IELTS Essay # 26 - Without capital punishment our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase
- Last Updated: Monday, 16 May 2022 16:45
- Written by IELTS Mentor
- Hits: 236039
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:
You should finish the task within 40 minutes.
Without capital punishment (the death penalty) our lives are less secure and crimes of violence increase. Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
You should write at least 250 words.
You should use your own ideas, knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.
Model Answer 1: (Agreement: Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society.)
Nowadays, the crime rate is accelerating according to many surveys. To rein this situation, there should be a mechanism in place like jail for lifetime and death penalty based on the severity of the crime. The government should enforce such laws to create a high alert around the society and endorse a secure ruling to its people.
Many incidents are the best examples of imbalanced society values in the recent days. Those are like killing someone's own mother or a plan to murder the best friend due to immaturity. If there is no mechanism to stop such kind of incidents would severely impact the society livelihood. Hence, capital punishment is mandatory to implicate a fear among the people who create such violence and which ensures the peaceful life of innocent people.
In fact, I believe the death penalty is the only way to punish the criminals as they commit serious crimes which directly aid in controlling the violence at least to some extent. For instance, recently a group of five men brutally raped and murdered a woman in the broad daylight. Due to that, the high court had punished death penalty to that group which has created a sensation as the capital punishment is very rare in my country and social volunteers said the crime rate is gradually decreasing after that incident. Thus, violence is effectively controlled if the capital punishment is endorsed by a society.
In some society, the crime is so violent and severer that the government and the law enforcing authority have to handle that strictly. As a result, they do not have any alternative other than imposing capital punishment. Capital punishment gives a message that you won’t be given any second chance if you commit a serious crime like murdering someone. This message is strongly needed in some society to control the crime rate. Without capital punishment, you can’t ensure that the same criminal won’t commit the crime again. You can’t actually control the crime and severe lawbreaking with the minor punishment in all of the countries. The theme that someone who murdered another human will regret someday and after few years would lead a dignified and free life when the relatives and family members of the victim would remorse forever. What punishment do you have in your mind if someone is a psychopathic killer and is out of redemption? Minor punishment and reformation facility? This does not just make sense.
To summarise, capital punishment is important to bring down the crime ratio and to also provide the secured life. Otherwise, ambience in the society will disturb which is not recommended for the common man. Hence, it is advisable to imply such punishment which leads a peaceful life with less violence in these days and also in the future.
(Submitted by Haritha)
Model Answer 2: (Agreement: Capital punishment is essential to control violence in society.)
Before talking about the essential role of the death penalty, you have to think about the meaning, and the purpose, of any kind of punishment. If you consider that the purpose is to prevent the guilty from being nasty again, you can be seduced by an argumentation in favour of the suppression of capital punishment.
But you have to think about another aspect of the problem: a punishment is also useful to impress people, to make them fear the law. In fact, let's take the example of a young misfit, which has grown in a violent atmosphere, influenced by older delinquents, etc. He lives in the streets; he's got no aim but to survive. This is the kind of person who could possibly kill someone for money, or even for fun. Why would he fear prison? Life would be easier for him there. In addition, in many cases, when you behave normally, you can benefit from penalty reductions. This young misfit needs to be impressed; he needs to know that the law is a frontier. When you cross it, you can lose your life. That is why capital punishment helps keep a distance between robbery and murder. If you abolish it, you suppress the difference between these two types of crime, which are completely different.
But there is also a limit to define: even if the death penalty is unavoidable, it would be a crime to apply it to inadequate cases. If there is no premeditation or past facts which can justify such a punishment, it is far too strict to apply the death penalty. That is why the lawmakers have to establish precisely the context in which capital punishment car being pronounced. That is the price to pay to limit violence without using excessive violence.
Alternative Answer 3: (Disagreement: Capital punishment is NOT mandatory to control violence in society.)
The argument about the capital punishment or death penalty is a very controversial one. Some people think that without death penalty it is impossible to retain the law and order in a country while others stand totally against the capital punishment and describe it as inhuman. Both sides have their logic to support their opinion. In my opinion, capital punishment should be only used in a situation where there is no other alternative. Otherwise, penalties rather than death should be tried to punish anyone.
Sometimes the law and order of a country become so fragile and out of control that the Government and law enforcing agencies must show the mass people that a criminal is punished severely and other should not dare to do the same crime. In these cases, many criminals are hung till death or even send to the electronic chairs and there really left no alternative rather than that. Again there come situations even in a very peaceful society that all the people show contempt to the criminal and expect some exemplary punishment. For example, all the people expect a terrible penalty for a serial killer or a lunatic rapist. Most of these killers and criminals are severely damaged psychologically and the possibility of their being normal again is almost zero. This kind of person who has taken other people's lives and dignity should be punished with the highest penalty like death to make the society a better place to live in. Finally, those who betray with the country and compromise with the enemy with the freedom of the motherland should be hung till death in another word should be given capital punishment because of their heinous act.
But we must consider that we cannot create a living being and we never have the right to take the lives of a living being. So if we punish even a single innocent soul with the punishment he/she does not deserve then the whole system will be corrupted. If an innocent citizen is imprisoned and proved not guilty at a later time we can at least take him/her out from the prison but what if we've already killed him/her? There would be no way to remorse and the whole law will be condemned. Moreover, if there are chances that a criminal will remorse for what he/she has done and will lead a normal and peaceful life, then he/she should be given a chance.
I believe that some criminals are simply dangerous for the society and will always be no matter how much opportunities and support they are given, and they should be given the death penalty. But if there is the slightest chance that the criminal was a victim of the situation and tried to save his/herself or any logic in favour of the crime, should be given chance at least once. And the capital punishment should be used only in some extreme cases rather than using it as the law prevailing policy.
(This model answer has been prepared by the site developer. However, please note that this is just one example out of many possible answers.)
Alternative Answer 4: (Disagreement: Capital punishment is NOT the only option for controlling violence in society.)
Capital punishment is the process of killing the offenders for the crimes they have committed. Capital punishment was very prominent in old days but these days capital punishment is diminishing and the authorities are opting for a less barbaric way to punish the criminals. I too agree with the alternative way of punishment which is less severe than death. There are various arguments for supporting or opposing it which I will be discussing in this essay.
Opponents of the death penalty, like me, say that capital punishment is not a solution. First of all, the human has no right to kill another human for any reason, no matter how severe the crime is. My second argument against this is some crimes are committed by mentally sick people. Those people are not responsible for their deeds. They can be put in safer hospitals for their rest of life. Moreover, it may happen that the offender has been convicted and executed wrongly. Later upon further investigation, he is proved to be innocent. We don't have any way to roll this back. Somebody might lose their precious life which is not at all acceptable. In London, a criminal was proved not guilty after 15 years; if he had been executed nobody could have done justice to his life. At last, there are various alternatives available; for instance, life sentences. These alternatives also serve the similar purpose of making criminals realise their mistakes.
However, proponents say that criminals should be shot dead for their mistakes. Why should the government bear the expenses of criminals in the jails? The criminals should not be granted anything less than this death punishment.
In conclusion, I don't agree and believe in this death punishment as we always have a less severe alternative available. We should avoid the capital punishment (death penalty) and try to make our society more humane one.
(Submitted by Muskaan Rathi)
Alternative Answer 5: (Mixed Opinion)
I think, imposing the death penalty as a punishment to all criminals to reduce crime have been a constant subject of debate all the world in recent years. As the generations pass on, the way people thoughts regarding issues related good and bad also changed. As technology goes on improving day by day it serves for both positive and negative purposes. So, ultimately some people think that capital punishment is the only way to make lives more secure resulting decrements violence in society. I strongly believe that imposing of punishment should be appropriate to the crime that had been done.
Firstly, there are many crimes that jeopardise the lives of society. Crimes like religious wars, cyber crimes, robbery, addiction to drugs etc. All these crimes start with a single person who involves many innocent people to have a role in a crime scene. So, assigning death penalty to all criminals is not correct and not possible too. So, head of the gang should be taken into custody and taught moral values to make hims a different person who promotes peace. For, instance, the cybercrime is common nowadays, to control it control its initial steps to be taken to catch the criminal and investigate to find out the purpose of crime. So, if a crime was done deliberately then imprisonment for a particular period is enough.
Secondly, there are few other crimes which disturb society's peacefulness. Crimes like terrorism, Murders, Gang rape etc. come into this category. These are the crimes which will have adverse effects threatening the lives of innocent people. For example, the great scientist Noble, invented dynamite for a useful purpose to blast the hills to solve transport problems but it was mishandled by few people. Terrorists like ' …..... ‘who is responsible for wiping out many lives of people ought to be executed. So, for these types of cases, capital punishment is first and final punishment. By doing this, it admonishes other criminals thinking of doing crimes. Ultimately violence will be diminished resulting fall in the crime rate.
