Death Penalty in Peru
Death Penalty
Death Penalty is and always will be a controversial debate. In fact, death penalty in Peru has been abolitionist for common crimes since 1979, when the last execution was held. In 1993, Congress approved a new Constitution introducing a new capital offence that is for terrorism, but in 1994 the Inter-American Court on Human Rights stated that ratifying or adhering to the Convention is a violation of the treaty. In 2007, Peru’s Congress rejected Alan Garcia’s bill seeking to introduce the death penalty for terrorist.
Some people are for it some oppose it because death penalty has cons and pros.
The cons of death penalty are that it is not fair that murderers or criminals are often given parole after only a few years in jail, those convicted should be jailed for life with no option for parole. Cold-hearted criminals are put in parole after only serving several years, and they still think that being against killing is okay. In addition, criminals live an easy life in prison, and they probably don’t think twice about their crime, and people pays taxes for prisoners to live a healthy lifestyle. Criminals eat, sleep, and even given an education. People who are against the death penalty probably did not have someone close to them taken away by a murderer.
On the other hand, death penalty has pros and some are these. It is allowable because the criminal did murder an innocent victim, and therefore should be killed. As consequence, death penalty is going to stop criminals from murdering. Let the convicted murderer work for the public good for the rest of his/her life. Many people will agree that death penalty is just and fair. Additionally, the death penalty can lower crime, and is not an evil punishment, it’s the person who committed such a crime who deserves the death penalty.
In conclusion, I can affirm that that I do believe that death penalty is moral and just. We must never forget that no one has to be executed, if no one murder, no one is
Death Penalty is and always will be a controversial debate. In fact, death penalty in Peru has been abolitionist for common crimes since 1979, when the last execution was held. In 1993, Congress approved a new Constitution introducing a new capital offence that is for terrorism, but in 1994 the Inter-American Court on Human Rights stated that ratifying or adhering to the Convention is a violation of the treaty. In 2007, Peru’s Congress rejected Alan Garcia’s bill seeking to introduce the death penalty for terrorist.
Some people are for it some oppose it because death penalty has cons and pros.
The cons of death penalty are that it is not fair that murderers or criminals are often given parole after only a few years in jail, those convicted should be jailed for life with no option for parole. Cold-hearted criminals are put in parole after only serving several years, and they still think that being against killing is okay. In addition, criminals live an easy life in prison, and they probably don’t think twice about their crime, and people pays taxes for prisoners to live a healthy lifestyle. Criminals eat, sleep, and even given an education. People who are against the death penalty probably did not have someone close to them taken away by a murderer.
On the other hand, death penalty has pros and some are these. It is allowable because the criminal did murder an innocent victim, and therefore should be killed. As consequence, death penalty is going to stop criminals from murdering. Let the convicted murderer work for the public good for the rest of his/her life. Many people will agree that death penalty is just and fair. Additionally, the death penalty can lower crime, and is not an evil punishment, it’s the person who committed such a crime who deserves the death penalty.
In conclusion, I can affirm that that I do believe that death penalty is moral and just. We must never forget that no one has to be executed, if no one murder, no one is