Justice, Revenge, and the Ultimate Price
Capital punishment remains one of the most dividing issues in global law. Supporters argue it is the only fair response to the worst crimes, providing peace to victims' families and serving as a strict warning. Opponents argue that state killing is violent and point to the terrifying reality of innocent people being sentenced to die. In this unit, we separate true justice from angry revenge.
1. The governor refused to show , and the punishment proceeded as scheduled.
2. Opponents argue that there is no statistical evidence that the death penalty acts as an effective to murder.
3. New DNA evidence helped to the man's name after 20 years in prison.
4. Human rights organisations are campaigning globally to capital punishment entirely.
5. The prisoner's lawyers filed a final to the Supreme Court just hours before midnight.
6. Today, a lethal is the most common method of capital punishment in some countries.
7. Is it ever morally acceptable for governments to their own citizens?
8. You cannot give someone the death sentence without 100% solid .
When debating morality and the justice system, native speakers rely on these evocative phrases.
Read this harrowing account of a systemic failure.
In 1998, Thomas Vance was sent to prison for a brutal murder. He constantly claimed he was innocent, but the jury believed the police had proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thomas spent 18 years trapped on death row, exhausted after losing every single appeal.
Just weeks before the state planned to execute him, a charity secured funding to test DNA from the crime scene using modern technology. The new medical proof definitively showed that Thomas was not the killer. The governor intervened, and Thomas's name was finally cleared.
While Thomas is now a free man, human rights groups point to his case as a terrifying near-miss. "If that test hadn't happened, the state would have blood on its hands," a spokesperson said. "A miscarriage of justice is always terrible, but death is permanent."
When we want to talk about how a past event (or a past mistake) affects the present reality, we use a Mixed Conditional. It mixes the Third Conditional (unreal past) with the Second Conditional (unreal present).
| Structure | Meaning | Debate Example |
|---|---|---|
| If + Past Perfect, ... would/wouldn't + Base Verb | A hypothetical past condition with a hypothetical present result. | "If they had executed him in 1998, an innocent man would be dead today." (They didn't execute him, so he is alive today). |
| If + Past Perfect, ... would/wouldn't be + verb-ing | A hypothetical past condition affecting an ongoing action right now. | "If the DNA hadn't been tested, he would still be sitting in prison." (It was tested, so he is not sitting there). |
1. If the jury ____________ the real killer back in 1998, Thomas Vance wouldn't be dealing with severe trauma right now.
2. If they had banned the death penalty years ago, the state ____________ blood on its hands today.
Type the missing words to complete these heavy idioms.
1. Sending an innocent person to prison for 20 years is a massive miscarriage of .
2. Some people believe in pure retribution: an eye for an .
Before you debate, look at these points and use the sentence starters below.
Don't just nod your head in conversations. Master the advanced phrasing to eloquently defend your opinions in high-level debates.
Come and join me for a bespoke English lesson at nativeuk.com designed specifically to build your conversational confidence.
Book a Private SessionWant to speak clearly about politics, tech, and the modern world? We've got the secret vocabulary you won't find in textbooks.
Check out our Good to Know section and dive into our Blog. You’ll be leading conversations like a native speaker in no time.
Explore Free Resources