In the conclusion, it is rudimentary for every individual to work for the society that no innocent human should be punished and also protect peace in society. It is obvious that criminal who devastated the peacefulness of world and hit the lives of many people ought to be hanged.
(Submitted by Kalyan Chakravarthy)
Sample Answer 6:
With the increasing number of crimes like murder, terrorism and drug trafficking, capital punishment is often assumed to curb these offences. Controlling offenders through severe punishment are laudable but I don't agree fully and believe there are other alternatives to control brutal acts in society.
There are many plausible arguments in favour of capital punishment. People believe that death sentences are vital in maintaining peace and controlling hostility in society. Capital punishments like hanging, electric chair, gas-room, firing squad and so on create fear in criminals in committing severe crimes. For instance, recent attack by militants on Schools in Pakistan where they killed children urged the government to revoke the moratorium on the death penalty which resulted in reducing the growing number of attacks. People believe that it is the best way to avenge the life of victim's beloved ones. Fear of execution will keep them at distance from committing brutal crimes. For instance, increased drug trafficking in UAE was controlled after the government imposed the death penalty on the offenders.
On the other hand, we have no right to take the life of another human being. There are many alternates which can control violence in societies. For instance, Rehabilitation programs can help criminal to become better citizens of a society. Community services and counselling sessions can aim to develop love and affection for mankind. Capital punishment can also result in instances where other gang members of the offender try to avenge the life of their friend which poses a serious threat to victim's family. There are many countries that have ended capital punishment, for instance, Portugal.
To conclude, capital chastisement might not help in curbing brutal and hostile acts in societies and government should implement other forms of punishment like life imprisonment.
(Submitted by Tauseef Raza)
Answer 7: (Agreement: Capital punishment is required in many cases to control violence in society.)
Many people believe that death penalties are necessary to keep law and order under control in our society. While there are some drawbacks of capital punishment, I agree with the view that without capital punishment we will become more vulnerable to violence.
The death penalty could be an uncivilised law in some cases. We have no rights to kill another human. It can be a violation of human rights to kill someone by poisonous injections, hanging or by electrocution. Besides, some innocent people could be convicted and executed for the crimes they never did. For example, sometimes the law and administration are not efficient, and the police might capture the innocent citizens by mistake during an investigation process. Therefore, the death penalty is argued to be a barbaric and savage approach.
However, I believe that many times it becomes essential to enforce capital punishment in the society. Firstly, it is an effective deterrent to major crimes. If there are stricter punishments, people will be afraid of committing offences. For example, Pakistan has controlled the rate of terrorism in the country by enforcing death penalties for the members of terrorist organisations. Secondly, the government spends an ample sum of the national budget on the maintenance of prisoners with lifetime sentences. So, by capital punishment the administration can get rid of criminals who are involved in major crimes, such as murders, terrorists, drug smuggling, rape, and consequently, can avoid the amount spends on imprisonment.
In conclusion, although capital punishment could be seen as an aggressive rule in some cases, I believe that it is an extremely important law that can control many violent crimes of society.
[Written by Angel ]
Answer 8: (Mixed opinion)
Different countries have different constitutions and they follow different rules and regulations to deal with crimes. Some nations are quite rigid in dealing with some particular crimes and they follow law and order like tooth for a tooth and eye for an eye. Some people claim that death penalty ought to be given to criminals to protect our society from savagery. To a certain extent, I agree with this opinion.
To begin with, capital punishment is a good way to prevent heinous crimes like drug dealing, murder and rape in a society. Knowledge of such stern sentence can generate fear among offenders. Thus, people will think twice before committing a crime even if the situation compels them to do so. As a result, the number of wrongful activities will dramatically decline.
In addition to this, a sociopath killer or a rapist destroys a whole family and the government should punish such perpetrators to prevent innocent people. To maintain the equilibrium in a society, penalties for inexcusable offences should have the same severity of the crime, sometimes death penalty.
However, death penalty stands against the human rights, according to many. All the living creatures have the right to live and should get a second chance - criminals or not. Societies use the legislative system to prosecute a criminal and the verdict cannot be hundred percent fair always. To prevent any wrongdoing from the law itself, the criminal can be given solitary confinement and long prison sentences.
In conclusion, even though capital punishment help reduce crime rates in our society and it is required to prevent harsh offences, the death penalty is a violation of human rights. So, I feel that capital punishments should be given in heinous crimes after being absolutely sure.
[Written by - Neena Thomas]