Since coming to power in 2008, the PPP government quietly but boldly established a defacto moratorium on applying the death penalty. Given the problems with our criminal justice system, that was a decision both moral and brave. Now, however, this unstated understanding has come to an end with the execution of Muhammad Hussain, an army soldier, convicted of murdering a fellow soldier. Although Hussain’s guilt does not seem to be in doubt, the government would have been wiser to leave its blanket ban on executions in place. Taking the life of another human is the ultimate irreversible step and until we can be sure that every person who is given the death penalty is guilty beyond any doubt of the crime of which he has been convicted, it is far better to spare guilty men if it means no innocent lives will be taken, henceforth.
On practical grounds, we simply cannot be sure of the guilt of many people who have been handed down the death sentence. DNA testing is very expensive and does not automatically take place to determine incontrovertible guilt. Even in cases where DNA testing is employed, the government database of DNA samples is far too limited to return either positive or negative results in most cases. Add to this, the corruptibility of our justice system; starting with policemen who take shortcuts in investigations, to the judicial system, where the impartiality of judges is not always a given and you have a system with the potential to be riddled with errors. A life sentence is preferable to the death penalty because incorrect decisions can be overturned. On top of that, a moral case can also be made against keeping the death penalty on the statutes.
The power to take another life is a significant power to give to the state and there is scant evidence that it does much good. The deterrent effect it is supposed to have certainly has not reduced murder rates in countries that have the death penalty. And in a country like ours, where the rich can pay blood money to atone for their crimes, keeping the death penalty assures that it is applied unequally based on class. Perhaps, it is time for the government to abolish the death penalty. Not bring it back.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 16th, 2012.
COMMENTS (10)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
A Karachi police official earlier stated that target killings are a direct consequence of governement's reluctance to execute criminals. Death Penalty is neccessary since other forms of punishments are too expensive for countries like Pakistan and rates of violent crimes far too high
@Javed: It wasn't ridiculous at all. The point is that if we execute 10 people, and 1 was actually innocent, wouldn't it have been better to give all 10 life in prison instead?
You ask us to imagine if our loved one was killed. Now you imagine being that 1 person out of 10 who is innocent but wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. Yes, I would be very angry if someone killed my loved one. But I would be even more devastated if the government killed my loved one in a fake or fraud or botched investigation.
Shed away your religion on such "moral" grounds as this one. When Taliban enforce their version of Shariah then you all raise hue and cry.
The punishment isn't a deterrent as most people who do things that would fall under that category never intend to be caught in the first place. At the very least it's no more a deterrent than life in prison. Can anyone actually picture a person thinking "yeah, I'll kill this guy. It's not like living in a cage for the rest of my life is a big deal." Anyone who doesn't believe life in prison is comparable, I direct their attention to the fact that in many countries they not only put people on suicide watch if they exhibit certain behavior, they don't even let prisoners have shoe laces out of concern they may use them to hang themselves. Most of those people aren't on death row, either. That shows some would actually prefer execution.
"it is far better to spare guilty men if it means no innocent lives will be taken, henceforth."
An extraordinarily ridiculous argument. Not sure if I have ever heard of anything as ridiculous as this. I fail to understand what punishing a guilty has to do with the possible injustice to an innocent soul. What about justice to the one murdered in cold blood?
E.T has to do better than this I am afraid. Hypothetically speaking, provided that it is the esteemed Editor-in-Chief of Tribune a victim of a cold blooded murder, or one of his own dear ones, would he continue to be just as partial to the guilty?
Would he?
(No offense intended, mind you)
Agree. Death Penalty should be abolished. Engraving fear in people never serves a useful purpose. It is consistency rather than the intensity of punishment that acts as deterrrent.
true. taking the life of another human is the ultimate irreversible step and the chances always remain that he might be not guilty. 2nd. when sitting President not ever given to any one death penalty since he become president, why not he prefer to continue not to hang any one at least in his tenure? definitely there might be avoidable reasons behind this but......
If you are not happy with the judicial system, improve it. Banning the death penalty is not the answer. What will happen if you have a substandard judicial system plus no fear of death penalty???
DEATH PENALTY SHOULD STAY!!!!
Death penalty is a necessary evil. If people committ horrible crimes death Penalty is moral and justified. We should not forget that humans are also an animal species. In order to be called enlightened we should not cross every barrier. it is not necessary that we follow west blindly. They have good things and bad things.They are facing the consequences of going to extremes by breakdown of age old tradiditions such as child discipline, sanctioning homosexuality and abondonment of death penalty. All above has cused a lot of confusion and harm to western societies.
Perhaps its time ET should leave pakistan.