Should India abolish capital punishment?
Capital punishment is the sentence of death, or the practice of execution, handed down as punishment for a heinous criminal offence. A State can only use it after a fair legal trial. In 2008, the United Nations adopted a resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. However, 58 countries, including India, the United States, and China, still exercise the death penalty.
Capital punishment should NOT be abolished in India: -
- The death penalty is only given in cases of a heinous crime. A heinous crime deserves the worst possible punishment. Human life is sacred; a deterrent mechanism must ensure that those violating that fundamental precept are punished. Capital punishment symbolises the value and importance placed upon maintaining the sanctity of human life. Any lesser sentence would fail in this duty.
- The State is responsible for protecting innocent citizens' lives, and enacting the death penalty may save lives by reducing the rate of violent crimes. The fear of execution plays a decisive deterring role in convincing potential murderers not to carry out their acts. While the prospect of life in prison may be frightening, death is undoubtedly more daunting. Thus, the risk of execution will deter the murderers.
- Sometimes, the accomplice of those in jail tries to free the prisoner by hijacking a plane, etc. For example, in 1999, Indian Airlines Flight 814 was hijacked with support and active assistance from ISIS by Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. The hostage crisis lasted seven days and ended after India agreed to release three militants – Mushtaq Ahmed Zaegari, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh and Masood Azhar. These militants have since been implicated in other terrorist actions, such as the Mumbai terror attacks. All this could have been avoided had they been executed.
- Numerous studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. A 1985 study at the University of North Carolina showed that a single execution deters 18 murders. Another influential study, which looked at over 3,054 cases over two decades, further supported the claim that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise. On top of this, there are ways to make the death penalty even more effective as a deterrent than it is today. For instance, if the wait time on death row before execution is reduced, it can dramatically increase its deterrent effect on criminals.
- The death penalty is the only way to ensure that criminals do not escape back into society or commit further crimes while in prison. Even the highest security detention facilities can have escapees. Thus, the only way to be sure that a convicted murderer can no longer hurt others is to execute them. Hence, execution would prevent further crimes.
- The death penalty can help ease overcrowded prisons in many countries. Keeping people in jail for life contributes to expensive and, at times, unconstitutional overcrowding.
- While in prison, it is not uncommon for those serving sentences for a lifetime to commit homicide, suicide, or other crimes since they can receive no worse punishment. Keeping dangerous murderers in prison for long periods endangers other prisoners and the guards who must watch them.
- The death penalty provides closure for the victim's family and friends. They will no longer have to fear this criminal's return to society. They will not have to worry about parole or the chance of escape and will thus achieve a greater degree of closure.
- Death by execution is generally relatively quick, while prison life can be seen as a much more intensive punishment. If a prisoner does not like life imprisonment, he will commit suicide anyway. Hence, it is illogical to say that a sentence of life is a greater punishment.
Capital punishment should be abolished in India: -
- There is no fairness in an eye-for-an-eye attitude towards justice. Justice should remain above the petty retributive justice that marks street or community warfare. Thus, the murder of one family member cannot justify a revenge attack against the murderer. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with other areas of the law. For example, we do not burn arsonists' houses. Capital punishment attempts to vindicate one murder by committing a second murder. And the second murder is more reprehensible because it is officially sanctioned and done with a lavish ceremony in the name of justice.
- Even if criminals preferred life in prison to the death penalty, it is not certain that harsher punishment would effectively deter murders. For one thing, many criminals may find the prospect of the death penalty less daunting than spending the rest of their lives suffering in jail and, thus, less effective as a deterrent. Criminals committing heinous crimes are rarely logical and frightened of its legal repercussions. Further, for a deterrent to be effective, it would have to be immediate and specific. This is not the case with the death penalty cases, which often involve prolonged appeals.
- Many victims’ families oppose the death penalty because some might get comfort knowing the guilty party has been executed. In contrast, others might prefer to know that the person is suffering in jail. It might not be comfortable for some to understand that the state killed another human being on behalf of the victim. Even if it were the case that capital punishment helped the victims' families, sentencing is not about what the victims' families want.
- Executions are rare enough that they do not significantly impact prison populations. Prison is composed mainly of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if more people could be executed instead of serving in prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions to alleviate overcrowding in prisons. One could increase community service requirements for other prisoners, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs.