Capital Punishment-Pros and Cons; when can it be justified?

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 2,881

This article is written by Archak Das of 2^nd year of Adamas University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

This article explores the pros and cons of capital punishment and when it can be justified. It discusses the arguments in favor of capital punishment, such as deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation. They also acknowledge the concerns raised by opponents of the death penalty, including issues of wrongful conviction, racial and socioeconomic disparities, and the morality of taking a human life. The author then delves into the various justifications for capital punishment, including utilitarian and retributive theories of punishment. They argue that while these theories may support the use of the death penalty in certain circumstances, they also raise difficult questions about the value of human life and the fairness of the criminal justice system.

The article also considers the international context of capital punishment, noting that the majority of countries have abolished the death penalty and that its use is often associated with authoritarian regimes and human rights abuses. The authors conclude by calling for a more nuanced and informed debate about capital punishment, one that takes into account the complex moral and practical issues at stake. They suggest that rather than relying on simplistic slogans and emotional appeals, we should engage in a thoughtful and evidence-based conversation about the appropriate use of state-sanctioned violence.

Keywords- Capital punishment, Deterrence, death penalty

INTRODUCTION

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a legal process by which a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The use of capital punishment is a highly controversial issue, with arguments both for and against it.

In most jurisdictions that still have capital punishment, it is reserved for the most serious crimes, such as murder, treason, or espionage. The process typically involves a trial, during which the defendant is found guilty and sentenced to death by a judge or jury. After the sentence is handed down, the defendant may have the opportunity to appeal the decision through a series of appellate courts. The execution itself may take place by various methods, including lethal injection, electrocution, hanging, firing squad, or gas chamber, depending on the laws and customs of the particular jurisdiction. In some cases, the defendant may be allowed to choose the method of execution, while in others; the method is determined by the state.

Arguments in favor of capital punishment typically focus on the idea of deterrence, that is, the belief that the threat of the death penalty will deter people from committing serious crimes. Advocates also argue that capital punishment serves as retribution for the most heinous crimes and provides closure for victims’ families. In addition, proponents argue that the cost of keeping someone in prison for life is often greater than the cost of a single execution. Opponents of capital punishment argue that it is inherently cruel and inhumane, and that there is a risk of executing innocent people. They also point to evidence that suggests the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime, and that it is disproportionately applied to marginalized groups, such as people of color and those living in poverty. Furthermore, they argue that life in prison without the possibility of parole is a more humane and cost-effective alternative.

In recent years, the use of capital punishment has declined worldwide, with many countries abolishing it altogether. In the United States, where capital punishment is still legal in some states, there has been a trend towards reducing its use, with a number of states either abolishing it or imposing moratoriums on its use.

What are the Pros of Capital Punishment?

Here are some of the most commonly cited benefits of capital punishment:

Deterrence: One of the primary benefits of capital punishment is its potential to deter crime. Proponents of capital punishment argue that the fear of being executed will prevent individuals from committing violent crimes. If the punishment for murder is severe enough, it is believed that some individuals will be dissuaded from committing such a heinous crime.

Retribution: Another benefit of capital punishment is that it provides a sense of retribution to the victim’s family and society. The death penalty is seen as a way of punishing the offender for the harm caused to the victim and their loved ones. Proponents argue that this form of punishment provides a sense of closure for the victim’s family and friends, as well as for society as a whole.

Justice: Capital punishment is often seen as a way of ensuring justice for the victim. Proponents argue that the death penalty is a fair punishment for those who have committed murder, as it is an appropriate response to the severity of the crime. They believe that executing the offender is the only way to ensure that justice is served.

Cost-effectiveness: While it may seem counterintuitive, proponents of capital punishment argue that it is actually a cost-effective form of punishment. This is because the cost of keeping an offender in prison for life can be significantly higher than the cost of executing them. Additionally, the appeals process for death penalty cases can be lengthy and expensive, but proponents argue that this cost is offset by the deterrent effect of the death penalty.

Public Safety: Another benefit of capital punishment is that it can improve public safety. Proponents argue that executing dangerous criminals removes them from society and makes it a safer place. This is particularly true for individuals who have committed multiple heinous crimes and are unlikely to ever be rehabilitated.

Proponents of capital punishment believe that this form of punishment provides a range of benefits, including deterrence, retribution, justice, cost-effectiveness, and public safety. However, it is important to note that there are also many arguments against capital punishment, including the risk of executing innocent people and the potential for racial and socioeconomic bias in the criminal justice system. Ultimately, whether or not capital punishment is a beneficial practice remains a topic of ongoing debate.

What are the demerits of capital punishment?

While some argue that capital punishment is necessary to deter crimes and to protect society, others argue that it is a flawed and ineffective system that violates human rights and can lead to wrongful executions. In this response, we will explore some of the demerits or drawbacks of capital punishment under criminal law.

Irreversible and Final: One of the most significant demerits of capital punishment is that it is final and irreversible. Once a person has been executed, there is no way to undo the punishment, even if it is later discovered that the person was innocent. This has led to cases of wrongful convictions and executions in the past, which raises serious ethical and moral concerns.

Inconsistent and Arbitrary: The use of capital punishment is often inconsistent and arbitrary, with factors such as race, social status, and geography playing a significant role in determining who is sentenced to death. This has led to accusations of bias and unfairness in the criminal justice system, particularly against minorities and marginalized groups.

Expensive: Capital punishment is also an expensive system that requires a significant amount of resources to administer. This includes the cost of trials, appeals, and the actual execution process. The financial burden of capital punishment is often borne by taxpayers, which has led to calls for alternative forms of punishment that are more cost-effective and efficient.

Inhumane and Violates Human Rights: Capital punishment is often criticized as being inhumane and violating basic human rights. The execution process can be cruel and painful, and it is often carried out in a way that is degrading and humiliating to the condemned individual. This has led to calls for the abolition of capital punishment on the grounds that it is a violation of human rights.

Does not Deter Crime: Another demerit of capital punishment is that it is often ineffective in deterring crime. Studies have shown that there is no clear evidence that the death penalty reduces crime rates or makes society safer. In fact, some argue that the use of capital punishment may actually increase violent crime by sending the message that killing is an acceptable form of punishment.

In conclusion, capital punishment is a controversial and complex issue that has both supporters and people who oppose. While some argue that it is necessary for public safety and deterrence, others believe that it is a flawed and ineffective system that violates human rights and can lead to wrongful convictions and executions. The demerits discussed above highlight some of the key concerns and criticisms of capital punishment under criminal law.

Can Capital Punishment be justified?

There are many arguments for and against the use of capital punishment, and opinions vary greatly depending on cultural, religious, and political beliefs. In some countries, the death penalty is still used as a form of punishment, while in others it has been abolished. The question of when capital punishment can be justified is complex and depends on many factors. Some argue that the death penalty is never justified, as it is a violation of the right to life and the dignity of the human person. Others argue that capital punishment can be justified in certain circumstances, such as in cases of heinous crimes or when it is necessary to protect society from dangerous criminals.

Proponents of the death penalty argue that it is a necessary deterrent to crime. They argue that the fear of facing the death penalty will deter some people from committing crimes. They also argue that the death penalty is necessary to protect society from dangerous criminals, particularly those who are repeat offenders. Another argument in favor of the death penalty is that it provides closure for the families of victims. In cases of murder or other violent crimes, the families of the victims often suffer from emotional trauma and may struggle to move on with their lives. Some argue that the death penalty provides closure for these families, as it brings a sense of justice and finality to the situation.

However, there are many arguments against the use of capital punishment. One of the main arguments is that it is an ineffective deterrent to crime. Studies have shown that there is no significant difference in crime rates between countries that use the death penalty and those that do not. Additionally, the use of the death penalty can actually increase the likelihood of violent crime, as it may encourage criminals to use violence in order to avoid being caught. Another argument against the death penalty is that it is a form of cruel and inhumane punishment. Many people argue that the death penalty is a violation of human rights, as it deprives individuals of their right to life and dignity. In addition, there is always the possibility of executing an innocent person, which is a grave injustice that cannot be undone.

The question of when capital punishment can be justified is a difficult one that depends on many factors. While some argue that the death penalty is necessary to protect society and deter crime, others argue that it is a violation of human rights and an ineffective means of punishment. Ultimately, the decision to use the death penalty should be based on careful consideration of all the available evidence, as well as ethical and moral considerations.

