谢振礼老师海外投稿，转载请注明：出国留学网 www.liuxue86.com
【重刑犯应该活活吊死】的一派想法是主张正义声张。另一派人反对死刑的人主要是考量人类的爱心。不过大部分人的意见好像多少站在两种极端看法的中间。
反对死刑的论点大多来自人道与宗教各界。他们认为‘以眼还眼’的古老原则，不能适用于今天， 是以无法接受处死活人的实施。死刑一途并不能阻止犯罪的发生。无期徒刑可取代死刑。真正执行死刑之事，应该是属于过去的历史。这种观点已经广受理解。难怪全世界有百分之60的国家，包挂欧盟，已经前后取消极刑。
另一方面，坚持执行死刑的意见者，大有人在。历史上，几乎每个社会都有死刑的存在，功在有效阻止重罪的发生。道理很简单。如果把罪大恶极的分子铲除，社会中的良民才有安宁。该死的人死了，就永远不能犯罪，免得监狱里作乱，越狱，或经释放后重新做乱。因此，死刑一旦确定，越快执行越好，免得重犯白吃公粮，造成财务损失。
综观死刑之利弊，死刑的执行应该是极不得以之措施。看来，死刑势在必行，不过一定要经过谨慎和公平的审判。作奸犯科，杀人贩毒，如果罪无可赦，理当处死，以免嫁祸人间。理智的司法当然要辨别轻重。有的无可救药，有的纵然杀人犯法，也许情有可原。
"All serious criminals should be hanged," according to some people who want to see justice done. Some people, however, seem to be opposed to death penalty, apparently out of human love. Most people nowadays choose to stand somewhere in between the two extreme points of view.
【重刑犯应该活活吊死】的一派想法是主张正义声张。另一派人反对死刑的人主要是考量人类的爱心。不过大部分人的意见好像多少站在两种极端看法的中间。
反对死刑的论点大多来自人道与宗教各界。他们认为‘以眼还眼’的古老原则，不能适用于今天， 是以无法接受处死活人的实施。死刑一途并不能阻止犯罪的发生。无期徒刑可取代死刑。真正执行死刑之事，应该是属于过去的历史。这种观点已经广受理解。难怪全世界有百分之60的国家，包挂欧盟，已经前后取消极刑。
另一方面，坚持执行死刑的意见者，大有人在。历史上，几乎每个社会都有死刑的存在，功在有效阻止重罪的发生。道理很简单。如果把罪大恶极的分子铲除，社会中的良民才有安宁。该死的人死了，就永远不能犯罪，免得监狱里作乱，越狱，或经释放后重新做乱。因此，死刑一旦确定，越快执行越好，免得重犯白吃公粮，造成财务损失。
综观死刑之利弊，死刑的执行应该是极不得以之措施。看来，死刑势在必行，不过一定要经过谨慎和公平的审判。作奸犯科，杀人贩毒，如果罪无可赦，理当处死，以免嫁祸人间。理智的司法当然要辨别轻重。有的无可救药，有的纵然杀人犯法，也许情有可原。
"All serious criminals should be hanged," according to some people who want to see justice done. Some people, however, seem to be opposed to death penalty, apparently out of human love. Most people nowadays choose to stand somewhere in between the two extreme points of view.
The rejection of capital punishment is actively voiced by mostly human rights and religious sectors. For them, it is not acceptable to execute a person, the practice being the old-fashioned principle of "an eye for an eye." It is argued that death penalty alone does little to prevent crimes from taking place. As an alternative, "life without parole" is recommended. In other words, death penalty is simply out of date. This view appears to have been gaining votes around the world. As of now, more than 60 percent of countries and states, including the European union , have reportedly ruled out the practice.
The defense of capital punishment has a different story. Death penalty has historically been practiced in virtually every society, serving as a real deterrence to serious crimes. The logic is obvious. It removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much safer for the rest of society. It is also self-evident that dead criminals cannot commit further crimes, either within prisons, or after breaking jail, or after being set free. The execution makes economic sense as well, and the sooner the better, because of huge cost involved in long keeping dangerous criminals behind bars.
To sum up, in consideration of the controversy, putting criminals can only be viewed as a "necessary evil." In the name of justice, execution must somehow sometimes apply, although in a different manner and with a careful and after a fair trial. Thus, once convicted, horrible killers, series rappers, and other big-time evil-doers trapped in drug trafficking and organized crimes, do not deserve a prolonged life. It is, nevertheless, always advisable to distinguish really dreadful crimes and those crimes, while still homicide, are much more understandable.
