“Pro-Capital Punishment and Life Sentences”

Capital punishment, reserved for the few crimes deemed most heinous, serves as the ultimate expression of proportional justice. It asserts that some acts are so egregious that the only penalty commensurate with the damage inflicted is the forfeit of the perpetrator's own life. While the debate over general deterrence continues, the death penalty offers absolute specific deterrence—guaranteeing that the executed individual will never commit another crime, a certainty unmatched by any other sentence.

Life imprisonment without parole, in contrast, is essential for serious offenses that fall just short of capital criteria, or where legal or evidentiary factors preclude the death penalty. It allows the justice system to respond with maximum severity—punishing the offender with permanent removal—while respecting legal safeguards and mitigating factors. Together, capital punishment and life sentences serve as necessary boundaries, affirming the sanctity of human life and validating the suffering of victims by ensuring that the gravest offenses are met with the most severe and enduring consequences.

Sample Answer

The criminal justice system requires both capital punishment and life sentences as indispensable mechanisms for maintaining social order, ensuring proportional justice, and protecting the public from the most dangerous offenders.

The fundamental argument for both penalties rests on retribution and finality. For crimes of extraordinary depravity—such as premeditated murder, mass killings, or acts of terrorism—a life sentence provides permanent incapacitation, removing the offender from society indefinitely. This fulfills society's right to safety, guaranteeing that individuals proven to be irreformably dangerous will never pose a threat again.