IS THE DEATH PENALTY OUT OF DATE?
The term “capital punishment” means the maximum punishment- a system of punishment that cannot be exceeded in its severity or be surpassed in the effect as far as human beings can conceive. Obviously it is the punishment to be awarded only for the most heinous against human beings and society. While the definitions of such crimes vary from country to country, the implication of capital punishment has always been the death sentence, or the death penalty.
In its origin, capital punishment was implemented because the community feared that an individual member’s wicked act would bring down the anger of the gods upon the whole group if he did not pay for perverse free moral agent who refused to think rightly and who willfully chose to do wrong, and thus outraged his social group and the gods. Such an individual who willfully did wrong must forfeit his life. As time went on it was conceived that crime was more than a personal affair between the guilty and the victim, and the State took over the responsibility of administering punishment. Over the years forum of punishment have changed; in several nations human decency has prevailed in order to minimize the cruelty of torture as punishment. As the concept of human decency and liberal feelings widened, the wisdom of capital punishment has become a subject of animated debate.
Opinion is divided in the world over the abolishment of death penalty. There are nations that have done away with the ultimate form of punishment, but our own country has not found it feasible or wise to abolish death penalty. The issue assumes great significance in the light of the crime rate as well as fresh forms of organized crime that are prevalent today.
Those who support the retentions of capital punishment point out that it is the only fitting punishment for the perpetrator of a cold-blooded killing. Punishment exists in order to express and confirm the consciousness of crime. It is an essential instrument of civilization; without it a rule of law would be inconceivable, and outrage would inevitably turn to revenge. In order to forestall revenge, punishment must share the object of revenge, which is retribution. Law is the objective order in which private conflicts are extinguished or resolved. By making recompense for evil into the right and responsibility of the government, it effectively removes the motive of revenge. So long as the normal conscience regards cold-blooded murder with disgust, hatred must find its objective expression in law. The law must capture the sense that murder is different in kind from lesser crimes, and that it calls for a solemn and awful punishment.
On the other side are the abolitionists, equally vociferous in demanding an unconditional abolition of the death penalty which they consider to be most degrading to the very concept of humanity. A prominent Indian has remarked that “homicide is heinous”, so is hanging. “Two murders cannot be equal to no murder”. Capital punishment has been called ‘judicial murder’, “crimological quackery” and “jurisprudential philistinism”.
Leaving aside the rhetoric and sentimentality there are tiresome arguments put forwarded by the abolitionists which deserve careful consideration. Capital punishment is irrevocable, hence if an innocent person, wrongly accused and condemned by circumstantial evidence, is put to death there is no way to reverse the judgement or compensate the injustice. Furthermore, the revengeful impulses of society should not find legal sanction. Punishment in the modern society is seen by the abolitionists as a measure protect society rather than as a symbol of retribution.
Crime rates including murder and rape continue to rise. In a majority of murder cases the murderer is mentally ill or deranged, or kills in a fit of passion or drunkenness. In other words the act is done in a fit of irrationality, so the fear of consequences has no power to prevent the act. In case of cold-blooded premeditated murder, the criminal acted upon the conviction that he will not be discovered. Psychological and criminological studies have opened new vistas in the knowledge of human behavior. It has been pointed out that a correctional policy should involve the attempt to improve the general social and moral tone of the society as a whole, for social currents and conditions are often responsible for making criminals out of ordinary people.
The arguments on both sides of the issue are valid in their own rights. It is true that civilization’s progress demands a more humanitarian approach towards criminals. However, it can be questioned whether a society which can breed violent criminals and heinous murderers can quality to be called “progressing”. Changing the normal tone of society is a long-term process which should certainly be undertaken.
The capital punishment may cause more injustice to the poor, or that the inordinate delay in carrying out the sentences is inhuman, are side issues, which are administrative drawbacks and not really a valid argument against its retention. Of course, it is imperative that capital punishment should not be frivolously dealt out. Only in such cases where guilt is established beyond any doubt should the death penalty be resorted to. Even if there is a slight chance of the condemned being innocent he should get the benefit of the doubt and be given a lesser punishment. The attendant cruelties of inhuman modes of execution should certainly be minimized and humanized. Inordinate delays in carrying out executions should be curbed – as the Supreme Court has recently pointed out. Each case must be considered on its own merits whether deserving capital punishment or not, and it cannot be over-emphasized that this instrument of justice must be exercised with the utmost caution.
Like it on Facebook, Tweet it or share this article on other bookmarking websites.