Capital Punishment has been recognised as a civilised way of disposing of their unwanted criminals by most countries at one time in their history. Slowly countries that claim it is uncivilised to kill people for crimes they have committed have abolished the death penalty. There are strong arguments for and against the use of the death penalty in a society that claims to be civilised and in this essay I will examine them. I will also look at the impact of the death penalty on crime figures in Britain before and after 1965 and in the USA today. I feel it is important to include the USA in this essay as it is the only westernised country where you can still be executed for crimes you have committed. Over the years countries have tried to come up with the most seemingly civilised ways to putt people to death. One of the main arguments for the abolishment of the death penalty was that it is unreasonable to ask someone else to kill someone for their crimes thus making them a murderer. Countries have tried to find the most indirect way of putting criminals to death however the act still have to be committed. Technology has come along way from the primitive times of just chopping someone's head of with an axe or hanging them by their neck from the nearest tree.
In 1887 an American dentist made of the biggest advances in 'humane' capital punishment. He devised and built a chair with equipment that could be used to pass electricity through the head of the condemned, killing them quickly and supposedly painlessly. This was the most indirect method of putting someone to death at the time. All the executioner had to do was pull a lever, the electricity was turned on and the prisoner was electrocuted to death. When they first started using it they realised that it usually took more than one surge of electricity to kill and the prisoner had to be finished off with a second or maybe even third surge.