Capital Punishment: Necessary Evil or Relic of Uncivilized Past?
Introduction
- When defining the state, the legitimate use and monopoly over violence is considered a core characteristic by many thinkers such as Hobbes and Weber.
- Capital punishment can be considered as the ultimate form of violence anyone can exercise, and in modern societies only states have the right to take away another person’s life.
- There is a long history of monarchs and democratically established governments using violence and especially capital punishment against its own citizens, but lately there has been ample debate about the utility and purpose of capital punishment, as many countries such as Norway, France, Sweden, and Switzerland have abolished capital punishment for all crimes.
- Main argument of the essay: There are strong arguments to be considered for both sides of the argument, and the global trend shows that an increasing number of countries are opting for the abolition of capital punishment. However, in the Indian context, the severity of punishment is secondary to the surety of punishment. If we are able to first establish the surety of punishment, severity can be reduced.
Body
- Intent of capital punishment:
- Capital punishment is reserved for heinous crimes and is expected to act as a deterrence for potential criminals.
- It is a way for the state to establish its authority, as only the state has the legal sanction to take away a person’s life.
- Capital punishment also demonstrates what the society values to be good and what is unacceptable conduct to be part of a social group.
Arguments in favor of capital punishment
- This punishment serves as deterrence. Although there is no definite proof that it acts as deterrence, there is no proof denying its deterring potential either.
- Retribution doctrine: The victims and their families get a sense of justice when the criminals are given death sentence. If criminals take away someone’s right to live, they deserve the same.
- Common people may get a sense of security knowing that the criminals can get severe punishment if they break the moral codes of the society. This encourages moral behaviour among people.
- Some people are beyond help and there is no scope for their improvement; it is better for the society to be free of such people. For instance, serial killers who are not ashamed or sorry for their act.
- Currently in India, there are many safeguards against giving capital punishment such as the rarest of rare doctrine with respect to crimes, appeal for pardon to the President, and appeals to higher courts. As a result, people who are actually executed must deserve such punishment.
- Often, the alternative for death penalty is imprisonment for life. This kind of punishment anyway does not offer the prisoner a chance for improvement, and is an added expense for the government of keeping and maintaining prisons.
Arguments against capital punishment
- 140 nations have already abolished capital punishment; this shows that as humanity we are moving away from this brutal form of state violence and even the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council) has urged countries to abolish the death penalty.
- The law commission report of 2015 also recommends abolition of capital punishment in all cases except in terrorism and waging war against India.
- Although capital punishment exists in India, Its frequency has come down. Since 1995, only five executions have been carried out. This shows that we are anyway moving away from it, the next logical step would be to abolish it altogether.
- Severe crimes are still taking place in the country, despite the existence of capital punishment.
- In India, where criminals spend years on death row due to the lengthy judicial process, the anticipation and uncertainty about their death sentence can be more punishing than death itself.
- Some people may argue that the state itself does not have a strong moral ground to give others the death penalty, referring to corruption and discrimination by the stare in some places.
- A death sentence takes away the opportunity of improvement from a person, as it is the final and absolute punishment.
- Both sides of the argument have merit and it is difficult to decide in case of India whether capital punishment should be abolished. However, it can be argued that many criminals commit crimes because they think they would not get caught. If there is better surveillance and surety of criminals getting some form of punishment, we may not have to use more severe forms such as capital punishment, as surety of punishment is a better deterrence than a possible capital punishment.
Conclusion
- The reduced use of capital punishment points towards a clear tilt even in India away from it.
- However, the fact remains that heinous crimes, such as the Nirbhaya rape, are taking place in the country and for many the only way to provide justice to the victim is by taking away the right to live from the criminals too.
- The argument that India needs to ensure surety of punishment so that the crime rate comes down is something we need to explore. If this happens, we will not need severe capital punishment to deter potential criminals.
Notes
- Keywords: capital punishment, necessary evil, uncivilized
- It is a polemical topic and therefore needs balanced arguments from both sides.
- It is not necessary that you take a stand either for or against capital punishment; you can suggest a third option after exploring both sides of the argument adequately.