Death Plenaty Pros & Cons

 

Prevailing situation of world is getting increasingly competitive day by day, resources are limited but need are increasing, causing a huge gap between supply and demand. The gap implying the deprived one’s to take wrong ways to meet their needs i.e. crime. Hence with this surge in the crime, there are one school of thought that believe to put the death plenty in affect in order to manage the crime while other argue, death plenty harshness and advocates for alternatives. Here, in this essay we will discuss both prospective i.e. pros and cons of death plenty in order to control crimes.

There is no doubt that death plenty was and is the most effective method to manage the crime in the society. In death plenty, perpetrator is very much certain to meet his demise if he commits the crime. Otherwise, if there would be no death plenty, he would be spending his live in prison, where he would have chances of either escaping or becoming a drug or gang member – helping him to live a luxury life and managing the crime in the city. Nevertheless, death plenty is a substantial for maintaining the crime, as the fear of death, guilt and the suffering of his family after his death, this punishment plays a crucial role in hindering him from transgression. For example, in Middle East – where death plenty is still in effect, making them one of safest countries in the world.

While, death plenty is though effective, but it is also very detrimental for the law and order maintenance itself – as if someone is wrongly convicted for the crime and put to the death, then his family especially his children will become the victim of deprivation in different aspects. According to many researches in the field of sociology, most of the criminals were the victims of extreme deprivation that lead them to the crime to meet their needs. Hence, it is very imperative to have a good justice system that not only provide a good justice but also set the punishment as per the crime, i.e. one must not suffer from the harsh punishment for a small crime, for example, if someone especially a young adult steals a low valuable item, then he must not be sent to such prisons where high criminals are imprisoned; if he would, then its highly likely that this adult will ended up as high level criminal.

Considering both of the views into the accounts, it is evident that, death plenty is a very harsh and effective approach to manage the crime, as its pros are much fruitful but its cons are far more detrimental for the society in the future. Therefore, there need to be a hybrid method – in which those criminal found in higher crimes should be put to the death while those with low level crimes should be sent for counseling. In this how, the gangs in the prisons who manage all the drugs and high level criminal activities will meet their fate, implying significantly lowering in the crime throughout the city, while those who did small crimes, will be counsel and reintegrated into the society. With this, a proper law and order could be meet in the society, and society will thrive with such a low crime.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Environmental Safety: Duty of All

Glance At A Unheeded Reality

Gentle Peoples