My previous post outlined some of the harsh realities of the Death Penalty. That was more than 2 weeks back. So, let’s plunge neck-deep into this post right away. There’s nothing like starting a post with a bitter, divisive issue. Does Death Penalty deter Murder?

The idea of gauging a punishment on its merit as a deterrent – is rooted in the Utilitarian Justice system. Here’s the essence: The threat of the Death Penalty looming large, along with a few highly publicized executions (Example Killings) should reduce the number of gruesome murders. As a supporter of the Retributive Justice system, I do not buy this – but let’s pursue the Utilitarian line of thinking further.

Many people – law-makers among them – believe that the Death Penalty is effete. By Utilitarian norms, it has outlived its usefulness & hence, should be disbanded. What is this belief rooted on? Has Operant Conditioning failed, where Capital Punishment is concerned?

Compare these Homicide Rates per 100,000 Citizens: (Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports. Year – 2007)

It may seem that Capital Punishment has failed to curb murder – The fallacy of statistics with a small sample. Shall we increase the sample size?

What about Michigan? It outlawed the Death Penalty 150 years back. Its Homicide Rate is  well above Texas, Florida & the US Average. Not to mention Washington DC. Its Homicide Rate knocked the wind off my sails!

Let’s view this globally. Abolitionists use Sweden as an example. What about a few counter-examples?

South Africa has one of the worst crime rates in the world. And BTW, it abolished the Death Penalty in 1997. Its citizens are wondering if Capital Punishment should be reinstated. Guatemala had a Moratorium on Death Penalty since 2000. Its Homicide Rate has been steadily on the rise. In 2008, Guatemala announced its intention to resume executions.

All I’m saying is, some countries & states are peace-loving – like Sweden & North Dakota – and crime rates are traditionally low. Homicide Rate is dependent on several parameters – Death Penalty is only one of them. Unemployment, Narcotics, Gun Control, Policing – are a few of the several other variables involved. Tying Homicide Rates solely to the Death Penalty is unscientific & shows a poor grasp of Statistics & Curve Fitting.

Implications of the 8th Amendment

In most discussions on the Death Penalty, the 8th amendment of the US Constitution is cited. What then is the 8th amendment? The US Constitution has a list of amendments included in its “Bill of Rights”. The 8th amendment expressly prohibits Excessive Bonds, Imposing Excessive Fines & Inflicting Cruel & Unusual Punishment. Abolitionists state that the Death Penalty is cruel & unusual & it should be rejected under the statutes of the 8th amendment.

As an Engineer, I personally find most legal clauses loose, subjective & ambiguous, for our Specifications are precise, clear & avoid the use of adjectives. What punishment could be termed “Cruel & Unusual”? For that, we should understand the penal systems of 1791, when the 8th amendment was ratified in the US. Or 1689, when United Kingdom enacted similar provisions to its Bill of Rights:

People were burnt alive, Disemboweled, Torn into 4 pieces by horses, Drowned by Dunking or Had their hands cut-off.

Such punishments seem horrid & repulsive now, but they were common 200 – 300 years back. The intent of the 8th amendment was to prevent such barbaric punishments from being meted out.

Of late, I’ve realized that the fluidity of the law shows the foresight of our founding fathers. For the laws to stand the test of time, it should be open to interpretation. To quote US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor:

The 8th amendment prohibits punishments that were prohibited historically as well as those that run counter to evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.

Most of us abjure harsh punishments. But, a lot depends on our definition of “Harsh”. Nigeria is harsh. If a woman commits adultery, she is stoned. Singapore is harsh. Vandalism is punishable by caning. The common modes of Capital Punishment around the world – Lethal Injection, Electric Chair, Hanging, Firing Squad, Gas Chamber – are they harsh?

It is important to distinguish between a Punishment & its Mode. We may find Gas Chambers reminiscent of Nazi Germany & hence reprehensible. But that’s an indictment of the mode, not the punishment of death itself. The mode of capital punishment has changed over the years. Latin “Caput” from which the word “Capital” is derived, means “Head”. In centuries past, capital punishments meant cutting off the offender’s head – a practice that is found abhorrent today, a mode we would denounce as repugnant & harsh.

How Evolved is our Decency?

