The advantag­es and disadvan­tages of abolishi­ng the death penalty in Hong Kong

The advantages and disadvantages of abolishing the death penalty in Hong Kong

In the past few years, Hong Kong have happened some serious cases of which its criminals have severely offended the law .They are being imprisoned for the life ,but some citizens think they should have death penalty. It triggered a heated debate about the necessity of capital punishment.

While some scholars welcome the coming of execution, others doubt the effectiveness of death penalty and the related moral issues created by the using of death penalty. This essay examines both the arguments for and against abolishing the death penalty in Hong Kong.

Abolishing the death penalty can modify the judicial system. The goal of setting the penalty is preventing the violation of law by the deterrence, not to torture the criminal [1]. Death penalty do not match the nature of law. It is because death penalty is an emotional revenge, unlike repaying a debt which is a rational calculation.

The debtors can reduce their loss by getting back the reception of lost money, however, the life of victim could not be resuscitated by using death penalty. The reason to adopt the capital punishment is mainly based on “An eye for an eye” which is a common social belief.

Some citizen think that the murderer should be killed because of their behavior based on “an eye for an eye”. However, “an eye for an eye” cannot be the measurement to decide the penalty dealt to the criminal. It is ridiculous that trigger more problem. For example, the penalty of a rapist cannot be the rape.

Capital punishment cannot ameliorate the situation. It also leaves no scope to the case and triggers a great deal of moral issues. Using the life imprisonment to replace the death penalty can avoid the conflict with the nature of law and have the same deterrence.

To respect the entitling of right to life, the death penalty should keep abolishing. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [2], it stated that every human being enjoys the “right to life, liberty and security”. The essence of all kinds of death penalty are killing which is not acceptable even though the killing is based on any magnificent reason.

The right to life is inborn and should not be deprived. Rousseau [3] stated that citizens are the social members of government and they transfer part of their rights and freedom to exchange the protection and protected right from the country. However, the country has no right to deprive the life right from the social member.

It is because citizens own the right to life and did not entrust the power of depriving the life right to the country. As the right to life is complete and indivisible, it is unlike the right of freedom and property. Therefore, country can limit part of the freedom and properties of citizens, but cannot deprive the right to life from the citizens.

The right to life has the highest priority in the inborn rights. It is the basis of all other spiritualistic and materialistic rights such as right to liberty. When the country own the right to life of a human being, it also necessarily owns all other right of that human being.

The disadvantage of abolishing the death penalty is the heavier financial pressure of the government. Most countries use the life imprisonment to replace the death penalty. The dollars from the tax payer is used to pay the food, medicine and housing of the prisoner.

Some criminals who have life imprisonments are young. It means that the country have to pay more resources to keep them in prison. Some states in USA are out of resources because of these huge financial burden [4]. To ensure the prisoner have complete right and enough resources, the cost of life imprisonment is larger than capital punishment.

Other disadvantage of abolishing the execution is that the ability to diffusing the anger in the society becomes weakened. The law of retaliation has a high popularity in a great deal of countries. It is because some religion had promoted deeply the law of retaliation into the society [5][6][7][8].

It is clear that there are both advantages and disadvantages to abolishing the capital punishment in Hong Kong. Death penalty can modify the judicial system and maintain the dominance of right to life. These benefits should be considered to against the heavy financial burden and blocking of anger emotion created in society.

Taking these arguments into consideration, I believe that using the capital

Punishment in Hong Kong would affect the stability of the society. Hong Kong has banned the execution over 20 years. The society and most citizens are accustomed to the new legal system. The crime rate has dropped after the abolishing of execution [10]. To keep the stability of the society, government should keep abolishing death penalty.

References:

[2]"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations", Un.org, 2016. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 25- Mar- 2016].

[3]J. Rousseau, An inquiry into the nature of the social contract, or, Principles of political right. London: Printed for G.G.J. and J. Robinson, 1791.

[4]S. Moore, "Court Orders California to Cut Prison Population", Nytimes.com, 2009. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 25- Mar- 2016].

[5]Book of Deuteronomy. pp. Chapter 19 verse 21.

[6]Book of Exodus. pp. Chapter 21 verse 23-25.

[7]Book of Leviticus. pp. Chapter 24 verse 19-20.

[8]"Court orders Iranian man blinded", News.bbc.co.uk, 2008. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 25- Mar- 2016].

[9]"Schoolgirl dies after brutal campus attack", 2015. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 25- Mar- 2016].