Diffusion: Murder and Capital Punishment Essay

Submitted By Mina-Wagdy
Words: 1665
Pages: 7

He believes in capital punishment as a fair punishment to murderers. He thinks that capital punishment will create a safer environment and it will protects the lives of the innocent people. He believes that life of innocent people is so precious and the life of the murderer is not that important anymore after committing that vicious crime. He thinks that death penalty is a necessity. Murderers don’t deserve to live because they caused a huge harm to other innocent people. Death is so frightening and death will discourage people from committing any more murders. On the other hand, Jeffery Reiman doesn’t agree with the concept of death penalty. He doesn’t think that the death penalty will discourage people from committing more crimes. His opinion is based on a study that compared death penalty with life in prison. The study proved that there is no significant difference between the two punishments when it comes to the social impacts of the two different punishments. He believes that life in prison is scary enough and that will create safer environment to the citizens. The statistics of the numbers of the murder crimes are the same in the states that support capital punishment and the states that oppose capital punishment. He believes that being locked up in jail is an enough and a fair punishment. He believes that the punishment of the murderer should be much more stronger than having the death penalty. He believes that capital punishment is an easy pass to death without feeling any actual pain. He also believes that capital punishment is an inhumane way to punish humans.

2- rich countries have to offer help to other countries that suffer from financial problems. A lot of poor countries suffer from the lack of food which could cause death in many cases. The rich countries should help the poor courtiers by providing more economical and financial opportunities which will reduce the rate of poverty in a very significant way. The right economical techniques could reduce the numbers of hunger and starvation in these poor countries. singer doesn’t believe in making huge sacrifices in order to save the poor. He agrees that rich people should do charity to help the poor. He believes that it is a moral obligation to help those who are in need. He doesn’t like the idea of absolute poverty and he thinks that it could be very preventable. He believes that humans have a problem with the increasing numbers of human population. These poor countries suffer from the fast spread of dangerous illnesses. The lack of food also causes famines, malnutrition and death of millions of children. Hardin believes that we have lots of poor people in this world. He also believes that we have a small portion of rich people in this world. The poor people constitute two thirds of the population. The rich people form one third of the population. He believes that rich people should be picky when it comes to helping the poor. Rich people should help the neediest poor more than the average poor. He gave an example of a boat that hundred people want to travel on it. The boat can only have ten people on it. If the boat has more than ten people, the boat will sink eventually. The solution will be having only ten people who really need to travel on that boat. He believes that children , women and old people deserve to have more help than other people who are less needy for help. That means letting people die because that will solve the overpopulation problem that humanity suffers from. Abelson believes that humans have enough economical resources to help everyone. children ,women and old people should be prioritized and other poor people should have their fair share. He believes that helping poor people shouldn’t be based only on giving them money. Rich people should help the poor by fighting ignorance, poor public health, pollution and dietary imbalance.