Extrapolating Justice O’Connor, the penal system of a land should balance not only its “Evolving Standards of Decency”, but those of humanity. Several exceptions have already been made to accommodate our sense of decency. To cite an example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits the execution of pregnant women. To unilaterally abolish the Death Penalty, enough people around the world, or at least in the specific country that’s mulling over the matter, should find the very act of the State killing a murderer, however gentle the means may be, grossly indecent. Overpowering public opinion, not the moral indignation of a few.

I do not think, at the time in which this post is written, that there’s an overwhelming opposition to the Death Penalty in the world. As of 2008, out of the world’s 207+ countries, 94 had abolished the death penalty & 35 others had issued temporary bans. The gentler neighbor of the US & the 2nd largest country in the world – Canada, has abolished the Death Penalty. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union forbids Capital Punishment.

Yet, I do not think the above statistics contradict my view. Consider this: The 4 most populous countries of the World – China, India, US & Indonesia – routinely kill murderers. Just these 4 make up about 50% of the world’s population. The populations of Luxembourg or Sweden, that have abolished the Death Penalty, are mere round-off errors in comparison. A Worldwide Gallup poll in 2000 concluded that 52% of the people favored the Death Penalty. Gallup further found in 2008 that 64% of the Americans supported the Death Penalty. None of that sounds like a resounding endorsement for the abolitionists, to me.

Incredibly, while the European Union has outlawed the Death Penalty, public support for reinstating it has been increasing steadily in United Kingdom. UK abolished Capital Punishment in 1973, but large swathes of her Citizens are clamoring for its reinstatement now. And UK is just the tip of the iceberg.

Summing Up

And what of the hand-wringing, that harsh punishments make us coarse? “Make us Coarse”? We are born coarse! Civilization is the tussle between the Ruthless Reptile, the Nurturing Mammal & the Thinking Human in all of us. One can’t force humanity to take the high road. As a die-hard fan of Star Trek, I can’t resist quoting from it. In “First Contact”, Captain Picard says:

The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.

A wonderful goal to aspire for. In a similar fashion, one day, some day, in the distant future, we can aspire to rise above needing Capital Punishment. Only, we have miles to go. I rest my case.

In the last 2 posts – Part 1 & Part 2, I strongly advocated the case for retaining the death penalty, provided certain criteria were met. What are the harsh realities of capital punishment? Its not my intention to sweep inconvenient truths under the carpet, especially when they are explosive in nature.

Let’s swallow the slimiest toad – everything else will seem simpler by contrast. Exactly whom do we kill when we impose the Death Penalty? Distressingly enough, the poor have the odds tilted against them, yet again. For, defendants that can afford better attorneys are seldom executed.

This is what US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has to say on the subject:

People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty. I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial.

In a free country, every individual has the inalienable right for legal representation in a trial. If defendants can’t afford a lawyer on their own, the court appoints one on their behalf. Such attorneys are called “Legal Aid Lawyers” & they are paid – admittedly not big bucks – by the state.

In addition to this, flourishing law firms offer free legal counseling for the economically disadvantaged strata. These are called Pro bono publico cases – literally, cases taken up for the betterment of the society. Bar Associations in the US & UK have encouraged lawyers to participate in Pro bono work, to do their part for the society. Some have even published minimum recommended Pro bono hours for lawyers.

Unfortunately, all this sounds better on paper than in reality. Sadly & unsurprisingly, once the numbers are tallied, most law firms fall abysmally short of even the minimum recommended Pro bono hours. When the rubber meets the road – many defendants, especially the poorest of the poor, are woefully under-represented in courts of law.

How does this impact Capital Punishment?

When an attorney wants the court to overturn a conviction or a death sentence, the usual procedure in most countries is a Writ of Habeas Corpus. This is the law by which a detainee can seek relief from unlawful detention. In Death Penalty cases, more often than not, its the lawyer that files the writ. But lawyers appointed by the court to handle the writs of death row inmates routinely bungle appeals.

Justin Fuller, a death row inmate was convicted of robbery & shooting, that resulted in the death of a man. The court appointed Toby Wilkinson to handle Fuller’s appeals. The writ filed by Wilkinson was full of errors. Which isn’t surprising, since Wilkinson copied several portions from a prior writ that he filed 2 years earlier for another inmate, Henry Dunn. He got the name of the co-defendant & the trial judge wrong. He even got the central issue – the evidence – in Fuller’s case wrong. He had blindly copied those sections from Dunn’s writ.

Fuller was executed on August 24, 2006. Wilkinson’s writ was so bad, that his client did not stand a chance.

