A.

Identify the following

Thesis Statement

The essay examines the arguments pur forward by those in favour of death

penalty and those that poosed to the idea.

Topic Sentence

Introduction

The restoration of the death penalty for serious crimes is an issue of debate in

the UK because of the recent rise in violent crime.

Body (1)

The main arugments in favour of restoring the death penalty are those of

deteerrence and retribution: the theory is that eople will be dissuaded from violent crime

if they know they will face the ultimate ppunishment and that peole should face the

same treatment that they gave out to others.

Body (2)

The arguments against the death penalty are mainly ethical in their nature, that it

is basically wrong to kill and that when the state kills it sends out the wrong message to

the rest of the country.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the arguments pur forward by people who support or are against

the death penalty often reflect their deeper principes and beliefs.

B. Write what is asked:

 Summary

The argument of someone who is in favour with death penalties is in the theory

that people will less likely to commit a violent crime if they know they will face the same

treatment that they gave out to others. On the other hand, arguments aginst the death

penalty are ethical in nature. It is wrong to kill people, ciminals won’t be able to make up

with their crimes and innocent people who are blamed will have to face the punishment

for the wrong doings that he or she has never done.

Paraphrased

The UK is experiencing recent rise in violent crimes, in response to this, the

restoration of death penalty for serious crimes is a growing topic of debate in the

country. Understanding and finding the causes, effects and solutions of violent crimes

throws up a lot of complex issues due to newspapers often exaggerating the context of

crimes. This paper will examine the topic firstly taking into consideration of the

arguments by those in favour of the death penalty and the arguments that opposed to

this idea.

Deterrence and retribution are those of the main arguments in favour of restoring

the death penalty. Theoretically, people will be discouraged from commiting violent

crimes knowing that they themselves will face the same fate as what their crimes did. In

Britain between 1965 and 1969, statistics shows that when the death penalty was

temporarily withdrawn, the murder rate increased by 125% (Clark, 2005) However, we

need to consider the possibility that other reasons might have led to this rise. Amnesty

International (1996) claims that it is hardly possible to prove that capital punishment is a
greater obstacle than given someone a life sentence in prison. In this argument, Calder

(2003) neatly summarizes this when he says “Killers give up their rights when they kill

and that if punishments are too lenient then it shows that we undervalue the right to

live“. It is also obviously in terms of costs, cheaper to kill prisoners rather than feeding

and keeping them for years on end.

Those who oppose with the idea of death penalty are arguments that are ethical

in nature. The death penalty makes people believe that killing people is morally

acceptable (Webber 2005). An amusing argument – Would teaching children not to hit

by hitting them is a good way of teaching children not to hit someone? Wouldn’t this

instead show them instead that hitting was indeed morally allowed? One concerning

thing about death penalty is innocent people might get executed. They can always be

released from the prison but can never be bring back from the dead. There is also no

chance for the criminal to think and repent for their sins. Interestly though, prisons

nowadays especially in developing countries can help prisoners earn their GED and

learn vocational skills to help them get a job.

The conclusion of this paper is, the arguments presented by both sides often

reflect their deeper value, principles and beliefs. They are deeply rooted in life

experiences and these is why most of them are unlikely to be persuaded by clever

arguments. The country’s people favour the death penalty yet the parliament continues

to oppose it. In this case, it could be argued that parliament continues to broadcast the

clear message that killing is and will always be wrong.