The issue on the death penalty has long been debated as to whether or not it is really neccessary. It is usually carried out by means hanging, lethal injection, firing-squad etc. Naturally such a controvorsial idea have supporters on both sides of the coin. Supporters argue that it deters crime, prevents the same crime from being carried out again and many believe it to be a fitting punishment for crimes such as murder, but where does it cross the line? for example, in Singapore alone people get the death sentence for merely trafficking afew milligrams of controlled substances in order to make ends meet or to pay for medical fees for their children. Is this what justice is? to take the life away from a fellow human for such crimes which in comparision to crimes where criminals escape the gallows under the insanity plea after commiting murder.

Many people firmly believe that the death penalty should be abolished as it really isnt very much different from the act of murder itself. The only difference is that the death penalty is considered to be carried out in a lawful manner. it works under the basic principle of " an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", furthermore a person is execute as he/she is deemed to be too dangerous to be left in the society, but if that person is put in jail he/she can not harm anyone at all which then gives the reason no meaning at all.

Despite many people citing the use of Capital punishment as an efficent deterence, statistics have clearly shown that the effect is minimal in decreasing the crime of rates of capital crimes. Some criminals are forced into doing it while others are simply stubborn or strong willed and deterence will not hinder them.

In summary, i believe that although the Death Penalty should be kept and not abolished, the reasons as to why it should be done has to be revised. Even though everyone deserves a second chance to prove themselves, some have already wavered from the right path too long to return.