Writing Task 2 Examples

The debate over the appropriate punishment for murderers is a complex and polarising issue. Some argue that by enacting the death penalty, society itself becomes culpable of murder and that life imprisonment is a more ethical and effective punishment. I strongly agree with this viewpoint, believing that life imprisonment is a superior alternative to capital punishment.

Firstly, capital punishment perpetuates a cycle of violence, making society complicit in the act of killing. By executing a murderer, the state essentially commits a similar act, which raises significant moral and ethical concerns. For instance, countries that have abolished the death penalty, such as Norway, often cite moral principles and the value of human life as key reasons for their decision. Life imprisonment, on the other hand, removes the perpetrator from society without resorting to further violence, maintaining a clear moral distinction between justice and retribution.

Secondly, the risk of wrongful execution is an undeniable flaw in the implementation of the death penalty. Numerous cases have emerged where individuals on death row were later exonerated due to new evidence or advancements in forensic technology. For example, the United States has seen over 170 death row exonerations since 1973, highlighting the fallibility of the justice system. Life imprisonment allows for the possibility of rectifying such grave errors, thereby upholding the principle of justice more effectively than an irreversible death sentence.

In conclusion, life imprisonment is a more appropriate punishment for murderers compared to the death penalty. For a more just and humane society, governments should prioritise life imprisonment over capital punishment and invest in a justice system that emphasises rehabilitation and the protection of human rights.