Why death penalty should be
abolished
According to the
Law Commission of India, the abolition of the death penalty must become a goal
for India. It wants the scrapping of
the death penalty for all crimes except terrorism-related offences and those
that amount to waging war against the state. It has sought a return to the notions of restorative and reformative
justice. Thus the Commission has put the ball in Parliament’s court.
Death penalty is
nothing but giving the guilty a very undeserved easy way out. Taking into
consideration the theory of reformative, the death penalty serves no purpose
rather than emancipating the perpetrator of the crime from all sufferings and
penance. For the crimes such as rape, corruption, murder, the convict must be
allowed to suffer in inhumane conditions for the certain period and must be
given a chance to reform himself and to remorse for the heinous crimes.
Miscarriage of
justice is one thing while abolition of death penalty is different perspective.
The recommendation by the LCI indicates sympathy towards less heinous crime.
Death penalty is
costly. It diverts resources from honest crime control measures. Crime fighting
resources can be used more efficiently. An innocent person should not go to
gallows due to the inadequacy of criminal justice system. Mistakes in the form
of inadequate legal representation, prosecutorial delinquency, shoddy police
investigations and misconduct, prejudice, and falsified evidence can contribute
to wrongful convictions.
International
Commission against death penalty has this to say:
1)
The
risk of executing innocent people exists in any justice system. There have been
and always will be cases of executions of innocent people. No matter how
developed a justice system is, it will always remain susceptible to human
failure. Unlike prison sentences, the death penalty is irreversible and
irreparable.
2)
The
arbitrary application of the death penalty can never be ruled out. The death
penalty is often used in a disproportional manner against the poor, minorities
and members of racial, ethnic, political and religious groups.
3)
The
death penalty is incompatible with human rights and human dignity. The death
penalty violates the right to life which happens to be the most basic of all
human rights. It also violates the right not to be subjected to torture and
other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, the
death penalty undermines human dignity which is inherent to every human being.
4)
The
death penalty does not deter crime effectively. The death penalty lacks the
deterrent effect which is commonly referred to by its advocates. As recently
stated by the General Assembly of the United Nations, “there is no conclusive
evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty” (UNGA Resolution 65/206).
It is noteworthy that in many retentionist states, the effectiveness of the
death penalty in order to prevent crime is being seriously questioned by a
continuously increasing number of law enforcement professionals.
5)
Public
opinion is not a major stumbling block for abolition. Public support for the
death penalty does not necessarily mean that taking away the life of a human
being by the state is right. There are undisputed historical precedences where
gross human rights violations had had the support of a majority of the people,
but which were condemned vigorously later on. It is the job of leading figures
and politicians to underline the incompatibility of capital punishment with
human rights and human dignity.
It needs to be
pointed out that public support for the death penalty is inextricably linked to
the desire of the people to be free from crime. However, there exist more
effective ways to prevent crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment