The price of justice: is death penalty the answer?

The recent death penalty verdict for a mobile phone snatcher in Karachi has sparked a critical question: can state-sanctioned execution ever truly serve justice? This case, which involves the tragic killing of a young boy, forces us to confront the efficacy and ethics of capital punishment. The court remarked that “stringent measures to deter crime are essential” and that “the imposition of appropriate and timely penalties will serve as a powerful deterrent for potential offenders”. While the intent behind these statements is understandable, the reality of capital punishment is far more complex and troubling.

Two years ago, I spent considerable time engaging with death row inmates, uncovering the psychological and emotional torment they endure. These individuals live in a state of perpetual limbo, haunted by the uncertainty of their fate. The prolonged period between sentencing, appeals and execution, often spanning over a decade, subject them to immense mental suffering. This phenomenon, known as ‘death row syndrome’, raises serious ethical concerns. Is it just to subject anyone, regardless of their crime, to such prolonged agony? The court’s emphasis on swift adjudication often does not align with the reality of the protracted appeals process in our justice system.

The court’s assertion that stringent penalties will deter crime is a common justification for the death penalty. However, empirical evidence does not support this claim. Studies from around the world, including those conducted by Amnesty International and the United Nations, consistently show that the death penalty does not effectively deter crime more than other forms of severe punishment, such as life imprisonment. In fact, countries that have abolished capital punishment have not seen a rise in crime rates; some have even experienced a decline. The belief in the death penalty as a powerful deterrent is more myth than reality.

Our justice system, despite its best efforts, is not infallible. The risk of wrongful convictions is a critical flaw in the application of the death penalty. In Pakistan, where the legal system is burdened with inefficiencies and inconsistencies, the potential for miscarriages of justice is significant. A 2019 study revealed that the Supreme Court overturned the death penalty in 78 per cent of cases over the past few years. An irreversible punishment like the death penalty leaves no room for rectifying such errors, leading to the tragic possibility of executing innocent individuals. This risk alone should give us pause and prompt us to reconsider whether we can justify capital punishment.

Proponents of the death penalty often argue that it is the only appropriate punishment for the most heinous crimes. However, this perspective overlooks several critical issues such as the lack of a proven deterrent effect, the risk of wrongful convictions and the ethical and human rights concerns associated.

Instead of capital punishment, Pakistan should consider alternative approaches that are both humane and effective: life imprisonment without parole? Restorative justice programmes? Strengthening the judicial process to ensure fair trials, proper legal representation and adherence to due process? Addressing the root causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of education and inadequate social services?

While the crime was abhorrent and the loss of a young life deeply tragic, the consideration of the death penalty as an effective response urges a more nuanced approach to justice. At its core, capital punishment is a severe violation of human dignity and the right to life, fundamental principles enshrined in international human rights law.

In conclusion, while the court’s call for stringent measures and timely penalties aims to deter crime, the death penalty is not the solution. The risks of wrongful execution, the lack of a proven deterrent effect, and the violation of human dignity all point to the need for Pakistan to reconsider its stance on capital punishment.