What is important for you to do with this question is to state your opinion and support it. Whether you agree with the lawyer or the banker is not so important. The banker argues that the death penalty is a more humane punishment, while the lawyer argues that life in prison is more humane.
"Which executioner is the more humane, he who kills you in a few minutes or he who drags the life out of you in the course of many years?"
It is an interesting question, because neither man is arguing that the prisoner should ever get out of jail. Both the banker and lawyer agree that the prisoner will die in prison. The banker simply believes that getting the death over with sooner is more merciful than letting the prisoner slowly waste away. On the other hand, the lawyer argues that living any life is better than no life at all.
I guess my own personal argument would change based on which situation I might be in. If I were the prisoner, I would want life in prison . . . I think. Life in prison would allow me time to read and learn, which is what the lawyer did. Also, I just can't see myself wishing for an immediate death.
If I were the state/government/system/etc., I might argue for a speedy execution. This is going to sound cold, but if the prisoner is guaranteed to die no matter what, a quick execution frees up more jail space and no money is spent feeding and caring for that prisoner for 50 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment