DEATH PENALTY

Greetings to all, today I am going to present a debate about the death

penalty.
The death penalty, capital punishment or execution consists in causing the
death of a person convicted by the State, as punishment for committing a
crime established in the legislation. The crimes for which this sanction can be
applied are usually called "capital crimes".
Execution of criminals and political dissidents has been used by much of
society throughout history, both to punish crime and to suppress political
dissent. Currently the legal situation of the death penalty varies greatly
according to the regions of the world
This whole issue has its cons such as:

1.-It violates the right to life proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights.
2.-In many countries where it is applied, crimes do not decrease. And in
countries where it was abolished, there are fewer homicides.
3.-It is used, essentially, in countries with dictatorial regimes where they want
to punish political dissidents and persecuted minorities. China, Iran, Saudi
Arabia, etc.
4.-It is a setback of human evolution. "It is a particularly violent feeling, not a
principle. The 'eye for an eye' belongs to the order of nature and instinct. If
crime belongs to human nature, the law does not intend to imitate such a
nature. It is made to correct it. " (Albert Camus)
5.-And not least: an innocent can be executed. Therefore, the State (and
society) would commit the same atrocity that they intend to punish. And
death is irreversible.
And in turn it has its pros such as:
1.- The death penalty can prevent crimes, it can deter potential murderers, it
can save lives. Because from the application of punishment to one, the
following criminals, who generally do not believe that they will be discovered
and punished, will know the consequences of their actions, being able to lose
their own lives, being punished by the government; and they will think twice
before sending
2.- It is not fair that with the taxes paid by the citizens they have to support
murderers, rapists and criminals. Since these being alive require some
services, such as food, medical check-up, clothing, personnel for their
control, which all citizens must pay.
3.- When the criminal is prosecuted, it is very likely that he will be released
from prison, either due to errors in the lawsuit, in case he buys his freedom or
if his defender is very intelligent. Thus, a totally guilty criminal is released
4.- Using the death penalty in justifying cases is a way of protecting the lives
of citizens, since their safety would be fully guaranteed. Because it is a way of
not running the risk of the criminal committing his crime again, and thus
providing peace of mind, not only to the affected victims, who while the
aggressor is still alive are with the soul in a thread because they can return,
but also the rest of the population who are exposed to another attack
5.-One of the greatest philosophers that the West has had, and who has been
the formator of the cultural thought that we have today: Kant, is a supporter
of the death penalty. He is even a talionist, that is, he practically and
explicitly supports the Talion doctrine of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth"
Given all this, I maintain my position in favor of the death penalty and I am a
supporter since I consider that the offender is incorrigible because he is
mentally ill and incurable and that by itself constitutes the germ of
disturbances and aberrations of other men , for this reason, for this species of
men, life is not an ideal situation and death is the resource that exists to
socially solve the problem, in addition the death penalty is instructive since it
teaches how to shed blood, all this is valid , as long as the defendant is given a
fair trial and his crime is in favor of this, if it were not, it would be
contradictory and a heinous crime.
that's all, thanks