Daily Times

The existence of the death penalty has been a bane of legal systems since time immemorial. Capital punishment dates back to the 18th century BC, when it was first inscripted on the stele of Hammurabi. It has from there on been in practice throughout the world. With changing times, countries around the world have opted to abolish the death penalty, limiting it to cases only where the ordainment of such punishment is necessary for exceptionally grave crimes. Today, the number of total abolitionists in law or practice is 140, whereas the retention countries are 58 in number. In Pakistan, a moratorium was introduced on the death sentence in 2008, which was eventually lifted in December 2014 after enormous public pressure in response to the barbaric school attack in Peshawar. Since then, military courts have been established for speedy trials and one can witness haste in death sentences while the cries of human rights activists resonate. The death penalty is considered an inhumane and barbaric practice, and at the very least, is a flagrant violation of one’s most primal right: the right to life.
Is a death sentence really as atrocious and vile as these activists claim? Is there really a need to impose a moratorium on executions in Pakistan? I do not believe so. The basic structure of society demands that every individual is entitled to basic rights and subject to liabilities. However, the question then arises: are the people convicted of violating these basic human rights really entitled to one of their own? Murder is essentially down to the bare bones, taking another’s life wilfully. If someone believes that they have the right to take another’s life, the court holds the same right against them. The most appropriate compensation for a crime or injustice is equal retribution: an eye for an eye, a life for a life. If the court does not have the right to make the decision of capital punishment, it essentially does not have the right to hand out equal punishment either.
The opponents usually argue on how the death penalty is far from the realms of humanity. However, most countries worldwide have submitted to using lethal injections, shooting, hanging or sending convicts to gas chambers for carrying out the execution. Abandoning execution in this context would mean no longer using barbaric and primitive methods such as beheadings. Some still argue that it does not in fact matter whether the method of execution is lethal injection, hanging or anything else because all of these methods deliver the same result: ending a person’s life. If the deliberate killing of an individual in this regard seems immoral, what about the pain suffered by the victims? Death penalties serve to provide closure to the families of the victim. The punishment is a means of avenging the death of an innocent person. True, the punishment itself may be no different than the crime itself; calculated and deliberate killing of a human being, but the process that is carried out to exact revenge is clearly a means of retribution. Hence, reiterating the proportionality principle: an eye for an eye and a life for a life.
Furthermore, those in support of retaining the death penalty state that executing the criminal ensures that the same misconduct will not be repeated and further human lives will not be lost. It serves as a good deterrent. However, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in its report, ‘Slow march to the gallows’ questioned the death penalty and commented that if it sets an example to restrict other people from committing similar crimes, then why does the crime rate in Pakistan continue to grow? It further argues that there is no solid evidence of a death sentence actually deterring someone from committing a murder since most of such incidents take place in the heat of the moment.
But the report fails to acknowledge some of the most important considerations. If there is no data that suggests capital punishment deters people, is there any to suggest that it is not a deterrent? Killing a murderer does not produce any other outcome other than the fact that those who have taken a life have had their life taken as well. However, on the flip side, not executing a murderer manifests the probability that he/she will further commit similar crimes in the future. The blood of all of their future victims will then be on our hands. The world does not deserve to live in fear of a murderer. A swift action taken by the law-enforcing agencies while the wounds are fresh can serve as a good deterrent for criminals.
It is also quite relevant at this point to quote an example of Saudi Arabia and Singapore; countries that have a much lower crime rate than the USA. Statistically speaking, Saudi Arabia has one of the world’s lowest crime rates related to drugs and Singapore has one of the lowest overall crime rates in the world. Whereas capital punishment is not necessarily the final outcome for cases in the US, lawyers make use of legal ambiguities to make sure their client escapes the clutches of death. However it is not the case in countries like Singapore where it is nearly impossible to save the life of a convict in the light of substantial evidence. Saudi Arabia’s strict rules regarding all things from drug smuggling to murder serve to deter people from trying to commit any offense.
While the rendering of such punishments will not sweep the system clean of perpetrators overnight but to discard the idea of the death penalty as a ruthless, barbaric one, would be nothing short of a naïve and myopic approach towards the workings of a legal system. What is then needed is the use of exemplary punishment to ward off similar threats from potential offenders, for a crime so grave deserves to be treated with a punishment of an identical intensity and force.

The writer is a student at LUMS and freelance columnist