo I need to use " they argue", "they add" before every sentence?

No, that would not be a good idea. Set the context for the paragraph.


Proponents of the death penalty have two fundamental arguments. First is the ancient tradition of "an eye for an eye." This goes back to the ancient law code of Hammurabi, which listed punishments for many possible crimes. For example, if you kill your neighbor's ox, you have to give him a replacement ox. If you cause him physical injury, you will be subjected to a similar injury. This has evolved to the edict, "let the punishment fit the crime." In present day law codes, the more severe the crime, the higher the penalty and the ultimate penalty is death. Second is the idea of deterrents. ...

AlpheccaStarsNo, that would not be a good idea. Set the context for the paragraph.
Proponents of the death penalty have two fundamental arguments. First is the ancient tradition of "an eye for an eye." This goes back to the ancient law code of Hammurabi, which listed punishments for many possible crimes. For example, if you kill your neighbor's ox, you have to give him a replacement ox. If you cause him physical injury, you will be subjected to a similar injury. This has evolved to the edict, "let the punishment fit the crime." In present day law codes, the more severe the crime, the higher the penalty and the ultimate penalty is death. Second is the idea of deterrents. ...

I got it. Thank you very much


Suresh

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.