Essays

Capital punishment or execution as means of giving justice has become the most controversial issue, which pertains to the laws that govern our society- With the rise in demand for human rights, taking away a criminal's life has become the most talked about thing not only at the national level but also at the global platform. The recent hanging of Saddam 1-lussain, the ex-dictator of Iraq, led to worldwide protests. People and reformists have been demanding humane treatment for criminal and offenders, which is justified. In fact, the prison system was evolved keeping in mind the notion that people who go astray in their life and start proving harmful to the society should be kept in confinement for sometime and be given a chance to change and reform themselves- The prisons were supposed to be such places where the prisoners could be slowly reformed and reinstated in the mainstream of the society, But many a times, the re-conciliation remains a far-fetched frame. The idea works well in cases of theft, robbery or other minor offences. Complications and problems arise when the offence involves brutal or inhuman acts like murders etc. The old Mesopotamian Law advocates "a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye". Thus, the idea of capital punishment is not a new one regarding offences which are extremely serious. In fact, justice delivered in ancient times was brutal and in human. With the progress of civilization, justice started becoming more humane. Earlier, criminals were not treated as human beings. But now capital punishment stands in great controversy over the right of society at large to deny a person right to life. Some people are of the view that no one has the right to take away anyone's life for any reason. Man cannot play God's role nor should ever try to. When we cannot give life, we have no right to take away anybody's life. On the other side, people also take into consideration victim's right to life. The criminal too has no right to take away anyone's life for any reason at all. So, if he could go to the extent of taking away one's life, he too has no right to live in a civilized society. This takes us back to the-often condemned law of Moses. Various arguments of both the sides can be cited to support viewpoints that are poles apart. When told by the opposing side that the death penalty is cruel, in humane and degrading, most proponents argue that murder is too. In fact, some people consider execution to be more humane than life imprisonment because it is quick and instantaneous. Those in support of capital punishment feel that making the prisoner suffer by rotting in jail for the rest of his life is more tortorous and inhumane than execution. To sum up the basic views of the proponents, imprisonment is simply not a sufficient safeguard against the future actions of criminals because it offers the possibility of escape and release on parole. They think that some criminals must be made to pay for their crimes. They should get the punishment they deserve. If they happen to make it out to the world, who's to say that they wouldn't kill again. The punishment for the culprit that fits the crime would soothe the victim's family and society would be relieved, knowing one murderer is not there on the streets. Executing a person certainly prevents recurrence of violence, or quite possibly the first occurrence of other murderous acts. More timely enforcement of the death penalty would help to reduce the crime rate by instilling a sense of respect and fear of the law. Crimes carry penalties—this should be understood very well by the people. If you do something wrong, you are going to be punished, will act as deterrant to such heinous crimes. Another argument against the death penalty is that it costs less to imprison someone for life than to execute them. The argument seems to be very utilitarian but is countered by the supporters of death penalty- "Why should the society shoulder the responsibility for feeding the hard-hearted criminals, that too for their cruel deeds?", is what they argue.

The strongest argument against using capital punishment for retributive purpose, is the argument that capital punishment is cruel and completely inhuman- The methods by which executions are carried out involve physical torture. Many a times electrocution has caused extensive burns and it needs more than one application of electric current to kill the condemned. No one, not even the State, has the authority to play God. Contrary to the popular belief that the death penalty reduces the crime rate, various surveys have shown that the threat of the death penalty does not in any way reduces the occurrence of violent crimes. Capital punishment, it is argued, is a barbaric remnant of uncivilized society. It is immoral, unfair and discriminatory in practice. It is discriminatory because at times some innocent people are executed due to a faulty judgement. Another argument against the death penalty is that where does lie the difference between the criminals and the society? The society in turn commits the same offence of killing when it punishes the criminal for taking away life.

Thus, the issue of capital punishment involves determining whether the execution of criminals is ever justified and if so, under what circumstances is it permissible and how to determine the limits of a crime demanding execution; it also involves the issue whether the society believes in corrective Justice or retributive justice. The basic assumption of retributive notion of punishment in general is that a criminal deserves punishment, and punishment should be equal to the harm done. Thus, society may punish the criminal any way it deems necessary so as to set an example for others would-be criminals. On the other hand, the theory of corrective justice believes that capital punishment should be abolished since it is undignified, inhumane, or contrary to love. Thus, the controversy still continues and legal experts debate over the fact whether capital punishment is permissible or not. Instead of debating over this, society should rather find ways of lowering crime rate so that no need of such debates arises. But as it is not possible to create a paradise in this otherwise imperfect world, the question will linger on for years to come—it seems.