GP essay

It has been some time, one month or so, since the end of the 'A' levels. More than two months after the GP ordeal.

I was a little bored so i searched for "gp essay" on yahoo!, and the following is from the second site i visited.

Remember the tonnes of GP essays we used to write? I sorta forgotten how one looks like, so i decided to post this. haha.. A good essay.

MEAL and all. haha...

So fun.

Here it goes!

-Edwin


'The death penalty is justified because it - and it alone - pays proper respect to the importance of human life.' What is your view on this?

Much has often been said about the sanctity of human life. The gift of life is a privilege bestowed upon us. Even though each life may tread different roads, encounter different experiences, there is one fact that binds all lives together - we only live once.

The quality of life, however, is a variable factor that is sometimes beyond our mortal means of control. It is undeniable, though, that everyone is entitled to an equal shot at the myriad of chances life presents to us. Out of this whole concept of the sanctity and sacredness of life arises the debate on capital punishment, or the death penalty.

There are those who despise the death penalty for its apparent cruelty and the finality that it implies, and yet others who look upon it as the ideal and only way to pay proper respect to the importance of human life. But the pertinent issue that we must examine here today is whether the death penalty is truly justified in its execution and also if it is the only, and ultimately, the most suitable means of paying homage to the value of human life.

Today, approximately ninety countries around the world still retain the death penalty. This includes China, Islamic countries, Singapore, as well as thirty seven states of the United States. The controversy surrounding this form of criminal punishment has never faltered over the years, however, as people call into question the humanity of terminating a criminal's life.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." It is on this basis that many anti-death penalty activists argue their case, by claiming that the government flagrantly disregards the sanctity of human life by disallowing the criminals their right to live. Then there are those who claim that the death penalty is hypocritical because while it sends out a message that murder is a crime that should be condemned, the government is doing precisely what it condemns by murdering the criminal. Yet others bring out the seeming futility of executing criminals; they preach peace and forgiveness, and despise the death penalty for its seeming emphasis on vengeance.

Surely these are valid arguments. And clearly they have their own logic. However it is my own personal belief that the death penalty is justified not only in its punishment of criminals, but also as the most respectable way to uphold the sanctity of human life. It must be understood that the death penalty is only meted out in cases which involve murder. When a criminal goes so far as to commit the crime of murder, he is obviously exhibiting his disregard for the victim's right to life. Human rights are a contract deal. Freedoms of individuals should, theoretically, be respected and unhindered but it cannot, and must not, infringe on another's rights. If one takes away the right to life of another person (as murder clearly does), at that moment he himself has already forfeited his right to life.

Instead let us examine how the death penalty serves to protect the people, and why in the administration of the death penalty, it is not hypocritical. There are the four tenets of justice - retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. Out of the above four, the death penalty clearly satisfies three, with only the exception of rehabilitation. And this is only so because the criminal in question here does not even deserve a chance at rehabilitation because of the gross nature of his crime. To examine the relation between the death penalty and the respect for human life, let us assume that the criminal is truly guilty of his offense, thus eliminating much of the debate about the sentencing innocents to the death row. In any case, it must be remembered that there are at least 28 mandatory procedures that the criminal goes through before reaching the death sentence, and as such the likelihood of sentencing the wrong person to death is very low. It is possible, but nonetheless very rare.

Firstly, the death penalty pays proper respect to the importance of the life of the victim. While others may dismiss this as vengeance and that killing the perpetrator of the crime will in no way bring back or even compensate the loss of an innocent, the view from the other side of the coin may be such that this act of retribution will not only bring consolation to the victim's family that justice has been done, but also act as an effective deterrent to potentially dangerous characters in society such that they think twice before committing such a hideous crime. It is even in the Bible that retribution is one of the most effective means of punishment. Exodus 21/23 says "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." How, and why should one give so much concern and respect for a murderer and pardon him from the death row when he himself could not pardon his victim from death?

The death penalty also pays respect to the murderer's life. How so, one may ask, could it be that we are respecting the murderer's life when one is forcibly taking it away cruelly? It is presumed that the murderer in question is guilty in this case to have reached the level of being passed the death sentence. As such, punishment must be meted out. If not the death sentence, he will surely be passed lifetime imprisonment with hard labour, without parole. While it has been frequently debated what kind of mercy this is in comparison to death, what kind of life then does it leave the murderer? To live each day with the knowledge of his crime and guilt eating at him? How much more mercy is it, to jail him in a living tomb, to waste the rest of his life away in monotonous toil, without the small pleasures of life others are entitled to enjoy, depriving him and making him suffer? Is it not comparable to being one of the living dead? If accorded the death penalty, his torture and pain would over in a few minutes, and his death would be a rapid one. John Stuart Mills too said the death penalty was "the least cruel mode in which it is possible adequately to deter from the crime… in our horror in inflicting death, we devise some punishment… with a deterrent force comparable to death… this is far more cruel in reality."

Lastly, the death penalty accords due respect to the rest of society. The death penalty puts away criminals for good, most of them hard-core and repeat offenders, and thus protects society from these undesirable characters. Ultimately, it is one of the best ways to respect the safety and liberty of the people by allowing them to roam the streets without fear in their hearts for their lives and safety. Besides the obvious incapacitated state of the convicted, the deterrence effect of the death penalty is also far from negligible. Numerous studies in the United States (like Utah from 1976 to 1988) showed a noticeable drop in murder rates in the months directly following any execution. The death penalty helps to keep the streets, and innocents, safe.

The debate on the death penalty will never go away. It is my belief, however, that it is justified because it alone pays proper respect to the importance of human life. It respects the human life of the victim, the life of the convicted, as well as those of the innocents. The game of life must be played, and those who flout the rules and cheat by killing off other players must pay the price, however expensive. This price is death. 40/50 (A1): Content 23/30, Expression 17/20. -->