When Is the Death Penalty Ok?
Virtue of Cherishing Life
Tsokalida Flora A 34-year-old civic education officer at Malawi Law Commission
The death penalty is commonly referred to as the legal practice of taking a human life in response to a crime committed by the convicted person. It is a difficult and emotional topic though widely practiced in many countries. But whether any government is justified in carrying out the process is unfathomable. I sometimes feel that the death penalty is an ideal penalty only to be used to tackle serious crimes like murder, rape, child molestation, abduction and kidnapping. Certainly, there are some instances where I feel that the death penalty should not be applied. But why do I have this second thought if I have a list of crimes I feel deserve the death penalty as a solution? This is why.
I was brought up in a Christian community where I was taught to be non-judgmental, leave God to judge human behavior, and obey God’s commandments, one of which states that human beings should not kill each other, only God has the authority to take human life under any circumstance. In this regard, I disagree with the death penalty as it is an unusual practice that compromises Christianity and the basic ethical standards of human behavior.
In my opinion, it’s a form of revenge. Like most civilians, I am pained when I see or hear of people being succumbed to killing, rape, molestation, abduction, kidnapping and other brutal offences.
But, while I am still at it, questions pop up in my head. Does giving someone the death sentence serve as an effective deterrent for brutal crimes? Taking retribution for their crime on behalf of the victim? What if the criminal wanted to die but never had the courage to commit suicide? Will this make them fully pay for their crimes? I guess not really. In my opinion, a criminal should face punishment for their crime while they are still alive. Life imprisonment serves criminals better than the death penalty. 
Life for a Life
Meng Lingmeng A 28-year-old assistant lawyer in Beijing
Today, the death penalty, which has existed for nearly 2,000 years in human history, has become a controversial debate. The practice has a long history and is still used in many places. Should it be retained as deterrence, or should it be abandoned as brutality? In my opinion, if a criminal takes away human life, he/she should be punished for it. If we eliminate the death penalty imposed by our courts, there would be a major increase in the rate of crimes per year. The only way to stop criminals from committing these terrible crimes is to show them the consequences of doing them.
The death penalty can reduce the occurrence of similar crime because the most frightening thing for a human being is to lose his/her life. The thought of severe punishment may discourage people from carrying out the worst crimes. Therefore, if we abolish the death penalty, it seems as though severe crimes such as murder are indirectly being encouraged. For committing such offences, criminals should face equal punishment rather than lenient penalties such as community service.
Some humanitarians argue that it is a cruel process used to end another human beings life, stating that the execution is inhumane. But over the years, this process has gradually become more humane so the argument that it’s a cruel process is invalid. In my opinion, illegal perpetrators should be punished accordingly. It’s no use debating with humanitarians when it comes to how criminals should be judged because they never seem to consider the social outcome of these offences and the negative impact on society. I should admit that rehabilitation is useful in transforming a person to becoming socially acceptable, but the final judgment from judicial institutions worldwide should be justifiable to the society, especially to the families of the victims.
I don’t agree with many abolitionists that it costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life. It’s unfair for taxpayers to sustain the livelihood of such criminals.