Social Issues | Should the death penalty be retained or abolished

Should the death penalty continue to exist today? There has been a lot of controversy on this issue in society. Those who oppose the death penalty say that the death penalty is a barbaric punishment and should not exist in a civilized society. There are 55 countries in the world that have death penalty laws. Including the United States, which calls itself the most developed and civilized country. As of the end of 2021, 2,382 people have been sentenced to death in the United States. Malaysia also has 1,359 people sentenced to death, ranking sixth in the world.

The Malaysian government has announced that it has agreed to "abolish the mandatory death penalty", allowing judges to determine sentences at their discretion. The last Pakatan Harapan government, which had already collapsed, originally intended to completely abolish the death penalty, but due to the strong backlash from the public, it decided to only abolish the mandatory death penalty.

"Abolishing the mandatory death penalty" does not mean abolishing the death penalty. The death penalty still exists. "Compulsory death penalty" refers to the final criminal law of a law or that there is only one criminal law. After being convicted, only death can be sentenced, and there is no other alternative criminal law. After the "abolition of the mandatory death penalty", the judge believed that the prisoner was guilty, but it would not be sentenced to death, and other criminal laws could be used instead.

Although only abolishing the mandatory death penalty is not abolishing the death penalty, it still causes some controversy in Malaysia. Organizations or individuals who support this policy believe that the government should protect the right to life of all people. There is also the possibility of misjudgment in the case, and once a mistake is found, it can be remedied. On the point of misjudgment, I think this should not happen under any circumstances, regardless of the size of the case. Any misjudgment may ruin a person's life, reputation, freedom, and even life. To prevent this, judicial personnel must be fair and just, so that unjust cases do not occur.

A large number of people sentenced to death in Malaysia are for drug trafficking or drug trafficking. If a person has a certain amount of drugs seized by the Malaysian police, the only criminal law if convicted is the death penalty. However, some of them were induced, misled, or framed by money to transport drugs. All of them believed that they should be given a chance to rehabilitate and should not be directly sentenced to death.

Why does Malaysia impose such a severe punishment on those who commit drug crimes? The biggest reason is that drugs have become the most serious social problem in Malaysia, especially in rural areas, many people are addicted to drugs. And Malaysia has been recognized as an international drug transfer station. I remember a friend said that the reason why the Malaysian government needs to use severe criminal law (the death penalty) to suppress drug traffickers is that it hopes to act as a deterrent. Otherwise, drugs will spread widely in Malaysia. Some people think that once the death penalty is abolished, Malaysia will become a drug dealer. In heaven, there will be more social problems. In this regard, I think the death penalty can exist. But some legal provisions can be amended so that those who are exploited can have a second chance at rebirth.

Human rights groups want the Malaysian government to further abolish the death penalty, arguing that criminals should pay the price "not in life, but in freedom". Some also believe that the death penalty is a backward and barbaric practice. The national constitution does not give people the right to freely take the life of others. But I believe it is not easy to achieve in Malaysia. A poll conducted by the Sin Chew Daily in Malaysia showed that more than half of the people who answered the questionnaire did not agree with the government's abolition of the mandatory death penalty, and more than 80% of the people opposed the complete abolition of the death penalty. Those who oppose it believe that the death penalty has a deterrent effect. Now that the death penalty exists, some people will continue to commit crimes. If it is abolished, the consequences will be disastrous.

I asked my friends for their opinions. Some people agree with the abolition of the mandatory death penalty, but most of them still disagree with the complete abolition of the death penalty, especially when dealing with homicide prisoners. If the abolition of the death penalty would be unfair to the victims and their families, they said to human rights organizations that the government should protect the right to life of all people. When the murderer killed, did the murderer think about the victim's right to life? The human rights of victims should also be protected. After one person takes another person's right to life and human rights, the murderer should be sentenced to death. The deceased can no longer be resurrected, and there is no second rebirth. "Killing should pay for life."

Some family members of the victims also said that sentenced to death is the greatest comfort to their hearts, and the stone in their hearts may be lighter. Those who demanded the abolition of the death penalty did not think from their standpoint at all, if something happened. In them, perhaps not so much that abolition of death is necessary.

Some people think that the execution of the death penalty has no evidence to prove that it can effectively prevent the occurrence of crimes, but if there is no death penalty, will there be some people who have the intention to think that murder will not be sentenced to death anyway, at most life imprisonment, and they have no fear of committing crimes? These are unknowns.

Those who support the abolition of the death penalty also believe that prisoners should have the opportunity to rehabilitate, so that they can be reformed and reconsidered in prison, and then reintegrated into society. I also believe that some prisoners can really be reformed and regret their mistakes. But what about criminals who plan to commit crimes? How can we judge that some prisoners have repented and will not reoffend when they come out of society? After all, this is also judged by people. I remember reading a book written by the FBI's first crime profiling expert. It mentioned that many terrifying murderers are smart and can even escape the polygraph test. Their attitude in prison Well, "showing" repentance, repenting of crimes committed, but some of them re-offended after they were released!

Today, many countries in the European Union have abolished the death penalty. Perhaps our society will be on the road to agree to abolish the death penalty, but the government should consider whether the Malaysian people can now accept it like the people of the European Union countries? The government also has the responsibility to create a good living environment, and no one will take risks because of the compulsion of life. It must also strengthen the education of the public on correct values and reduce the crime rate in the society. Perhaps the existence of the death penalty will be useless.