2. Punishment should 'fit the crime' - if you have killed someone, you should be killed too.
3. There are, in fact, some crimes that are so heinous that they demand strict penalties – up to and including life sentences/death.
4. People argue that unless you take drastic action, especially in the case of rape, murder and terror attacks, the situation will not improve.
5. Awarding killers with death sentence will stop them from committing the crime again and deter others.
6. Justice cannot and should not be thought of in a financial term.{Counter arguments when people say capital punishments is expensive(although in India it's not)}.
7. No one can blame victims and their families for wanting revenge, including through the death penalty. In their pain and loss, they are entitled to that desire.
8. In the last 15 years, only four people were hanged to death in India. The death penalty is sentenced in rarest of the rare crime, which means it is handed over after much deliberation and only if judges consider the crime to be extremely grievous. In addition, a mercy petition can be sent to the president.
9. We kill an enemy at the border because we know that it is in the best interest of our country so why not sentence someone to death, if he has committed a heinous crime against the citizen of this country or worked against the country (Afzal Guru and Ajmal Kasab).
10. It is a strong deterrent for criminals.
Arguments against the death penalty -
Main argument: "The death penalty legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims. As long as human justice remains fallible, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated." -Amnesty International
1. The death penalty is against our most basic human right - the right to life.
2. Being killed by lethal injection/electrocution is not always smooth and painless, sometimes it causes a painful death.
3. It is not proven that killing murderers stops other people committing similar crimes.
4. Mistakes are sometimes made in the law - what if someone is killed who is actually innocent? You can't compensate the victim.
5. Retribution and the innocent - execution of innocent persons is also a problem for the retribution argument - if there is a serious risk of executing the innocent then one of the key principles of retribution - that people should get what they deserve (and therefore only what they deserve) - is violated by the current implementation of capital punishment in any other country where errors have taken place.
6. The uniqueness of the death penalty - It's argued that retribution is used in a unique way in the case of the death penalty. Crimes other than murder do not receive a punishment that mimics the crime - for example, nowhere rapists are punished by sexual assault, and people guilty of assault are not ceremonially beaten up.
7. Many criminals are kept 'waiting' on death row for a very long time (example - Rajiv Gandhi's killers). It is a very serious degree of mental torture.
8. In many countries(for example the USA), only a small minority of murderers are actually executed, and that imposition of capital punishment on a "mercurially selected random handful" of offenders does not amount to a consistent programme of retribution. Since capital punishment is not operated retributive, it is inappropriate to use retribution to justify capital punishment.
9. Brutalizing the state - Capital punishment may brutalize society in a different and even more fundamental way, one that has implications for a state's relationship with all its citizens.
10. Many countries have executed people proven to be insane. They are the people who might not even know that they have committed a crime.
11. Sometimes there is lots of pressure on judges (media trial & public opinion) and based on just circumstantial evidence judges sentence the person death penalty which may not be a judicious judgement. Because any accused is "guilty if proven" and not the other way round.
Chat
Comments