Capital punishment

Capital punishment, the death penalty or execution, is the killing of a person by judicial process as punishment. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences.

I. Facts & Statistics

· 137 countries have abolished death penalty in law or practice
· This list of 137 countries include EU and most of the States of USA
· 60 countries, including India, have retained Capital punishment, though mainly imposed on people convicted of murder or terrorism.
· At least 1252 people were known to have been executed in 24 countreis in 2007, out of which 88% took place in China ( by far the largest number ), Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and US.
· Most of the polls conducted in various countries in the recent past indicate that majority of people want to retain this form of punishment.
· Amnesty International is against Capital Punishment.
· Stand of various religions has been somewhat abiguous on this issue.



II. Reasons given by Amnesty International for opposing Capital punishment

· The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations’ General Assembly in 1948. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

· Like torture, an execution constitutes an extreme physical and mental assault on the individual. The physical pain caused by the action of killing a human being cannot be quantified, nor can the psychological suffering caused by foreknowledge of death at the hands of the state.

· As long as human justice remains fallible, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminaed.

· Capital punishment in vogue in various countries has not shown to have a special deterrent effect. It denies the possibility of rehabilitation and reconciliation. It promotes simplistic responses to complex human problems, rather than pursuing explanations that could inform positive strategies. It prolongs the suffering of the murder victim’s family, and extends that suffering to the loved ones of the condemned prisoner.

· The death penalty has been and coninues to be used as a tool of political repression, as a means to silence forever political opponents or to eliminate politically ‘ troublesome’ individuals.

· Thousands have been put to death under one government only to be recognized as innocent victims when the new government comes to power.
· Death penalty is not an act of self-defence against an immediate threat to life. It is the premeditated killing of a prisoner who could therefore be dealt with equally well by less harsh means.

· Too many governments believe that they can solve urgent social or political problems by executing a few or even hundreds of their prisoners. Too many citizens in too many countries are still unaware that the death penalty offers society not further protection but further brutalization.

· Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments.

· Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted in 1998, the death penalty is excluded from the punishment which the court is authorized to impose, even though it has jurisdiction over extremely grave crtimes, such as, crimes against humanity, including genocide, and violations of the laws of armed conflict.

· Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition of Capital Punishment has harmful effects. In fact the rate of crime had actually gone down.

· It is incorrect to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so after rationally calculating the consequences. Often murders are committed in moments when emotion overcomes reason or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Some people who commit violent crime are highly unstable or mentally ill.

· Such an act ( Capital punishment ) by the state is the mirror image of the criminal’s willingness to use physical violence against a victim.

· Criminal justice systems are vulnerable to discrimination and error. No system is or could conceivably be capable of deciding failrly, consistently and infallibly who should live and who should die. Expediency, discretionary decisions and prevailing public opinion may influence the proceedings from the initial arrest to the last minute decision on clemency.

· Past experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges.

· Officials responsible for fighting terrorism and political crimes have repeatedly pointed out that executions are as likely to increase such acts as they are to stop them.

· The reasons for a seemingly strong public support for the death penalty can be complex and lacking in factual foundation. Public support for the death penalty is most often based on the erroneous belief that it is an effecive measure against crime. What the public overwhelmingly want is truly effective measures to reduce criminality.

III. Supporting views in favour of Capital punishment


· A modern society that outlaws the death penalty does not send a message of reverence for life, but a message of moral confusion. When we outlaw the death panalty, we tell the murderer that, no matter what he may do to innocent people in our custody the care, women, children, old people, his most treasured possession, his life, is secure. We guarantee it in advance. Just as a nation that declares that nothing will make it go to war finds itself at the mercy of warlike regimes, so a society that will not put the worst of its criminals to death will find itself at the mercy of criminals who have no qualms about putting innocent people to death.

· Advocates of Capital Punishment aver that it is a ‘deterrent proviso’ in the law which may dissuade or at least reduce future acts of murder, espionage, extremely violent activities, etc.,

· However, unsaid, what is consciously or sub consciously sought by advocates of Capital Punishment is for the State to ‘avenge’ for the dastardly act of the one who commited the crime. In other words, the demand is for the State to ensure / effect ‘retribution’ for the henious crime committed. Again camaflouging this desire to punish, the demand, euphimistically, is made in the name of ‘justice’ ( it is noticed that the fourth estate also invaraibly confuses justice with retributition/ avenging. In a land dispute or a retrenchment or on such civil matters, court’s role is to hand down ‘ justice.’ In other words, the judiciary does justice to the aggrieved party. But how can death punishment to the accused bring about justice to the victim or his family?)

· Deterrent is the main plank of those who are advocating death penalty. But they do not have answer to the vital question whether death penalty had worked as deterrent. There is hardly any way of verifying this assumption. On a matter like this opinion polls could go widely off the mark. It is extremely subjective. The replies would be based on assumptions. One may feel it is a deterrent but another may feel it is not.

· Should nations continue with the concept of an ‘ eye for an eye’? Should that be the approach of a civilised society. Then what is the diference between the barbaric kings of yesteryears and today’s society which I supposed to be ‘civilised.’

· If the State can murder me because I killed somebody, then what is the difference between my action and the action of the State. Should not the State be above such abhorrent behaviour.

· Should the State have power on the lives of its citizens. A counterpoint would be made that when a State goes to war, it sends its soldiers to fight knowing very well that some soldiers may be killed.

· Murder could have been committed in a rage. Rape could have been committed either due to extreme provocation or uncontrollable passion. It could be argued that these are aberrations to the normal behavious of the culprit. While considering the subject matter, these aberrations have to be necessarily taken into account.

· By awarding Capital Punishment, the state not only takes away a life but punishes the family of the person condemned to death. To this there could be counter argument that when a person is put in jail for years, his family is also seriously affected.

· Period of sentences awarded are at times reduced for good behaviour. But then somebody who has been awarded Capital Punishment is denied such an opportunity.

· Finally, on matters such as these State cannot make decisions based on opinion polls ( ‘ go to war with that country ‘ – so says opinion polls. Should the State then act accordingly ?) Decisions have to be taken by the State on the basis of mature consideration of the matter by wise and mature persons.

*******