Death penalty is murder and should be abolished. Do you agree?

By sentencing a person to death, it is tantamount to putting a stop to his life journey. His life and death lie in the hands of the judge and miscarriages of justice are irreversible. Any error in the decision-making can cause the wrongly accused to lose his head. I feel that humans should not play God by governing any thing that has to do with the taking of lives such as abortion and animal rights. Moreover, as stated by Voltaire, a French philosopher in the seventeenth century, “it is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.” In addition, death row can take years and are very costly especially to taxpayers. It is definitely unfair as they are indirectly getting punished for a crime they are not guilty of. Capital punishment may also encourage copycat crimes if the prisoner is seen as a martyr for example Mr Cho from Korea. Thus we can see that not only the individual is affected, the public is not let off either. More problems are being created instead of being solved.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Thus, I believe that rehabilitation should be favoured over the death penalty. Felons will be made to reenact the crime they committed. By seeing themselves as the third party, many would suddenly realize their grave mistake and willingly turn over a new leaf. After all, to err is human. Nobody is perfect and I am sure everyone deserves a second chance.

However, should there not be the existence of capital punishment, the national security will be at stake. With no fear of putting their heads on the chopper board, criminals such as terrorists, murderers and revolutionaries will roam the streets and strike terror in many innocent people’s hearts. Only with the death penalty put in place, can the national security be preserved and the public assured that their peace is not threatened. Moreover, it is technically sound to execute the prisoners than to keep them in life incarceration for they will be living off taxpayers dollars. Death is quick and causes less suffering than a long jail term as freedom is restricted. Hence capital punishment acts as a deterrent warning to others against the consequence of crime and also to prevent repeat offenses.

In conclusion, I disagree that death penalty is murder and should be abolished. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one human by another. Certainly capital punishment is lawful. We all know that the anticipation of death is definitely more fearful and painful than death itself. Therefore, my stand is that so long as the methods of execution are not cruel and humane, for example pulling the trigger of a pistol pointed at the back of the head (death is quick and the likelihood of human error is very minimal), the death penalty should not be abolished. I personally feel that all criminals should be given a chance to reform. Only those that crossed the line of moral/conscious, those that show no sign of remorse nor a single tinge of regret, should face the death penalty.

The Mass Media

With reference to the article titled " Singapore swimmers in hot water" on 3 April 2007.
How does the media and its subjective perception affect he way this incident was handled?

I believe that the reporting of events in the mass media more accurately reflects subjective perception rather than objective truth. Since perception involves all the senses and also giving meaning to all information a person takes in, different people can get different meanings from the same media. Perception is also affected by our belief systems, attitudes and needs.
In this incident, just a smile which the media perceived as a sign of mockery caused much controversy around the globe. It was even published in Sports Illustrated magazine, Californian newspaper Whittier Daily News and The Statesman in India. This matter became so serious that should the boys be found guilty, an official apology would be submitted. The reputation of Singapore and her friendship with America were put at stake.

However, we have no one to blame but ourselves for all these “false” reports. We are all guilty of wanting to know juicy news and more often than not, accurate information provided rarely satisfies the public. To worsen the situation, this industry has grown to become profit-driven due to the strong competition. Hence, journalists may well owe his or her professional regard for truthful reporting to everyone’s need for news – a critical element in a democratic society. So, instead of basing journalistic ethics in the fashionable moral philosophies of the modern era, it is better to argue that it grows out of the special nature of the craft, as imbedded in a more venerable notion of self fulfilling social responsibility.

Different people have different ways of expressing their emotions and reactions, let alone interpreting them. My stand is that one should not jump to conclusion but instead gather more information from different sources in order to learn the “whole” truth.