Shoud Death Penalty be Abolished?

Over the years, the controversial issue, whether death penalty should be abolished or not, has been extensively discussed in Taiwan. The supporters have their grounds for defending death penalty. They firmly believe that it is an absolute necessity, couldn’t be replaced by imprisonment or other punishments. Still, on the other side, the opponents said that it shouldn’t exist anymore, for it is violating human rights, against humanity, and it is an out-of-date punishment. Nevertheless, I side with the proponents of death penalty. In my opinion, even though many countries had abolished capital punishment out of the above-mentioned reasons, it doesn’t mean that Taiwan should follow their steps. Capital punishment has its importance that shouldn’t be ignored or abolished.
Some Christians and humanists think that under no circumstances should one take others’ life, only God has the power to put an end to one’s life. That is, they think law enforcement does not have the right to execute the criminals. Judges playing God, deciding who’s to kill has aroused widespread condemnation among these strongly-opposed-of-death-penalty people. They consider “all human life is sacred and untouchable, the criminal does not lose his/her fundamental right to life, no matter how heinous the crime is.”
Do criminals still have “the fundamental right to life” after they committed crimes? Before answering this question, we should consider how serious the crime is. Indeed, executing a thief is too much for a punishment, but what about the murderers? Do we really have to protect their living rights even if they destroy others’? Asking for rights to life after taking one’s life, it makes no sense at all. The contradictory is pretty obvious—judges cannot play God, but these murderers can? Why can the killers “touch” their victims’ precious life but claiming that “all human life” is untouchable at the same time? Some Christians hold the view that no matter how hideous crimes the criminals commit, they still have the right to continue to live. What about the innocent victims then? Without committing any crimes or doing anything wrong, the victims unwillingly lost their right to life. Who is there to defend the victims’ own right? Christianity’s spirit is to have sympathy for others, so why don’t they show some sympathy for the victims?
Life imprisonment is being considered as a substitution for the opponents of death penalty. They think the purpose of punishment is to educate the criminals, to repent and start anew. Capital punishment is just a merciless and meaningless way of taking revenge on the criminals for their wrongdoing, depriving many criminals’ right to repent. They assume that if the criminals are too malicious that must be segregated from the society, life imprisonment is one practicable measure, and is quite enough for a punishment. Death penalty is unnecessary and should be abolished as soon as possible in their view.
Giving person who made mistakes a second chance is natural and to be expected; criminals are no exception. “Once a sinner, always a sinner.” may not apply to all cases, but that doesn’t mean all the criminals should be given a second chance. Think this, if twenty years of family and school education still couldn’t effectively guide them to do the “right” thing, how can we expect jail could make any differences? And if the criminals were all sentenced to life imprisonment, soon the jail will become seriously overcrowding. What’s more, criminals’ daily expenses are paid by tax revenues from people; I don’t know whether life imprisonment is punishing the citizens or the criminals? I see no points in giving our money away just for the sake of “educating” these criminals. Before they committed crimes, they had already have education, the fundamental moralities of life somehow. Such as “What is righteousness?” “What is viciousness?” “What is good, and what is wrong?” If one doesn’t know that murder is incorrect, finding a teacher will be a vain attempt. Besides, I think people can distinguish wrong from right, surely they know that killing is wrong. The thing is, they kill because of their impulsive not because they don’t know it was wrong to do so. What I am trying to say is, can anyone guarantee that their impulsive, their rush had been successfully “educated” after imprisonment? Can anyone assure us that the criminals did repent for what they did while in jail?
Another problem of life imprisonment is parole. If criminals behave well during their imprisonment, they have the chance to apply for parole. However, statistics indicates that many parolees cannot find a job to make their living for they had criminal records, so they are likely to resume their old business again. Should we put ourselves in danger in order to give them a second chance?
In my opinion, death penalty still has its necessity to exist. Most of all, justice needs to take action, to stand up for the victims. I think the opponents are ignoring victims and their suffering family. They think execution as a tragedy, but shouldn’t they ask themselves first: the court will not sentence the criminals to death if the criminals didn’t do anything wrong in the first place. People should care more about the victims’ loss and their grief, instead of just focusing on those lawbreakers.