Why Capital Punishment should be banned
Let's say that this guy named A kills another guy named B. Let us also say that A meticulously planned the whole thing and then carried out the plan to the T and was successful in murdering B. Mission Accomplished! The Police catch A and get hold of enough evidence to get a conviction. The judge sentences A to death. Let's call the judiciary apparatus C. Now, C is planning to kill A. C has made meticulous preparations to make sure that A dies. Then, C carries out this meticulous plan to the T and is successful in killing A. Pray tell, what's the difference between A and C?
People sometimes say that the mere presence of capital punishment in the judiciary system of a state is a deterrent for people so that less number of murders and killings are committed. However, we can see that capital punishment has not deterred anyone from actually committing a murder because murders are committed in states with capital punishment as rampantly as those without. Therefore, this argument is nullified.
Also, what I think is that the judiciary should not just vengefully mete out slaps on the wrist (or on the neck, for that matter) and make sure that justice really is served. If justice demands an eye for an eye then what's the difference between the civilized world and the Taliban?
Let's say that a person is executed and somewhere in the future, new evidence comes to light that exonerates the person. What does the state do? How does the state make the person come back to life? The state has no right to take what it cannot give back in the event of a mistake committed on its part. If, however, this person were not executed but was kept in a pennitentiary for life (and I mean for life, with no parole), then the state could release them and ask their forgiveness for the time that the state took from them. This is, I think, better than saying sorry to the family of a deceased.
So, it makes one wonder what the difference between capital punishment and murder really is.
People sometimes say that the mere presence of capital punishment in the judiciary system of a state is a deterrent for people so that less number of murders and killings are committed. However, we can see that capital punishment has not deterred anyone from actually committing a murder because murders are committed in states with capital punishment as rampantly as those without. Therefore, this argument is nullified.
Also, what I think is that the judiciary should not just vengefully mete out slaps on the wrist (or on the neck, for that matter) and make sure that justice really is served. If justice demands an eye for an eye then what's the difference between the civilized world and the Taliban?
Let's say that a person is executed and somewhere in the future, new evidence comes to light that exonerates the person. What does the state do? How does the state make the person come back to life? The state has no right to take what it cannot give back in the event of a mistake committed on its part. If, however, this person were not executed but was kept in a pennitentiary for life (and I mean for life, with no parole), then the state could release them and ask their forgiveness for the time that the state took from them. This is, I think, better than saying sorry to the family of a deceased.
So, it makes one wonder what the difference between capital punishment and murder really is.
4 Comments:
What you are saying is basically that the criminal has a god-given right to kill, but that the state does not. Why this fallacy in thinking? I mean if a killer can kill, then why not the state?
I don't know the statictics, but if all murderers were to be put away for life, who's going to pay for it? Where is the space? It would be like, giving that criminal food, clothing and shelter for free! Now this doesn't sound fair to me.
Anon,
You can always make the criminal work for the state. Like for building roads and stuff, so that the state is not just "paying" for the criminal's upkeep
The essential difference between 'A' and 'C' is that 'A' killed 'B' out of private and maybe specious or unjustified, or even if justified, not very socially acceptable malice or revenge. A's move was arbitrary, without the sanction of society in general and even planned and executed perfectly. The judiciary is a body vested with the responsibility of keeping the law. The supremacy of the state as an association over individuals and other associations lies in the fact that the State as a body needs to keep law and order within its jurisdiction intact. Or else, we'd be writing blogs about how badly the state fails in its duty. Therefore, the intention of C executing A is far different from A's killing of B, because C is fulfilling the society's need to have a stable system that can run without individual whims getting in the way of the greater good of many. That's why, C's killing of A, at the cost of spilling A's blood is a noble action on part of C, because C is willing to indulge in violence for the greater good of many. The Gandhian logic of trying to win over a murderer with love is a good humanistic expression of faith in the almighty and in oneself, but when it comes to weighing the interest of the state and the individual's beliefs and philosophy, practicality and duty demand that the one who runs the state make a choice - between going out of the way for the murderer and the stability of the state which includes innocent people. Practical life is full of choices. It is possible to pardon killers. But all killings are not of the same type. Even a planned killing may be considered in the light of previous wrongdoings of the killed. But as to a malicious killing, the most basic principle of a State and its functionality - that the State is sovereign and no individual is above it - makes punishment commensurate with the degree of crime a prime requisite to guard democracy. What is democracy but a balanced statehood? By breaking the basic principle of it, we'd be breaking the balance of democracy.
Post a Comment
<< Home