Quality of counsel is THAT important. It is an important predictor on whose appeals have a better chance with the bench or the appeals court.

What about racial discrimination? After all, human beings interpret the law. Pretending that there’s no racial divide in who gets the capital punishment, will take us nowhere. A statistical study conducted by Law Professor David Baldus concluded that African American defendants are 4 times more likely to get the death penalty, than Caucasians, for similar offenses. The results of this study were disputed by those advocating the Death Penalty, including yours sincerely. But to be fair, how can we sweep aside the fact that 74% of those who got the death penalty between 1995 & 2000 were minorities?

Why is the law so skewed? Another study conducted by Professor Jeffrey Pokorak found the smoking gun. 98% of the Chief District Attorneys are White. These are the key decision makers on when to seek the death penalty. I shudder to think how the Death Penalty is applied in India. What would we find, if our courts were faster, instead of moving at a snail’s pace? What would be the demographics of those swinging on the hang-man’s noose? Would a striking pattern leap to the eye?

Now, do you want to know who doesn’t get the death penalty?

In the year 1924, Richard Loeb & his friend Nathan Leopold, both scions of wealthy families, were busy planning a perfect murder. Murder to them, was an intellectual exercise. Loeb particularly, was fascinated with crime. Leopold held the philosophical belief that legal obligations did not apply to Supermen – as in, those intelligent like him & his friend.

They decided to kidnap a child of affluent parents & seek ransom. One evening at about 5 PM, Bobby Franks, the son of an acquaintance, was walking home from school. Leopold & Loeb lured Bobby to their car, under the guise of talking about tennis rackets. They killed Bobby with a chisel, drove to a marshland, stripped the child & poured acid all over the body to make identification difficult. They systematically stuffed the dead body into a culvert. Upon returning home, they burned Bobby’s clothes.

They then called the Franks over the phone & told them that their boy had been kidnapped, but safe. The family had to pay $10,000 as ransom, to be delivered at a certain drugstore. Before the Franks could proceed further, the police called them. A laborer had seen a leg poking out of a culvert & they wondered if it could be the body of Bobby Franks.

How did the law catch up with Leopold & Loeb? Here are some sordid details – A pair of horn-rimmed glasses belonging to Leopold was found on the body. Their ransom note matched a type-writer in Leopold’s law school. Their alibi – that they were picking up girls on the day of the murder – fell apart. Leopold & Loeb confessed their crime.

But they had a formidable weapon in their arsenal – top-notch defense attorney Clarence Darrow. He built a complex case of Psychology, Nature (how his defendants had no control over how they were made) & their Extreme Youth. He eloquently painted a bleak picture of the endless, soul crushing life in prison his young charges faced. When Darrow finished his summation, the judge & the spectators were moved to tears.

Leopold & Loeb didn’t get the Death Penalty. Macabre crime, damning evidence & the icing on the cake, confessions. Its the same law, but a great lawyer can make a big difference – literally – between life & death.

Summing Up

Its no wonder that to many kind-hearted gentle people, the law seems arbitrary. But I have a question for these people: Does it matter terribly that the rich wriggle out of the death penalty? Shouldn’t it matter more to us, that those with mitigating circumstances get better legal assistance & thus avoid the noose, the injection or the electric chair?

We don’t have to dismantle the death penalty because – the path leading up to it – has short-comings. That seems like a non-sequitur to me. We can eradicate something only if we poke enough holes in it. Collectively, we need to figure out how to plug the gaps in providing legal aid, so that the sentencing process becomes more equitable & less arbitrary. Perhaps lawyers that routinely spew out shoddy writs & ruin the appeals process can be disqualified by discerning judges.

I see a growing trend to scuttle the difficult.

Too many “normal” people use drugs? Think many reckless, irresponsible people are detained at foreign ports of entry because they had drugs on them? Make drugs legal, it is eating up too much time from the law & order machinery. Let them focus on “more serious” crime.

What I think about drugs is tangential to this thread, but I think the reasoning listed above is simply the product of poor logic & hazy thinking. Legalizing drugs should solely be based on its effects, determined scientifically & empirically. I submit that we should apply the same standards to Capital Punishment.

As usual, I’ve run out of space. I don’t have enough space to cover the 8th amendment, so let me adjourn that to the next post.

