The “believing game” refers to the process of being analytic on any controversial topic encountered. Through the game of doubting, one can uncover contradictions embedded in any undertaken decision. However, this process can be successful if an individual welcomes any postulated idea without subjecting it to personal opinions and prejudice. Although it is not logical to believe in every statement, this process serves to open avenues through which hidden virtues and flaws can be recognized. Based on this concept, the believing game provides a better platform for analyzing both the pros and cons of an idea.
In this assignment, the selected topic questions whether death penalty should be allowed. As much as this topic is considered unethical, it serves to deter crime and reduce the cost associated with life imprisonment. With such a severe punitive policy in place, the society is likely to benefit from reduced cases of crime. Also, this policy serves to console victims by serving as the best way of punishing treason, espionage and other heinous crimes. Based on these reasons, I would recommend for the death penalty to be allowed in today’s society.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One of the postulated rebuttals is that the death penalty does not deter criminal behavior. However, the only helpful concept about this view is that it sheds lights on the flaws of the policy. If this view is believed, then it is easy to notice that death penalty does not have any relevance in society. If this policy does not deter crime, why should it be in force? However, this premise may be true if the number of reported crime cases are considered to increase with the rate of executions. Also, this idea may be true since some heinous crimes are perpetrated by drug addicts or mentally ill individuals who do not care about the laws in place.
Additionally, this policy is wrong since it provides leaders with the power to kill. The only helpful concept about this view is that it highlights the possibility of ill will in the death penalty statute. Therefore, if this viewpoint is believed, one can easily note that death penalty was essentially enacted to serve the interests of those in power. For instance, a politician can wrongly implicate a target person to serve his or her interests. However, this idea might be true if the number of wrongly executed individuals prevail.
Lastly, the death penalty perpetuates social injustices in society. The most interesting thing about this view is that it highlights the avenue through which stereotyped individuals use to perpetuate their ethnic and racial discriminatory advancements. If this view is believed, it is easy for one to note that the enforcement of the death penalty partly influences the problems experienced by people of color. However, this premise may be true if the majority of executed individuals are unable to afford better attorneys. Also, this view may be true if the less disadvantaged individuals are the most executed. With these conditions in place, it is evident that the death penalty is being used by those in power to perpetuate social injustices.
In summary, the “believing game” entails uncovering contradictions in a statement by assessing the truth in both pros and cons. Through the application of this methodology in the death penalty topic, it is evident that this policy harbors more drawbacks than benefits. Considering that the sole purpose of the death penalty is to deter criminal behavior, it has failed since crime is still on the rise. Also, through the guidelines of “believing game,” death penalty is associated with increased social injustices. Even though this policy is still relevant in today’s society, its hidden virtues can only be uncovered by equally believing and analyzing its cons.
