Glancing through the newspaper, I noticed the headline "Former Supreme Court Justice: Death Penalty Does Good for Society." Whether the death penalty should be abolished in Taiwan is an ongoing debate. For many who oppose it, it's viewed as nothing less than an act of inhuman and violent behavior. On the other hand, supporters view it as the only way to solve criminality. It is natural that people from different background may have divergent attitudes towards it. I, as a college student, firmly think that the death penalty in Taiwan should be abolished, because it cannot deter crimes, impossible to serve as retribution, run the risk of executing the innocent, and severely violating human rights.
The first argument in support of the death penalty is that it helps to deter crime. Supporters argue that death penalty is beneficial for the society because it served as a deterrent for future criminals who are thinking of committing murders or other heinous crimes. However, what they said is partially true. Amnesty International has claimed that it is impossible to prove that death penalty is a greater deterrent than being given a life sentence in prison. In order words, there is no any research can provide valid scientific proof that capital punishment has a deterrent effect.
Secondly, critics put a lot of emphasis on society's need for justice, which could be understood as retribution. Nevertheless, the way they believe retribution could be gained through death penalty make this point even more untenable. They believe in the notion of "An eye for an eye" is the best solution. I do not think the ancient biblical concept of "An eye for an eye" is an effective way for punishment, especially if we claimed ourselves a civilized individual. Besides, the passage from the biblical Old Testament has actually been misinterpreted. For those people who like to quote from the bible, should also noticed that Jesus had told Peter to forgive other's sin up to seventy times seven.