In September 2008, I wrote Part -1 on my series on the Death Penalty. Events transpired – death of someone I cared about, Srilankan war, our trip to Singapore & Raju Garu (Sigh!). For an extremely focused person, I get extremely distracted. Since the series on Srilanka is more or less at its mid-point, I thought now is as good a time as any, to write my next post on the Death Penalty. A humble request – Please read the 1st part of the series before reading this post, to maintain continuity.

Let’s start off with why penal systems were adopted in the 1st place: Because it makes it easier to seek restitution. A Restorative System of justice can be used, when the crime is not a perfidy. Either through mediators or with their attorney’s assistance, the victim & the offender can debate what kind of compensation would set things right between them. In its simplest form, if an item has been wrongfully taken by the accused, s/he can restore it to the rightful owner. But this system of justice is unusable to resolve violent crimes.

Let me make a proposition to the opponents of Capital Punishment. What if we impose the death penalty only in the most extreme cases? Such as repeat offenders? Like serial killers?

Ted Bundy had the distinction of being one of the most notorious serial killers of all times. Handsome, suave & intelligent, Bundy had no problem in attracting the attention of women. Once they were alone with him though, he bludgeoned them with a crowbar & strangled them. When they were unconscious, he brutally raped them. He left their naked dead bodies in wooded areas. Sometimes he lay down next to their decomposing bodies for a day or 2. His last victim was a 12 year old girl. Her dead body was found, throat sliced. He confessed to killing 28 women, but it could be as many as 100.

Bundy’s attorneys tried in vain to stay his execution or to even commute it to a life sentence. They begged the families of his victims to write a letter to the Governor of Florida, seeking clemency for Bundy. Every single one of them refused. The law isn’t blind. Ted Bundy was executed on Jan 24th, 1989.

Which brings us to my #1 reason for supporting the Death Penalty – What about the victims? Or their families? In our zeal to protect the rights of  convicted criminals & to uphold the cause of humanity, aren’t we forgetting the justifiable emotions of the near & dear of the slain?

When someone you love has been murdered brutally, it is completely normal to seek revenge. Civilized countries adopt criminal laws & vest the power of sentencing with a handful of authorities – judges or regents. This prevents the society from devolving into an anarchy – otherwise people will attempt to settle scores through vendetta killings. Death penalty gives closure to the families & friends of the victims, thereby preempting vigilantism.

People that oppose the death penalty think imprisonment is punishment enough. “Let’s lock them up for the rest of their natural lives. We’ll deprive them of their freedom, plus they can’t kill anyone else, can they?” I think that’s rich – offering the perpetrators a chance to live to a ripe old age, with board & lodge provided by the state, learning useful crafts in jail, even attending community college, penning their memoirs. Chances that their victims will never get.

Some gentler souls may even opine that a life term could be commuted, to say 10 or 15 years behind bars. That should be enough punishment for a criminal to atone for his/her sins, right? They can return to the general population to lead a normal life, right? Wrong, Dead Wrong. When someone takes a human life in the absence of mitigating circumstances, they forfeit their rights to lead a normal life. The proverbial milk of human kindness is wasted on them.

It was the year 1985. Joe Atkins was on parole from the penitentiary, after serving 10 years for killing his half-brother Charles. Armed with a machete, a pistol & a gun, he broke into his neighbor’s residence. He cut the phone lines, then proceeded to kill 13 year old Karen Patterson, who was fast asleep in her bed. He chased Karen’s parents, who escaped fortuitously. When Karen’s mother took refuge in the Atkins home, Joe killed his own father Benjamin Atkins. It was his father that had pleaded with the parole board to release Joe ahead of schedule.

This time, Joe Atkins was not only convicted, but also executed.

But more importantly, this concept of “Imprisonment as a Punishment” is fairly new. Historically speaking, prisons & jails were holding areas for the prisoners. They were housed in dungeons or incarcerated otherwise, till the state’s penal system decided their fate. For the most part, jailing wasn’t considered a punishment in itself.

So if we kill repeat offenders, murderers for hire & cold-blooded murderers who kill for gain, how many of you would stand up to be counted in support of the death penalty? What if I say, we’ll pay heed to mitigating circumstances?

Let’s not kill 1st time offenders: If the crime is very brutal and/or involves multiple murders, let’s give them life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. We won’t kill the mentally ill, they need medical attention. So if a deranged woman heard St Stephen’s voice urging her to kill her neighbor – because he’s actually Beelzebub – we’ll institutionalize her, not fry her.

