The death penalty is the best way to control and reduce serious crime. To what extent do you agree?

It has been a long journey for governments how to deal with crimes and their respective punishments. From using guillotines and electric cars to life sentences and community service. The question still remains unanswered. What is a befitting punishment for a serious crime? In my idea, there are two main approaches to answer

this

Linking Words

question. Primarily a punishment is enforced by the law to prevent

further

Linking Words

crimes. Death sentence used to be the ultimate punishment for

this

Linking Words

matter. It was a big scary message to potential criminals and

also

Linking Words

a farewell to an actual one.

Linking Words

However we

Accept comma addition

However, we

still encounter a cold-blooded murderer every now and again. So we must strongly doubt the effectiveness of the death penalty as it seems that nothing, even the fatal blade of a guillotine, is enough to stop a man from implementing his cruel intentions.

This

Linking Words

brings us to the

second

Linking Words

influential factor: justice and morality. The whole reason governments or religions or any kind of moral system exists, is to answer the hunger for justice we all have in our nature. Morality rules that homicide is wrong and logic decides that the just penalty is

also

Linking Words

homicide. But as societies evolved, we all became aware that crime cannot diminish unless we change our ways; that peace is the path towards justice. To sum up the arguments, the death penalty is neither effective nor moral. The rate of executions has dropped dramatically in

this

Linking Words

century, but there are still countries that continue to execute their criminals based on religious laws. Hopefully we will soon live in a world that governments invest in education and health care systems rather than barbaric executions to fight crimes.