By Kedar Nath Pandey
I have my reservation about capital punishment. Often, even innocent people have been hanged for crimes committed by others. The hanging of Afzal Guru raises many ethical, moral and political issues; though the apex court of the country held him responsible for planning attack on parliament, though he was not directly a participant in the act.
Capital punishment is the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime. The word “capital” comes from the Latin word “capitalis”, which means “regarding the head”. At one point and time capital crimes where punished by severing the head. Crimes that can result in the death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offenses. Capital punishment has been used in societies throughout history as a way to punish crime and suppress political dissent. In most places that practice capital punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as punishment for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy (the formal renunciation of the state religion). In many retentionist countries (countries that use the death penalty), drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are also punished by the death penalty.
In the past, capital punishment has been practiced in almost every society. Currently, only 58 nations actively practice it, with 95 countries abolishing it. Many countries have abandoned capital punishment, including almost all European and many Pacific Area states (including Australia, New Zealand and Timor Leste), and Canada. In Latin America, most states have completely abolished the use of capital punishment, while some countries, such as Brazil, allow for capital punishment only in exceptional situations, such as treason committed during wartime. The United States (the federal government and 36 of its states), Guatemala, most of the Caribbean and the majority of democracies in Asia (e.g. Japan and India) and Africa (e.g. Botswana and Zambia) retain it. South Africa, which is probably the most developed African nation, and which has been a democracy since 1994, does not have the death penalty. This fact is currently quite controversial in that country, due to the high levels of violent crime, including murder and rape.
The latest countries to abolish the death penalty de facto for all crimes were Gabon, which announced on September 14, 2007 that they would no longer apply capital punishment and South Korea in practice on December 31, 2007 after 10- years of disuse. The latest to abolish executions de jure was Uzbekistan on January 1, 2008.
Around the world, the capital punishment debate revolves around a number of questions, which are important to layout as a way of summarizing the moral trade-offs of the debate. They include, is capital punishment intended primarily as a punishment? Is it a just and proportional punishment for certain crimes, like murder? Do murderers and some other criminals commit crimes so horrific that they forfeit the right to life? Should innocent life be valued over a murderer’s life, and does capital punishment demonstrate this? Is life imprisonment without parole a sufficient punishment? Is the idea of proportional justice a slippery slope to abusive forms of punishment? Does capital punishment jeopardize our sense of the “dignity of life”? Or, is it important to demonstrate compassion even to murderers by sparing them their lives? Is the purpose of our prison system retribution or rehabilitation?
Is the execution of innocent convicts a serious problem? Is it OK that wrongful executions can’t be corrected? Does this deprive due process, by foreclosing the option of appeal to those that have been executed? Does it generally contravene a right to due process, even for those that are guilty?
Is the death penalty a necessary means of demonstrating the horror felt by a family and a society at a crime? Or, should we draw a line before capital punishment? If a family or a public desires capital punishment to see “justice done”, is it important for the law to grant these wishes? Does capital punishment give solace, closure, and comfort to families and society generally?
Is the death penalty a legitimate means of protecting society? Is it important to kill a murderer so that they have a zero per cent chance of killing again? Or, can we trust that prisons should be able to hold these prisoners with 100 per cent effectiveness so as to prevent further murders? Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect, dissuading criminals from committing future crimes? How disputed is this notion? If it remains highly disputed, can policy be based on it? Even if there is a deterrent effect, should this be considered? Or, would this be an instance of the ends (deterrence) justifying the means (capital punishment)?
Is it a major concern that innocent people may be wrongly convicted of a crime and sentenced to death? Does this happen infrequently? Is it statistically insignificant, or does it only have to happen once for it to put the whole idea of capital punishment on hold? Does capital punishment violate the notion of due process by killing those that might make future appeals?
Are capital punishment convictions given in a discriminatory manner? If so, is this a problem with capital punishment or the judicial system? Is it possible to apply capital punishment consistently, or is it susceptible to arbitrary application? What are the economics of capital punishment? Is capital punishment more expensive than life imprisonment? Should the economics be considered? These are the moral questions that must be asked by an individual considering this debate, and attempting to fully weigh its pro and con arguments. INAV