The Morality And Ethics Of Capital Punishment

We all are aware of the term Capital Punishment. Going along the dictionary definition of capital punishment, it refers to a State approved and sanctioned killing, in the form of a punishment for a heinous crime committed. It is also synonymous to death penalty. It is considered the most severe form of punishment, and it requires authorised law enforcement agencies, or members of these agencies to execute the criminal, or convicted offender. Death penalty has a long history, and can be traced back for centuriesz where death was considered the rightful and only punishment for committing crimes of any sort. It was a public act, and people would witness the executions, hangings or decapitation.

In India, hanging and shooting are two approved methods of death penalty. The Criminal Procedure Code prefers hanging within the Civilian Judicial System, and the Army Act, 1950, lists both hanging and shooting as its official methods of execution. In 2015, Yakub Memon was sentenced to death by hanging, for his involvement in the 1993 Mumbai Blasts. The most recent case of death penalty is the Nirbhaya gang-rape case, a case which shook the country as a whole, where 6 men ganged together on the victim named Jyoti Singh and assaulted her to the point of death, in the year 2012. Within these 8 long years of back and forth, one of the convicts took his own life in prison, while the other, being a teenager, was sent to juvenile reform facility, for the maximum term of three(3) years. After eight years, everything lead to the ground breaking ruling by the Supreme Court, sentencing 4 of the convicts a death penalty. The nation rejoiced at this judgement, praising the judiciary for killing four men who were in the wrong, a rather bad side to be on, against a nation. 

What is the mindset behind rejoicing in such killings? Is capital punishment moral? Is it ethical? Such questions flew out of my mind when I first read about the same judgement mentioned above. I felt relieved, that such wrongdoers- monsters, if I may- were sentenced for good. I rejoiced along with numerous people of the country. It can be well justified with the thought that capital punishments are obliged to protect the welfare of the citizens, and protect their lives. We are a welfare State after all, right? Such a justification put us and our minds at ease, which otherwise would be troubled and fearful of the monsters lurking behind every corner, trying to harm your safety and your life. Another justification is that a capital punishment such as a death penalty will instill fear in the minds of anyone that might try to commit a heinous crime, such as rape. And this is a fair thought, the fear of punishment, or fear of death to be accurate- can go ways to prevent anyone from committing an action that is deemed as a crime. People will agree to sentence a convicted murder to death, rather than lose another innocent victim to death, in the name of justice. It is believed by the citizens that harming an innocent to the point of death, or by committing a heinous crime that the victim has no reason to face or bear, causes a loss to the victim and the society, that can not be quantified. And thus, the offender must face the same amount of loss. Bringing death to those who inflict death on innocent humans, logically seems like an equal measure of loss. At what point does killing someone in the name of justice become immoral? At what point do the wrong people get punished with death for a mistake that could have been punished for less? There's a saying that goes- "Do not hate the person, hate the crime." This comes from the belief that it's the crime that is bad, not the person committing it, and that people can turn into a new leaf. Although, it is only applicable for crimes such as theft or an accidental killing. Given the choice of a good life and fortune or luck, these people wouldn't have committed the said crimes, and for said people, jail time is an option to help better themselves. Of course this could apply to heinous crimes, but it is better to believe that the person itself has turned into the crime, at that point. How many chances of betterment do you give an offender that has committed serious crimes? There will always be an assumption that s/he will commit the same offence again. Regardless, there is a saturation point to everything. At the point where it kills not the crime once and for all, but kills a person, a death penalty can become immoral. Political influence doesn't fare well either, because such abuse of power can often mislead investigations and sentence the wrong person to often take the place of the actual offender. 

Capital punishment has long been the most debated topic on the basis of its morality. It becomes immoral to sentence a person to death for a small offense. People against the concept of death penalty say that death can seem like too permanent of a punishment, and it can be a rightful thought. Who pays for the life of an innocent if s/he were to be convicted falsely, and sentenced to death? Who is responsible when it is declared that an innocent was sentenced to a capital punishment? It is also immoral when it is discriminatory in nature, which was the case in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972), which imposed a death penalty in the most inconsistent manner, and by violating various provisions of the American Constitution. It is also discriminatory to sentence someone to death because they're homosexual. Homosexuality in India is treated like a crime, a disease that needs to be treated, when in reality it's just the concept of being part of the LGBTQ+ community, being affectionate to someone of their same sex, or not as some would choose. It exists, and is very much real. It shouldn't be treated as a crime, in a country whose ancient mythology carved homosexuality into sculptures and temples. People try to stand against death penalty by voicing out that until unless a killing helps balance the good over evil, society is obligated to protect human life, and not take a life.

Largely however, the punishment is supported, when it is imposed morally and for the rightful situation, stating that since a person is governed by their ethics, they should know they've morally gone off the path when they decide to commit a crime of harming another life to the point of death. Since a life was inflicted with pain of that degree, it is believed that a capital punishment is deserved to the person who inflicted that pain. And if they are allowed to walk out of prison as a free man, there are very few chances of them committing the same offence again, for the fear of losing their life has been instilled in their minds. Keep in mind though, there is always a sliver of a chance for it to happen, yet we do like to see the humanity in these people sometimes. The topic of capital punishment is a controversy, like a delicate scale trying to balance of good and evil, playing with the lives of humans, based on the choice of actions that we choose to commit.

Disclaimer: this is only the author's opinion on the topic- I do not intend to misinform or spread my ideas and thoughts to any individual. People are free to have different thoughts and opinions on the said topic.