Case Laws on Capital punishment

Capital punishment has been a part of the Indian legal system since ancient times, and even after independence, India retained the death penalty as a form of punishment for the most heinous crimes. The legal framework for the death penalty in India is guided by several case laws, which have established the scope and limits of its application.Here are some of the most significant case laws on capital punishment in India:

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980):

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab is one of the most important cases on the death penalty in India. In this case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, but it laid down specific guidelines that must be followed before a person can be sentenced to death. The court held that the death penalty can only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases, and it must be preceded by a fair and impartial trial.

Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983):

Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab is another landmark case on capital punishment in India. The Supreme Court of India, in this case, laid down specific criteria that must be considered before imposing the death penalty. The court held that the death penalty can only be imposed if the crime is of such a nature that it shocks the conscience of society, and if the alternative punishment of life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate.

Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973):

Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh was one of the earliest cases on capital punishment in independent India. In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the death penalty is not violative of the Constitution of India and that it can be imposed for the most serious and heinous crimes. The court also held that the imposition of the death penalty must be preceded by a fair and impartial trial, and the punishment must be proportionate to the crime.

Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009):

Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra is a significant case law on the death penalty in India, as it laid down specific guidelines that must be followed in cases involving the imposition of the death penalty. The Supreme Court of India held that the sentencing judge must record reasons for imposing the death penalty and must also consider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case.

Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014):

Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India is a landmark case on capital punishment in India, as it challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty in India. In this case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, but it also recognized the rights of death row convicts to a dignified and humane execution.

The above mentioned are some of the significant case laws on capital punishment in India. The Indian legal system recognizes the importance of the death penalty as a form of punishment for the most heinous crimes, but it also ensures that the imposition of the death penalty is guided by fair and impartial trials and specific guidelines. However, the debate on the abolition of the death penalty continues in India, with proponents arguing that it is a necessary deterrent and a just punishment, while opponents argue that it is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates fundamental human rights.

Comparison of capital Punishment in countries other than India

The use of capital punishment varies greatly between countries, with some countries completely abolishing it, while others continue to use it as a means of punishment. Here are some examples of how capital punishment is practiced in countries around the world:

United States: Capital punishment is legal in 27 states in the US, and federal law also allows for the use of the death penalty. The methods of execution vary by state, with lethal injection being the most common.

China: China is believed to have the highest number of executions in the world, although the exact number is a state secret. Executions are typically carried out by lethal injection, but some provinces still use other methods such as firing squads.

Iran: Iran also has a high rate of executions, often for drug-related offenses. Methods of execution include hanging, stoning, and occasionally firing squads.

Japan: Japan has a relatively low rate of executions, but still uses the death penalty for crimes such as murder and treason. The method of execution is hanging.

Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia has a strict interpretation of Islamic law, and executions are carried out by beheading in public.

Germany: Germany abolished capital punishment in 1949, and the country’s constitution prohibits the use of the death penalty.

Canada: Canada abolished the death penalty in 1998, with the exception of certain military offenses. The country has not carried out an execution since 1962.

Australia: Australia abolished the death penalty in 1975, and the country has not executed anyone since 1967.

Overall, the use of capital punishment varies widely around the world, with some countries still actively using the death penalty as a form of punishment, while others have abolished it completely.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, capital punishment remains a contentious issue, with valid arguments both for and against it. Proponents argue that it serves as a deterrent, offers justice for victims and their families, and removes dangerous criminals from society. Opponents, on the other hand, point to the possibility of wrongful convictions, the unethical nature of state-sanctioned killing, and the failure to address the underlying causes of crime. The question of when capital punishment can be justified is similarly complex. Many argue that it should be reserved for the most heinous crimes, such as terrorism or mass murder. Others contend that it should be abolished entirely, as it is impossible to create a fair and impartial system of justice that is capable of deciding who deserves to die. When it comes to comparing the system of capital punishment in India with other countries, it is clear that there is still much work to be done. While India has made strides in recent years to reform its criminal justice system, there are still concerns about arbitrary sentencing, corruption, and the use of torture to extract confessions. Ultimately, the debate over capital punishment is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. However, by examining the arguments on both sides and considering the experiences of different countries, we can continue to work towards a more just and equitable criminal justice system for all.

References