Now, let’s skate on thin ice. What about the mentally retarded, in other words, people of diminished culpability? The UN Commission for Human Rights adopted resolutions in 1999 & 2000, urging countries not to impose the Death Penalty on people suffering mental impairment – which includes retardation & illness. In recent years,only 3 countries executed the mentally retarded – Japan, United States & Kyrgyztan.

In 2002, US banned the execution of criminals with an IQ < 70. Border-line retardation isn’t considered a serious enough mitigating factor, an interpretation that I agree with. As long as the defendant understands cause & effect, as long as they knew they were taking a life, they are responsible for their actions.

Here is another case for your purview:

15 year old Valessa Robinson was a wild girl. She wanted to marry her 19 year old boyfriend Adam Davis. Adam had a mile-long rap sheet & he was fresh out of jail. Valessa was besotted with him & wanted to have his baby. She came from a respectable family & her mother Vicki Adams was deeply concerned. Valessa had repeatedly run away before & counseling had failed. Vicki planned to enroll her in Steppin’ Stone Farm, a boarding school for troubled girls.

So one day, Valessa killed her mother with Adam’s help. She held her mother down, while Adam injected laundry bleach into her veins. That did not kill Vicki. So, Adam stabbed her to death. They disposed of the body, stole Vicki’s credit cards & mini-van. They drove around aimlessly, using Vicki’s ATM card freely, getting tattoos, jewelery & drugs. 6 days after the murder, the police arrested them.

The law isn’t as trigger happy as people like to think. As heinous as her crime may be, as monstrous her behavior may seem to us – the law in most countries frowns on executing minors. Valessa was sentenced to 20 years in jail. Adam Davis was sentenced to death.

Unfortunately, cases like Valessa’s use escape routes provided by the law. Given a choice, I’d like to strap her to a gurney & administer a lethal injection. But, my moral indignation has to take a hike, since the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child expressly prohibits Capital Punishment for juveniles. Almost all countries – except Somalia & the United States – have ratified that article. But in reality, 5 countries executed juveniles in the past 4 years – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen & Sudan. The dubious distinction of being the biggest executioner of children belongs to Iran.

As I said, the death penalty isn’t given to everyone.

Summing Up

Why should we deny our negative feelings? Are anger, bitterness & fury always bad? They seem real enough to me. And it behooves on us to act on them in a just manner. Yes, Retributive justice promotes revenge. But, punishment is meted out by an unbiased group of judges & jury, after sifting through the evidence. The victim’s dear & near can’t circumvent due process. Isn’t that good enough?

Is the death penalty harsh? Should it be abolished under the 8th amendment of the US constitution – is it really a cruel & unusual punishment? What are the harsh realities of implementing capital punishment? And more to the point, what do the experts in criminal justice have to say? For lack of space, I’ll cover all that & then some in a subsequent post.

Very few social issues galvanize people irrespective of their geographies. Abortions. Gay Rights. Prostitution. Drugs. The Death Penalty. If people could be roughly grouped into “Conservatives”,  “Liberals” and “Moderates”, their views on the 1st 4 issues would neatly fall into “No Way, No How!”, “Why not?” and “That Depends”. But, Capital Punishment is different. Its a cause that cleaves the Overtly Pious with the Bohemian. This leaves many conservatives sputtering and purple-faced.

I’ll acknowledge the elephant in the room & state my position. I support the Death Penalty, as long as certain conditions are met. This stance of mine confounds many academics who count me among their ranks. While I have a preponderance of liberal views, I’m too brutal & pragmatic to be a quintessential bleeding-heart.

Let’s weigh the relative merits and demerits of the arguments on both sides.

Most Civil Liberty activists ask me, “What if we kill an innocent person? Can you live with that?”. Yes, many an innocent person awaits execution on Death Row. Advances in Forensic Science – such as DNA Finger-printing – have exonerated many inmates from prisons.

I’m not flippant about life, that too, human life. Can we improve the technology used to convict defendants so that the error rate comes down drastically? Nothing works 100% of the time. Let’s pick a % of error in Death Penalty convictions we can live with: 0.01%? 0.001%? If you think that’s too high, let me offer a counter-example: Mortality rates for an Appendectomy. It is 0.2% – 0.8%. Most of us won’t bat an eyelid to get such a seemingly simple surgery done. Now, there’s nothing political about an abscessed appendix, so you don’t see people waving placards before the Operation Theater!

