CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
One of the most controversial topics of the world that even substantially
effects the international relations of Turkey is capital punishment which
is the infliction of the death penalty on persons convicted of certain
crimes. There are basically two groups of people, abolitionists who are
opposed to capital punishment and the other group retentionists. For
the abolitionists, the main reason they are opposed to the death penalty
is that it is morally wrong and it is irrevocable and
in case of a mistake, the executed prisoner cannot be given another chance
and besides they believe that the criminal can be
used for restitution to the victim's family. In spite of all
this capital punisment is a very essential means of criminal punishment
because our country does not rich enough to feed those wicked people
all his life and the government must protect the society
from those dangerous criminals.
The abolishonists argue that of capital punishment being a tragic
loss of human life, Yes, it is certainly morally wrong to kill a brutal
murderer and it is morally right to kill innocent person
people barbaricly. Murdering innocent cannot be considered as humanic
so it is not a tragic loss of human life but a fortunate loss of
a beast life. It is easy to criticise outside but can you put
yourselves in the shoes of victims relatives can you feel the sorrow
in their bleeding hearts and can you get rid of the pressure
of feeling of revenge that has penetrated in every single cell
of your body. And also who has right to say that this is right and
this is wrong who can define exactly what is good or bad we all live
in a society with ceartain rules that must be obeyed and otherwise
disorder will takeplace harmony of our lives and, what
is the origin of our social code religions. I am certainy in
favor of laicism but what would you resort if there was
No strict scientific solution for a problem." The state not only
had an obligation to
Maintain order and obedience to the law but also to avange the blasphemy
inherent in crimanal activity. It was the divine authority of civil
government that permited rules the exclusive right to take
life. And it was human depravity that made suvh actions necessary".
Well if thinking in terms of feelings which every living
creature who are classified as human have seemed to be to prejudical
and exaggerated then let me consider the second point of view
that rationally. We are living in a country where there are millions
of people classified as poor and thousands of people who are starving and
in need of a “somun” of bread and in such a case does a
Rational government spend his budget for feeding poor, educating
their children and by this means prevent them becoming potential
criminals for the society ? or waste it for a feeding a sinful, hated
person and even squander more money trying to make him/her a
good citizen? If this is not Turkey
the second choice it could be true on rational gounds . One of the
most well known examples of the criminal contributing to the betterment
of society is the case of Leopold and Loeb. Leopold and Loeb were nineteen
years old when they committed "The Crime of the Century." In 1924 they
kidnapped and murdered a fourteen year old boy just to see what it was
like. They were both spared the death penalty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Together, their accomplishments include working at hospitals, teaching
illiterates to read, creating a correspondence school, making significant
developments in the World War II Malaria Project and writing a grammar
book. "An inestimable amount of people were directly helped by Leopold
and Loeb; both of them making a conscious commitment to atone by serving
others" (Horwitz 109). But this is certainly an exeption and it occurred
U.S.A not in Turkey.
Trying to be one of the most civilized contries like U.S.A is every
patriot person’s aim but spending the Budged for improving the general
wealth of the country is certainly much prior to spending it for a criminal
sentenced to death penalty who could serve the socity.
A prisoner discovered to be blameless can be freed; but
neither release nor compensation is possible for a corpse. This is
a good point but what about sentencing Abdullah Ocalan to life imprisonment
and then after a while watching him escape the prison and massacre another
30000 thousand innocent people. There is a possibility of a prisoner
to be blameless but there is also the another possibility of
criminal to escape and do the same thing again. So again even there could
be a little possibility of excacuting innocents for goodness of general
the death penalty is necessary for
our country.
Works Cited
Horwitz, Elinor Lander. Capital Punishment U.S.A. New York: J. B. Lippincott,
1973.
The University of Southern California does not screen or control the content on this website and thus does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such content. All content on this website is provided by and is the sole responsibility of the person from which such content originated, and such content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the University administration or the Board of Trustees