Death penalty: the only panacea for all ills?
Death penalty not only defies international human rights standards but also fails to deter crimes, its sole purpose.
The writer is a lawyer and a researcher in a think tank based in Lahore and holds a law degree from the University of London
Afzal Guru’s hanging raises many unpalatable questions. This event has once again sparked debate about the use of death penalty to appease public anger and resentment. Death penalty or capital punishment is indeed, quite a controversial issue and it requires a certain kind of chutzpah to condemn such an outrageous and egregious act. Recently, Arundhati Roy penned down her thoughts on Guru’s case, declaring the act as a stain on India’s democracy and raising a conscience-awakening question, asking if now India’s collective morality is satisfied or is its cup of blood still only half full?
The belief that the death penalty or capital punishment entails inhumane treatment is gaining ground. One feels sorry for the victims of the death penalty as they are increasingly subjected to traumatising acts of stoning, beheadings, gas chambers, electrocution and lethal injections. It forces human rights advocates to raise questions about why the world is killing an individual, when he can be punished through life imprisonment as well.
Though the European Court of Human Rights does not talk about completely doing away with the death penalty, it does believe that the manner of conducting public executions should be compatible with human dignity. In response to atrocious incidents of execution, the United Nations called for a moratorium on them. The moratorium, for a while, did play its role in curtailing painful executions, but with the passage of time, some countries, in spite of it, chose to revert to the odious practice of sending people back to the gallows, once again, leading to a major setback to the human rights discourse.
The most convincing and compelling argument against the death penalty is that it is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. There have been instances where innocent people have been hanged. Being a Muslim, I certainly advocate the Islamic position with regard to the ethics of capital punishment. Islam, in a nutshell, does accept capital punishment but even though the death penalty is allowed, forgiveness is preferable. Peace, forgiveness, valuing human life, these are the principles that govern Islam.
Like it or not, but Iraq and Pakistan are among the countries with the largest populations of prisoners and inmates on death row. It is believed that there are about 8,000 people currently on the death row in Pakistan. Such countries need to reform their criminal justice systems and introduce legislation proposing an end to the death penalty. The legal system in many countries is the only harbinger of justice, hence, it must allow recourse to fair trial to an individual, in a court of law. In a death penalty case, the aim should be to stay execution and to commute the sentence from death to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The death penalty not only fails as a solution but it is enormously expensive. A majority of the studies on the cost of capital punishment, conducted by various experts, conclude that it is much more expensive than a system with life sentences as the maximum penalty.
If a country like Pakistan surrenders the death penalty, the economy will be relieved of this financial burden, as for the implementation of death penalty, a lot of funds are needed to support pre-trial and trial costs, appeals and state habeas corpus petitions, federal habeas corpus appeals and finally incarceration.
The current government in Pakistan must look into reforming the death penalty laws before its term ends this year. Such a reform is mandatory for not only Pakistan but all other countries who are seeking membership of the European Union General Scheme of Preference in order to improve trade and their ties with the western world.
The prevailing scenario in most of the less-developed countries manifests that the death penalty is inflicted on the poor and the marginalised, is arbitrary and unfair and the penalty claims innocent lives. Above all, it not only defies international human rights standards but also fails to deter crimes, the sole purpose for which it is executed.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 20th, 2013.
The belief that the death penalty or capital punishment entails inhumane treatment is gaining ground. One feels sorry for the victims of the death penalty as they are increasingly subjected to traumatising acts of stoning, beheadings, gas chambers, electrocution and lethal injections. It forces human rights advocates to raise questions about why the world is killing an individual, when he can be punished through life imprisonment as well.
Though the European Court of Human Rights does not talk about completely doing away with the death penalty, it does believe that the manner of conducting public executions should be compatible with human dignity. In response to atrocious incidents of execution, the United Nations called for a moratorium on them. The moratorium, for a while, did play its role in curtailing painful executions, but with the passage of time, some countries, in spite of it, chose to revert to the odious practice of sending people back to the gallows, once again, leading to a major setback to the human rights discourse.
The most convincing and compelling argument against the death penalty is that it is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. There have been instances where innocent people have been hanged. Being a Muslim, I certainly advocate the Islamic position with regard to the ethics of capital punishment. Islam, in a nutshell, does accept capital punishment but even though the death penalty is allowed, forgiveness is preferable. Peace, forgiveness, valuing human life, these are the principles that govern Islam.
Like it or not, but Iraq and Pakistan are among the countries with the largest populations of prisoners and inmates on death row. It is believed that there are about 8,000 people currently on the death row in Pakistan. Such countries need to reform their criminal justice systems and introduce legislation proposing an end to the death penalty. The legal system in many countries is the only harbinger of justice, hence, it must allow recourse to fair trial to an individual, in a court of law. In a death penalty case, the aim should be to stay execution and to commute the sentence from death to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The death penalty not only fails as a solution but it is enormously expensive. A majority of the studies on the cost of capital punishment, conducted by various experts, conclude that it is much more expensive than a system with life sentences as the maximum penalty.
If a country like Pakistan surrenders the death penalty, the economy will be relieved of this financial burden, as for the implementation of death penalty, a lot of funds are needed to support pre-trial and trial costs, appeals and state habeas corpus petitions, federal habeas corpus appeals and finally incarceration.
The current government in Pakistan must look into reforming the death penalty laws before its term ends this year. Such a reform is mandatory for not only Pakistan but all other countries who are seeking membership of the European Union General Scheme of Preference in order to improve trade and their ties with the western world.
The prevailing scenario in most of the less-developed countries manifests that the death penalty is inflicted on the poor and the marginalised, is arbitrary and unfair and the penalty claims innocent lives. Above all, it not only defies international human rights standards but also fails to deter crimes, the sole purpose for which it is executed.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 20th, 2013.