What Is Capital Punishment? Definitions, History & Global Perspectives
Capital Punishment is the execution of a person given by the state as a means of Justice for a crime that he has committed. It is a legal course of action taken by the state whereby a person is put to death as a punishment for a crime. There are various methods of capital punishment in order to execute a criminal such as lethal injection, hanging, electrocution, gas chamber, etc. Based on moral and humanitarian grounds, capital punishment is subjected to many controversies not only at the national level but also at the global platform. One must understand the death sentence by itself.
History
Many records of various civilizations and primal tribal methods denote that the death penalty was a part of their justice system. The system of the prison was evolved to keep people in confinement for some time who have done wrong in their life and was harmful to society. The idea behind keeping the criminal in the prison was to give them a chance to change and reform themselves. The idea works well with people who have done minor offences like theft, robbery, etc. A complication arises when grievous offences like brutal and inhumane acts of rape, murder, mass killing, etc. are involved. So, the contentious part is the grimness of the crime, which is the deciding reason for execution.
During the 20th century period, millions of people died in the wars between the nations or states. In this violent period, military organizations practised capital punishment as a way of maintaining discipline. The death penalty was employed for crimes in many religious beliefs and historically was practised widely with the support of religious hierarchies. Today, there is no religious faith attached to the morality of capital punishment. It has been left to the discretion of the judiciary system to award the punishment in special circumstances.
Arguments
Most people feel that punishment for crimes like murders, rapes, and mass killings should not be death but some reformative or preventive sentence. The death penalty cannot reform a criminal, since once dead he cannot be reformed. Some people hold the view that no one has the right to take away anyone’s life for any reason. One should not take the role of God in taking away anybody’s life. At the same time, a criminal has no right to take away anyone’s life for any reason at all. If a person could go to an extent of taking someone’s life, he too has no right to live in a civilized society. Both the arguments can be cited to support viewpoints that are poles apart.
Methods
Mankind has coined a large number of methods of capital punishment:
hanging by the rope until a person breathes his last.
death by electric current.
the murderer faces a firing squad.
the offender is beheaded and executed.
the culprit is poisoned.
the offender is stoned to death.
he is burnt alive at the stake.
the criminal is made to drown.
the criminal is thrown before hungry beasts of prey.
death through crucifixion.
Guillotine.
the offender is thrown into a poisonous gas chamber.
Methods can be different but all of these methods have one thing common and that is capital punishment is barbaric in all forms. It is savage and vindictive. It is a relic of an uncivilized era. Many people say that the methods by which executions are carried out involve physical torture. Contrary to the popular belief that the death penalty deters all future crimes, various surveys have shown that the threat of the death penalty does not in any way reduce the occurrence of violent crimes.
Capital Punishment in India
Capital punishment in India does not come with a single stoke. The practice of Capital punishment is not very common in India. In our country, the Court of Session awards a death sentence according to the gravity of the offence, and this verdict requires confirmation by the High Court. Then an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court of India. In some cases, an appeal to the Supreme Court lies as a matter of right, where the High Court has reversed the verdict of the Sessions Court either into acquittal or punishment or has enhanced the sentence to capital punishment.
Lastly, if needed an appeal can be made to the president of India and the governors of states for mercy. The President is solely guided by the notes in the files by the Home Minister or the Secretariat. He is bound to pen down the reasons for mercy. It is exercised very judiciously.
Conclusion
Contemplating over capital punishment has been ramping on for a countless number of years. It is true that the death sentence is not the solution to the increase in crimes but at the same time, capital punishment inflicts physiological fear in the minds of people. In many countries, the use of this punishment has helped to deter crimes and change the minds of future criminals against committing heinous crimes. Capital punishment should be given in the rare of the rarest cases after proper investigation of the criminal’s offence.
