An eye for an eye?

“To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice.”

– Desmond Tutu

The abolition of Death Sentence or Capital Punishment is a topic of heated debate across countries by politicians, philosophers, activists and many others over the last few decades. Every country has its own take on the issue. Many countries have banned capital punishment and others where it still prevails rarely use it. The question is - Should the death sentence be retained or abolished? In my opinion, it must not be retained. The most important reason to validate my stand is that it is irrevocable. The death penalty once executed can’t be amended even if the verdict seems incorrect.

The fact that many innocent executions have taken place, my opinion becomes even much stronger on not retaining the death penalty because there is nothing that can be done if the victim is found to be not guilty, after the execution!  “A prisoner discovered innocent can be freed; the same does not apply to a corpse.” There is no possible way of compensating for this miscarriage of justice. We must also consider what the likelihood is of innocent people being executed - it is inevitable that it will happen sooner or later.

As Stephen Bright, Human Rights Attorney puts it - "It can be argued that rapists deserve to be raped, that mutilators deserve to be mutilated. Most societies, however, refrain from responding in this way because the punishment is not only degrading to those on whom it is imposed, but it is also degrading to the society that engages in the same behavior as the criminals". Many Human Rights organisations and the United Nations have called for a universal ban on Death Penalty. This is perhaps because our human nature still doesn’t allow us to be equivalent to criminals to perform killings and demon-like acts. It simply is unethical and morally incorrect to take someone’s life. “No one, not even the state, has the right to play God.”

A prison warden of New York during the 1920’s put it beautifully, "As if one crime of such nature, done by a single man, acting individually, can be expiated by a similar crime done by all men, acting collectively." Morals and ethics come into play when people raise the question of whether or not the accused should be killed in response to his murder. If so, then how are we different from the criminal deciding whether someone lives or dies? Death penalty degrades humanity at large and makes us as guilty as the criminals. As Mahatma Gandhi rightly said, "God alone can take life because He alone gives it..." "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." On one hand, capital punishment is morally not acceptable due to the killing of an individual. And on the other hand, Will executions really prove to be the deterrent that some supporters of capital punishment expect them to be? It is unlikely the very worst murderers would be deterred because they are typically psychopaths or of such dubious sanity that they are incapable of rational behavior. Certain criminals, e.g. drug traffickers, may be deterred because they have a clear option with defined risks but would the person who has a violent argument with their partner give a second thought to what will happen to them when in the heat of the moment they pick up the knife? There has been no real evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. It is unlikely that a handful of executions a year will have any real deterrent effect particularly on the people whom society would most like to be deterred, e.g. serial killers, multiple rapists and drugs barons. Yet these particular criminals are the least likely to be executed, the serial killers will be found insane and the drug barons will use any means to avoid conviction, e.g. intimidation of witnesses.

Another question that irks me is - Can the police, the courts, and the system generally be trusted to get things right on every occasion? They never have been able to previously. How can we rely on the collective judgment of a few people to decide the fate of a man’s life, especially when we have seen the system, the judiciary and the State fail in important decision-making. According to the Human Rights activists and supporters, 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. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice. It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner. French philosopher, Albert Camus rightly said - "Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders". 

What I feel is that a Death sentence doesn’t deter another criminal from committing a crime. We all have witnessed such examples ranging from the developed nations like the US to developing countries such as India, both of which practice Capital Punishment. The rate of crime seems unaffected by the number of executions taking place. It simply is better to put criminals behind bars and sentence them to life imprisonment. In my opinion, it affects them more because it takes away their freedom and leaves them with no option. Rehabilitation centres and prisons are like a mental torture for the criminal mind. Just as mental patients are kept in an asylum, a criminal too is a mentally sick person who needs to be treated and punished in the prison. As a human being, taking away someone’s life is neither the solution nor our right.