“What if a person killed in the heat of the moment?” I’m asked. “Do you want to fry their brains in an electric chair?”. I’m surprised at how common this misconception is. The law in most civilized countries differentiates between Murder and Manslaughter.

“First Degree Murder” is a cold-blooded murder, where the killing is premeditated, planned willfully and executed by the accused. In a “Second Degree Murder”, the accused nurses a grouse and kills the victim vindictively, but there is no premeditation – the murder was not planned. “Voluntary Manslaughter” is a classic “Heat of Passion” killing, where the accused did not plan the murder – but committed the crime in an emotionally distraught state. In an “Involuntary Manslaughter”, the accused shows criminal negligence of human life – for example, s/he may kill someone by recklessly driving a car.

Out of all these categories, only Murder-1 (First Degree Murder) is punishable by the Death Penalty. Where motive, intent to kill, opportunity and premeditation can be clearly determined.

Why does this topic garner so much press? Why does this raise the hackles of the left & right wings? For that, we must look at the origins & evolution of Criminal Justice.

The earliest laws followed the principle of lex talionis – or, Proportional Punishment. Roughly stated, “Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth”. The Codex of Hammurabi, a Babylonian king, is the earliest written law that dates back to 1760 BC. In that Stele, Hammurabi laid down a precursor of today’s Constitution along with his Punishment system based on lex talionis. Since the Old Testament draws heavily from Babylon, the Jewish Torah mentions “An Eye for an Eye” – equitable punishment – in the book “Exodus”. That this conflicts with God’s Commandment to Moses – “Thou Shall Not Kill” – is a cause of much debate among Rabbis.

Christianity and Islam, the later Abrahamic religions, urge its followers to forgive. Islamic Sharia however, also permits “Mirror Punishment” – AKA, Similar Punishment. The punishment may be milder or harsher than the original offense. For example, someone that caused bodily harm to others may be whipped, stoned or roughed up in a similar manner. Or, the organ that caused the offense maybe punished – Cutting off a thief’s hand, for instance.

It is interesting to note that much of the West’s adverse reaction to Capital Punishment can be traced to the New Testament. It all boils down to a fundamental tenet of Christianity – Confess your sins and the Lord forgives. Jesus Christ being the role model for devout Christians, the pious are urged to do what JC would do – Turn the Other Cheek.

Proportional and Mirror Punishments and their derivatives can be classified into “Retributive Justice”. They are Criminal Justice systems based on vengeance. As such, they’ve been criticized as being too rudimentary. A widely implemented alternative is “Utilitarian Justice”. Modern Justice systems are largely derivatives of Utilitarianism.

The essence of Utilitarianism can be condensed thus: Human beings attempt to eliminate suffering and maximize pleasure. It has a disturbing corollary though: It strives to increase the greater good of the society, sometimes at the expense of the individual. A detailed analysis of the ramifications of the Utilitarian ethic is tangential to the scope of the current post, so I’ll briefly touch upon the cankers as needed.

Utilitarians argue that punishment is negative and that we accomplish nothing by punitive measures. Instead, punishments are used primarily to deter potential offenders from committing the crime. An example could be the much-criticized Draconian laws for drug (Marijuana) possession. Individuals may be penalized steeply & harshly, to make an example of them. If this deters future offenders, the society at large has been protected – though by following an “Ends Justify Means” approach.

Where deterrents fail, the offender is incarcerated. The offender is incapacitated temporarily or permanently from doing harm. If a doctor is caught for malpractice, his/her license could be revoked. Or the convicts are rehabilitated – medical help is provided for the mentally unstable or the offenders are given vocational training, so they can earn a livelihood without resorting to crime. Execution is often the last trick in their play-book, as a means of incapacitation.

Coming back to the point, I think Utilitarianism and Abrahamic religions have overtaken Retributive Justice to the point where the merits of the Death Penalty – which has its origins in revenge – are questioned. Utilitarians focus on reducing suffering even when a perpetrator is punished. And the pious want to forgive sins.

“How can we conclude that these people are not fit to live?” they ask. “Killing them is too much!”. I believe certain crimes are unacceptable. We cannot pardon everyone. The International War Crimes Tribunal prosecutes tyrants and dictators for genocides as crimes against humanity. Should we forgive them of the heinous crimes they committed? If you think they should be executed, where do we draw the line?

Who should be killed? What are the harsh realities of implementing capital punishment? And what is my single most important reason for retaining capital punishment? Let’s see that in the next post.