Ancient Rome. 13th century. Someone killed a member of a guild and they are being punished. They can’t plead for their innocence (okay yeah they are already found guilty.) He couldn’t plead anyway, even if he was innocent. And he was going to be killed in front of a large crowd of people. Their head is put through a hole, above a bucket, with a steel blade above him. The blade falls. And soon, everyone just walks away.

The death penalty. The ancient, eviler predecessor of the modern jail. Nowadays if it was serious enough to be killed, you just stay in there longer. But back then, people would see an eye for an eye.

Do people really deserve to die for their misdeeds? Back in ancient Rome, they did. It does depend though. If it wasn’t that bad, like stealing one thing from one person that wasn’t even that important, they would be thrown in a jail or a stock for people to throw dirty food at them. But if it was serious, like murder, they would get immediate karma and be killed.

Donald Trump and John McCain support it for the more heinous crimes, in which case they shouldn’t “abandon the death penalty”. But President Obama says even though it would bring down the person, it wouldn’t actually deter crime that much.


Imagine if you will, you were in 13th century Rome. You were standing in a big crowd of people. Some evildoer has committed highway robbery, treason, and/or murder. You decide, it’s your imagination. Whichever you chose, that was a crime big enough to get executed back then in front of a bunch of people including you by a guillotine or executioner. Or the person could be put in a trial of combat where people thought God wouldn’t let the innocent die for something they didn’t do or let them be killed in the arena. But eventually, it was counted as murder in 1969 and stopped there.

Main question: Should the death penalty be brought back?

Yes: This would be a way for a permanent way to end a line of crime as it would bring down the person who did the crimes. Plus, the victims would really be avenged this way. And finally, people who want to see real blood and gore, like real creepy fans of “Mortal Kombat” get to see a real-life “FATALITY!” this way.

No: This doesn’t seem to be a way to punish someone that isn’t really a way to make them pay, as it is way better for the person who is being punished than being sent to jail.(Like if they regret it immediately after and want to kill themselves, you’d do what they want.) Plus you if you kill him/her, you would just do the exact thing the other person did, as of course: “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. And for this, back in 1969, the death penalty was replaced with a legal court system so innocent people can’t be punished.

So there you have it. Here, all I have to say is this: CHOOSE YOUR SIDE! But first, let’s take a quick pro/con recap:

For pros, there is a permanent end to one’s line of crime, it would be a more of an avenge for the victim, and the people who would like a gory bloodbath would get one.

But, for cons, the death penalty would be a less punishing punishment, the “two wrongs don’t make a right” and that it was eventually replaced by a current, better way to “judge” a person’s innocence or guilt. Get it?

So we reviewed the death penalty in medieval Rome, reviewed pros & cons, and found out how it ended. As you have read the facts of the death penalty, there is still one last question: Do you think it should be brought back?