FAQs on Capital Punishment Essay: Key Arguments, Ethics & Effects
1. What is the fundamental definition of capital punishment?
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the state-sanctioned practice of executing a person as a punishment for a capital crime. It is the most severe sentence that can be imposed by a legal system. The specific crimes that qualify as capital offences vary by jurisdiction but often include acts like aggravated murder, terrorism, and war crimes.
2. What are the main arguments in favour of capital punishment?
The primary arguments supporting capital punishment are based on several key principles of justice and social safety. These include:
- Retribution: The idea that the punishment should fit the crime, providing a sense of justice for victims and their families ("an eye for an eye").
- Deterrence: The belief that the death penalty discourages potential criminals from committing heinous acts due to the fear of execution.
- Incapacitation: Executing convicted murderers permanently prevents them from harming anyone else, either in prison or if they were to escape or be paroled.
- Cost: Some proponents argue that it is less expensive than housing a criminal for life, though this is a highly debated point due to lengthy and costly appeals processes.
3. What are the most common ethical arguments against capital punishment?
Opponents of capital punishment raise several significant ethical and moral objections. The most prominent arguments include:
- The Right to Life: This argument holds that all human life is sacred and that the state does not have the moral right to take it, regardless of the crime committed.
- Risk of Executing the Innocent: Legal systems can make mistakes. An execution is irreversible, meaning a wrongful conviction can never be rectified.
- Ineffectiveness as a Deterrent: Many studies show no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters violent crime more effectively than life imprisonment.
- Moral and Ethical Objections: Critics argue that it constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" and brutalises the society that practises it by legitimising state-sanctioned killing.
4. What is the significance of the "rarest of rare" doctrine in the context of capital punishment in India?
The "rarest of rare" doctrine is a legal principle established by the Supreme Court of India. Its primary significance is to limit the application of the death penalty to only the most exceptionally brutal, grotesque, or diabolical crimes where life imprisonment is considered an unquestionably inadequate punishment. This framework ensures that capital punishment is not used routinely but is reserved for cases that shock the collective conscience of society, thereby acting as a judicial safeguard against its arbitrary use.
5. How does the principle of retribution in capital punishment differ from simple revenge?
While they may seem similar, retribution and revenge are fundamentally different concepts in the context of justice. Retribution is an impartial, legal principle where punishment is administered by the state based on a codified law, designed to be proportional to the harm caused. It is meant to restore a moral balance. In contrast, revenge is a personal, emotional response driven by anger or a desire to inflict suffering on someone who has wronged you. It is often disproportionate and lacks the due process and impartiality of a legal system.
6. Beyond deterrence, what are other potential effects of capital punishment on a society?
Besides the debated deterrent effect, capital punishment has several other societal impacts. It can lead to a "brutalisation effect," where state-sanctioned executions may desensitise citizens to violence. The legal processes involved are often extremely long and expensive, diverting resources that could be used for other public services. Furthermore, it has a profound and lasting psychological impact on the families of both the victim and the condemned, as well as on the legal professionals and executioners involved in the process.
7. What are some common methods used for carrying out capital punishment globally?
Throughout history and across different countries, various methods have been used to carry out capital punishment. Some of the most recognised methods include:
- Lethal Injection: The most common method in the United States, involving a sequence of drugs.
- Hanging: A widely used historical method still in practice in some countries.
- Electrocution: The use of a high-voltage electric current.
- Firing Squad: An execution carried out by a group of shooters.
- Gas Chamber: The use of lethal gas to cause death.
8. Why is the possibility of executing an innocent person considered a central argument for abolitionists?
The risk of executing an innocent person is a central argument because it highlights the infallibility and finality of the justice system. All legal systems are operated by humans and are therefore prone to error, whether through mistaken identity, false testimony, or inadequate legal representation. While a prison sentence can be overturned and the wrongly convicted person can be released, an execution is permanent and irreversible. For abolitionists, this unacceptable risk of taking an innocent life outweighs any potential benefits of the death penalty and represents a fundamental violation of justice.
