Band 8 model answer

Capital punishment endures as one of the most contentious questions in criminal justice. Some are convinced that the execution of offenders deters grave crime; others denounce it as barbaric and unconscionable. This essay examines both contentions before advancing my own.

Those who defend the death penalty rest their argument chiefly on deterrence and retribution. They submit that the prospect of execution dissuades would-be murderers far more forcefully than the threat of imprisonment, and that certain atrocities are so heinous that only the ultimate sanction constitutes genuine justice for victims and their families. The permanent removal of the most dangerous individuals, they add, guarantees that such offenders can never strike again.

Abolitionists rejoin with objections of comparable gravity. Their most formidable argument is the spectre of executing the innocent: no judicial system is infallible, and a wrongful execution is an error beyond all remedy. They likewise contest the deterrence claim, noting that states which have abandoned capital punishment have witnessed no general surge in violent crime, which intimates that the likelihood of apprehension weighs more heavily than the severity of the penalty. For many, taking a life in the name of the state is, quite simply, morally untenable.

Having weighed these arguments, I align myself firmly with the abolitionists. The bare possibility of an irreversible miscarriage of justice seems to me decisive, while the evidence for deterrence is markedly thinner than its champions allege. A civilised justice system should strive to protect society and, wherever feasible, to rehabilitate, not to extinguish life.

In conclusion, although the wish to see monstrous crimes punished severely is wholly understandable, I believe the danger of fatal error and the want of any clear deterrent render the death penalty impossible to justify.