In the modern world, people no longer need to use food or products from animals, such as medicine and clothing. Do you agree or disagree?

For some time now, there are dual opinions that some people argue that serious crimes must be corrected by violent punishments while others have counter-argument that each felony has different effects so that each should be considered case-by-case. In

this

essay, I will argue that serious punishments

such

as judicial murders are more efficient to prevent violent crimes but it would

also

make it entirely unethical. To commence with, there are two main reasons to substantiate my stance on

this

notion.

First

of all, the whole scenario must be well analyzed by juries about the motive and situation. Because sometimes the case scene might be misled by others and wrongly victims can get into trouble. If the punishment was taking one's life

then

there would be no chance to seek justice by the victims.

For example

, there was an incident that happened in the USA where an African juvenile was wrongly accused of a false crime scene. They sent him to his demise.

As a result

of the protest, later on, they found out that he was innocent and it was a consequence of racism. To add

further

, I believe, the mere purpose of the extreme penalty is to deter a

further

serious crime. Though it will efficient at a certain level, still there are numerous ways to reduce evil activities than

this

kind of cruel punishment. One way to make

this

process more efficient would be to have standardized outlaws for every single case but

also

a life for a life would certainly not make sense. To conclude, from my perspective, violent punishment like execution has a few benefits

on the other hand

obviously it has more disadvantages than merits.