Killing The Perpetrator

666 Words2 Pages

After completing this project, I have decided that I still do have a mixture of opinions regarding the death penalty. However, I feel that I am for the death penalty, this is because even though it prevents future murders from happening. The Shariah law takes it to the next level, however, having the death penalty for the most gruesome, or fatal murders, the perpetrator should be put forward for (the death penalty) as it will give retribution to the family and victim know have suffered a lot. Killing the perpetrator, will also safeguard society, in terms of the public making sure that they don’t hurt anyone else and in some ways deter some people from committing the crime. In contrast, killing the perpetrator means that the murderer will get off easier …show more content…

This is very hard to say. Some people, like me would suggest that this cannot be justified, he was killed there is no bringing him back, if he was not holding a weapon he potentially may have been innocent. However, this is not the way the police see the case. “Duggan was holding a gun” was said by the police. Even though the documentary tells us what might have happened, it is very hard to say in that that event. As to whether Duggan was carrying a gun or a phone has its uncertainty. (2016 BBC, Media Centre: Lawful Killing: Mark Duggan) 4.3 OVERALL: My research on issues regarding the death penalty is one of the most debatable in the criminal justice system. Today, there are many pros and cons regarding the death penalty issue. As you may have read in the arguments, the death penalty helps to limit future murderers, thus, we can save more lives. However, there are factors which suggest that the death penalty cannot be justified, for example the value of human life. It depends on how people interpret this. I feel that this depends on the seriousness of the case. I feel that the death penalty should be used in some extreme

Open Document