It is a commonly held belief that the death penalty is a good deterrent to prevent heinous crimes. However, others believe that life long sentence is a better deterrent. Discuss both views

Countries

worldwide have different rules to follow related to crimes, some believe that the death penalty is a must

as a result

of heinous crimes, while others disagree with that, and tend to live long sentences. Both views have positive and negative perspectives, which will be discussed in the below text.

Firstly

, some tremendous crimes could result in huge damage to society, and they could sometimes lead to killing and even worth.

For example

, some

criminals

which are on the most wanted list, have done several cases all over the world,

such

as kidnapping, and drugs selling, so

as a result

if they ever got busted, and put in jail, they could

also

continue doing corruption even while they are in prison.

Furthermore

,

such

criminals

could threaten the country using their outside leads, for ,example

such

a case happened before in Mexico after catching a drug dealer.

On the contrary

, other

countries

don't accept

such

deterrents, they believe that humans should not determine who lives or who dies, so the maximum punishment for

criminals

is a life-long sentence, whatever the crime was. Obviously, those

countries

that accept

such

a sentence, will teach

criminals

a lesson for a long life because for some

criminals

, dying is better for them than spending 20 or 30 years in prison and sometimes more.

For example

, drug dealers who are always in danger, know that they could die anytime, so in their opinion dying is nothing. In

this

case, it will be easy for them to die, rather than spend their whole life in prison. To conclude, the Death penalty and a life-long sentence are two different punishments having their assets and liabilities,

countries

might go for either of them and they might take both views into consideration while judging a criminal according to what he did.