Introduction
Vengeance is like a fire, which never ending in its efforts keeps on spreading, engulfing the entire life of the person, destroying his own world and at the same time devastating others lives. Violence and Vengeance are two sides of the same coin, one always procreating another. Since violence, distresses people and hence discourage them from socializing liberally, the resentment, from lacking the contentment of reciprocated trust and mutual harmony, possibly will frustrate even the best meaning from continuing to be submissive citizens, to speak out nothing of the maudlin and soured. Thus, it is evident that capital punishment should be abolished and should not be implemented under any circumstances.
Main body
To forgive is not to be diverted, from mending one’s own shortcomings by complacency. Exculpation may be beyond the ability of many, who suffer from others’ iniquity. That is pardonable. However, it does not have to be away from the law, established by insightful people, though each other’s suffering. The only emotion acceptable between human relations is love. For example, Christ’s message of love was to replace the old law of a balance of terror.
Democracy is about tolerating a society to control its dealings by accepted approval. It is not about ventilating chauvinism in judging whether one deserves to exist or perish. These popular judicial murders, formally termed as death sentences, are the depiction of man’s bigotry, malice and viciousness, which by no means help the historic standing of democracy. The death punishment can slay an enemy besides perhaps creating several others but forgiveness can disentangle oneself from thoughts haunted by antagonism, the lone hope for peace of mind. Thus holding a referendum on death penalty or capital punishment could be challenged, from a constitutional standpoint, as an abuse of democratic rites.
It is important to understand that the concept related to the aspects of zero tolerance developed from the viewpoint that has its base in the parameters that actually rose as a classical utilitarianism reaction. It can be placed as an argument that the there is much pain in the penal system and it tend to affect an individual by a large margin and the aspects of penal consequences should be taken into consequences while evaluating the entire process of proposed crime. It should be noted that that during the time it was a normal practice to issue capital punishment. The basic concept behind this rose because it was frustrating in many cases in the context of penal system and legislation and it was viewed that anything less than a capital punishment would not be able to serve the purpose of the judicial system.
This was because such situations required capital punishments as anything less than that was unable to check the flow of crime and tendency to break the law. Circumstances at times became so severe that the jurisdiction implied capital punishments to minors. However, it can be also stated that better equipped police force and improved resourcefulness would reduce penalties in the end. It is very true that we are not retaliating seraphs, the only defense for the ancient rule of deliberate vengeance, is prevention.
Referendums of Punishments and sentences are to put fright in the harts of criminals, to make them know that if they exterminate they will be executed too. Nevertheless the innocent have also reasons to dread this brutal system in which often due lo lack of proper evidences mistakes are made. Worse still, this system is also unlawfully misused in repressing the truth, to emerge unfailingly to society, so that it will not be disgraced. Thus, to be on the safer side, it is better to abandon the act of capital punishment.
Author’s note
The way the people behaved with Socrates and Christ put forward the mob or the mass might pass adverse judgment on folk to good for them, rather than to bad. All the court attempts to ascertain is whether the accused person is culpable. However, that does not imply whether he is accountable for his entire life history that prologue to the offense. That question was usually kept aside for the Deity’s Day of verdict, which is ahead of the recourses of every human court. When human beings converse upon possessing supreme authorities of presiding over life and death, their sense of right and wrong have to be alleviated with the calming lie that they are solely responsible for deciding the executed deserved to perish. As a result, it is obvious that we should not be the judge of fellow citizen’s right to live or die.
While writing against believers of capital punishment it was evident that I should speak up my mind and with emotional rhetoric while presenting my argument. However, while communicating with people who share the same idea as mine, it was difficult. This argument needed arguments that are more logical and there was no pathos. At that point, it was important to present my ideas in a well-formulated manner to show better judgment of position and better understanding of the possible solution.