The Radicals and the Human Rights` Protectors

What can we say about a man who shoots a woman dead when he runs away just after stealing some store, or someone who kills many children, or another who falsifies medicine? Does someone like this deserve our mercy and second choice or our tough laws, capital punishment?

The more gullibles, more religious say that everyone is entitled to a second chance. People can recover, of course, if placed in a decent prison system and having a continuation of this recovery after leaving prison and receiving opportunity of job to remake their life.

The radicals say that there is no recovery for profiles of psychopaths. This type of statement finds some support in science since psychopaths suffer from a brain dysfunction; they lack the production of a substance responsible for the faculty of having compassion, the sense of putting themselves in another's place and sympathize for other's pain. If someone is bad enough to represent a risk for the society beeing free, why to support and pay highly for this, they say.

On the other hand, Human Rght's Protectors always say that death penalty does not reduce criminal rates; it's just an "easy" way to solve the problem by cutting it off. And more: in countries where most part of people is too poor and unprovided of advocacy assistance, the possibility of doing mistakes coud be very high. Besides, many despotic states use this kind of legal instrument to simply eliminate the opposicionists.

Recently China, the greatest executor in the world, reduced the number of crimes that are punished with death penalty. Thirteen modalities got off of the list.

And now the big question we put is: Can death penalty indeed reduce crimes in somewhere or make people feel safer?