Capital punishment must be banned, while others think in order to protect individuals.. Band 9 Essay

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Some people believe capital punishment must be banned, while others think in order to protect individuals, criminals committing certain crimes must be executed.

What is your opinion?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge and experiences.

You should write at least 250 words.

Get your personalised IELTS Essay Feedback from a former examiner

Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score

Sample Essay 1

There is a group of people who argue for the abolition of death penalty, whereas, considering people’s safety, others believe that convicts of some heinous crimes must be brought to the judicial execution. However, I am strongly inclined to the view that execution is assuredly inappropriate in the modern world due to the possibility of mistrial and its futility.

A miscarriage of justice that results in putting an innocent person to death is one of the key reasons why capital punishment is impractical today. Instead of having the advanced investigation methods and a large number of efficient detectives, there is always a chance of making a mistake. For instance, Tom Chappell of Zimbabwe was given a death penalty in 1989, which was proved wrong after 22 years when his dependent parents and widow already passed away after a long period of poverty and starvation. It illustrates that a legalized killing cannot bring any justice for lay people, but it can definitely shatter someone’s life, which would have a knock-on effect on many individuals. Even if the jury realizes after executing the penalty that it was a mistake, no compensation on earth will be able to bring the executed person back to life. Thus, killing an innocent person in the name of justice can never be justified.

In addition, I would argue that anyone can make mistakes, and therefore, it is extremely important to give a lawbreaker a second chance for rectification. There are serial killers who are caught in the USA and in some European countries and, fortunately, as the above-mentioned countries do not have death penalty, it can be a salvation for the first-time criminals in these nations. For instance, the Norwegian terrorist Bravick killed 77 and injured 151 people, but he got a second chance, which was especially useful for this person as it allowed him to think twice about his life. Therefore, I do believe that the government should give perpetrators an opportunity for rehabilitation which is a proved effective strategy applied in many countries.

In conclusion, both jury and criminals can make mistakes; judges can give an unfair trail ending someone’s life, while a correction chance can gift a person a beautiful new life. Therefore, regardless of the extent of crime, I am firmly of the opinion that death penalty is inappropriate in today's world.

Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score

Sample Essay 2

The debate over capital punishment polarizes societies, pitching advocates for its absolute abolition against proponents arguing its necessity for safeguarding public safety through the deterrence of heinous crimes. This essay contends that while capital punishment may serve a deterrent function, its irrevocability and the potential for judicial errors necessitate a reevaluation of its application, advocating for stringent, but reversible, penal measures.

Proponents of capital punishment assert that it serves as a potent deterrent against grave offenses, such as murder or terrorism, thereby protecting societal order and safety. They argue that the fear of death is primal and universal, making the death penalty an effective tool in preventing individuals from committing acts that could attract such a punishment. For instance, countries with active death penalty laws often cite lower rates of major crimes, suggesting a correlation between capital punishment and crime deterrence. However, this perspective overlooks the moral and ethical dimensions of taking a life, especially in a judicial system not immune to flaws.

Conversely, critics of capital punishment highlight the irreversible nature of the penalty and the distressing possibility of executing innocent individuals. Judicial systems, albeit designed to be meticulous, are not infallible. The instances of posthumous exonerations through advanced forensic methods underscore this fallibility, revealing the grim reality that irreversible punishments can, and do, irrevocably harm innocent lives. Moreover, the ethical argument posits that the state should not engage in the same fundamental violation of life it seeks to prevent, advocating instead for life sentences without parole as a means to protect society while preserving the potential for rectifying judicial errors.

In conclusion, while the intent behind capital punishment - to deter heinous crimes and protect society - is understandable, its irreversible consequences and the ethical dilemma it presents cannot be overlooked. A more humane and reversible approach to punishment is warranted, one that safeguards society and upholds the value of human life, even in the face of grievous offenses. This shift not only reflects a commitment to justice but also to the principles of mercy and redemption, essential components of an evolved society.

Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score

Sample Essay 2

The debate over the appropriateness of capital punishment polarizes opinion, pitting those who see it as an archaic, inhumane practice against proponents arguing it's necessary for safeguarding society by deterring heinous crimes. This essay contends that while capital punishment may serve as a deterrent, alternatives exist that can protect society without resorting to taking a life, focusing on rehabilitation and the effectiveness of life imprisonment as deterrents.

Detractors of capital punishment argue that it is fundamentally inhumane and unethical, violating the universal right to life. The irrevocability of the death penalty raises grave concerns, especially in light of judicial fallibility; wrongful executions are irreversible miscarriages of justice. Furthermore, studies have shown that capital punishment does not significantly deter crime more effectively than life imprisonment. Countries like Norway, which emphasize rehabilitation over retribution, boast some of the lowest recidivism rates globally, suggesting that transforming individuals into productive members of society is a more effective way to ensure public safety.

Proponents, however, maintain that the death penalty acts as a potent deterrent against severe crimes, asserting that the fear of death is paramount in preventing individuals from committing acts like murder or terrorism. They argue that certain crimes are so grievous that they warrant the ultimate penalty, both as a form of retribution and to prevent the criminal from harming society again. Nonetheless, this perspective overlooks the potential for rehabilitation and the ethical dilemmas posed by state-sanctioned killing, not to mention the psychological and social impact on the families involved and society at large.

In conclusion, while the intention behind capital punishment - to protect society and deter crime - is understandable, the evidence suggests that alternatives such as life imprisonment without parole and a focus on rehabilitation are more humane and just as effective. The ethical implications and the irreversible nature of the death penalty highlight the need for criminal justice systems that prioritize reform and redemption over retribution. Society must strive for a balance that ensures safety and justice without compromising human dignity.

Get your personalised IELTS Essay Feedback from a former examiner

Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score