By Punishing Murderers With The Death Penalty, Society Is Also Guilty of Committing Murder - IELTS Task 2 Essay

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Sample Essay 1

Advocates of abolition argue that when the state executes a killer, it rehearses the very act it condemns; by contrast, a lifelong custodial sentence better satisfies justice. I strongly agree. Capital punishment erodes the state’s moral authority and risks irreversible injustice, while life imprisonment secures public safety, expresses censure, and preserves the possibility of correction. I defend this view on principled and practical grounds.

First, a polity that kills to prove killing is wrong collapses the moral distance that legitimises its authority. Justice should be condemnatory yet civil, not retaliatory. The death penalty derives from lex talionis, but mature legal orders have replaced vengeance with proportional restraint. A whole-life term can communicate the community’s abhorrence, permanently incapacitate the offender, and do so without the state imitating the crime it punishes. It also honours human dignity by recognising that identity is not exhausted by the worst act; the possibility of moral change—however slim—matters in a system committed to principled punishment rather than spectacle. Crucially, execution often fails even the victims it purports to serve: it converts their grief into years of adversarial litigation, whereas properly resourced life sentences can be paired with restorative processes and tangible compensation that address victims’ needs more directly.

Second, the empirical ledger favours life terms because criminal adjudication is fallible and deterrence claims remain contested. DNA exonerations and recanted testimony have revealed wrongful convictions, and death is uniquely resistant to remedy. Life imprisonment, by contrast, preserves the capacity to correct error through appeal, retrial, or clemency. Nor does capital punishment demonstrably reduce homicide; jurisdictions without it have not suffered higher murder rates, suggesting that certainty of capture and swift, fair trials—not severity—drive deterrence. Capital cases are also costlier, diverting scarce prosecutorial and judicial resources from prevention, community policing, and victim services. In cases involving extremist violence, executions risk martyrdom effects and propaganda value, whereas a life term imposes decisive incapacitation with none of the symbolic rewards offenders may seek.

In sum, life imprisonment condemns without copying the crime, protects the public while allowing for error correction, and aligns punishment with the ethical restraint a state must model. For both moral and pragmatic reasons, society should reject executions and adopt lifelong custody as the superior sanction.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Sample Essay 2

Supporters of abolition often claim that executing criminals is itself a form of murder, and that permanent incarceration is a superior alternative. I strongly disagree. The death penalty, when administered under stringent safeguards, is neither equivalent to unlawful killing nor inferior to life imprisonment. Instead, it upholds justice by delivering proportionate retribution and serves pragmatic aims such as deterrence and closure. This essay will explore both dimensions.

The primary justification lies in proportional justice. Murder annihilates the most fundamental right—the right to life. To punish such an offence with anything less than the ultimate sanction risks trivialising the gravity of the crime. A sentence of lifelong confinement, while severe, allows the perpetrator to continue existing, enjoying small liberties and even opportunities for intellectual or spiritual growth—privileges forever denied to the victim. Capital punishment, by contrast, recognises the enormity of homicide by imposing a penalty that mirrors its irreversible nature. Moreover, equating execution with murder ignores a crucial distinction: murder is an act of private malice, whereas the death penalty is a lawful and deliberate exercise of judicial authority, bound by due process and collective moral reasoning. Far from imitating crime, it symbolises society’s refusal to permit such an outrage without the gravest response available.

Equally compelling are the pragmatic effects of capital punishment. Although empirical certainty on deterrence is elusive, the rational calculation of potential offenders cannot be dismissed: the irreversible prospect of death is a far more formidable restraint than the promise of prison food and medical care at public expense. Additionally, capital punishment spares taxpayers the enormous financial burden of sustaining violent offenders for decades, especially in systems where appeals already consume vast resources. Beyond economics, executions can also deliver psychological resolution for victims’ families. Knowing that the killer will never again breathe the air of freedom can bring a sense of closure unattainable through visits, news reports, or parole hearings that accompany life imprisonment. In extreme cases such as terrorism or serial killings, life terms may inadvertently grant criminals a platform, whereas execution closes their chapter decisively.

In conclusion, the death penalty cannot reasonably be equated with murder, as it arises from lawful justice rather than unlawful violence. By matching punishment to crime, reinforcing deterrence, and preventing endless costs and traumas, capital punishment remains a justified and, at times, necessary sanction.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!