Thesis Paper on Critique on Death Penalty Bangladesh Perspective

The major objectives of this thesis paper are to discuss the basic ideas on
punishment and to know about the provisions of Capital Punishment in our
Country. Here also explain illustrate the Methods of executing the death penalty.
Finally, discuss the arguments of people regarding the Death Penalty and
analyze the effects of the Death Penalty in the protection of human rights. The
death penalty is considered as capital punishment. The death plenty is inhumane
and barbaric and can never be accepted in a civilized society.

Abstract

The death penalty is considered as capital punishment. Section 54 of the Penal

Code, 1860, deals with communication of sentence of death. This is the most
severe form of corporal punishment as it requires law enforcement officers to kill
the offender. In this regard, this research work has been conducted. The
objective of the study is to discuss the provision and methods of Execution of
death penalty, to analyze the effect of the death penalty in the protection of
human rights and to discuss the agreements of People regarding Death Penalty.
In this regard, different types of punishment, Methods of Executing death Penalty
and capital punishment in Bangladesh have been discussed. Besides, arguments
on Capital Punishment and protection of Human rights have been discussed.
Some problems have been found out. Death Penalty lowers the value of human
life and brutalizes society. It is an impediment to the reformation of the convicted
person. Besides, the death penalty is devices the sacredness of human life. It is
highly recommended that the convicted person should be given an opportunity
reform themselves. Death Sentence should be abolished as a capital
punishment. Lifetime rigorous imprisonment should be executed as an alter neat
of the death sentence. So nobody should ever be killed, even by the state as it is
against human rights.

Introduction

Where there is a crime, there should be a punishment. Because of one should be

escaped from the law. The purpose of punishment to make the society safer for
its people. In fact, punishing the offenders is a primary function of all civil stales.
The way and purpose of punishment may be of different types. But where the
matter of the offense is very severe, obviously punishment should be very
severe. But that not is the death sentence. The death sentence has been used
an on the effective weapon of retributive Justice for centuries. The Justification
advanced is that it is lawful to forfeit the life of a person who takes away
another’s life. But it is wrong for the stake to kill in order to show that it is wrong
to kill, because, the stale than commits the same crime. In almost all stales that
perform executive, the death penalty is limit led to cheeses involving aggravated
murder. In Bangladesh, we also exercise death penalty as carted punishment.
But this is too much inhumane and barbaric and can never be accessed in a
civilized society. We can never permit taking a war one’s life and claim us a
civilized one. In this regard, our decision will hold and we discuss the death
penalty as much as possible.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To discuss the basic ideas on punishment.

2. To know about the provisions of Capital Punishment in our Country.
3. To illustrate Methods of executing death penalty.
4. To discuss the arguments of people regarding Death Penalty.
5. To analyze the effects of Death Penalty in the protection of human rights.

METHODOLOGY

Every research involves a method by which the desired result can be achieved.
For completing this research work both primary and secondary methods have
been followed. Data have been collected through Penal Code, 1860,
newspapers, websites, discussion with resource person, basic documents etc.

Definition of Punishment

The punishment to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code
are_

● First, _ Death;
● Secondly, _ Imprisonment for life;
 ● Thirdly, _ [Replaced by Act XVII of 1949.]
● Fourthly, _ Imprisonment, which is two descriptions, namely; (1) Rigorous, that
is, with hard labor; (2) Simple;
● Fifthly, _ Forfeiture of property;
● Sixthly, _ Fine.

(PENAL CODE, 1860)

Different types of Punishment.

There are five kinds of punishment. These are,

(1) Death;

(2) Imprisonment for life;

(3) Imprisonment;

(4) Forfeiture;

(5) Fine.

Death:

Death punishment is awarded for murder in rarest of the rare cases. It may be
awarded as punishment for the following offenses:-

(1) Waging war against the Government of Bangladesh.

(2) Abetting mutiny actually committed.

(3) Murder.

(4) Dacoits accompanied with murder.

Imprisonment for life;

Imprisonment for life is now substituted for transportation. “Imprisonment for life”
in the Code means “rigorous imprisonment for life” and not “simple imprisonment
for life”.
Imprisonment;

Imprisonment is two kinds;

a. Rigorous: In the case of rigorous imprisonment the offender is put to hard labor
such as grinding corn, digging earth, drawing water, cutting fire-wood, blowing
wool, etc.

b. Simple: In the case of simple imprisonment the offender is confined to jail and
is not put to any kind of work. Imposition of hard labor on prisoners undergoing
rigorous imprisonment has been held to be legal.

Forfeiture:

The punishment of absolute forfeiture of all property of the offender is now

abolished. Sections 61 and 62 of the Penal Code dealing with such forfeiture are
repealed by Act XVI of 1921.

Fine:

Fine is the only punishment in the following cases:

a. The person for whose benefit a riot has been committed not having duly
endeavored to prevent it.

b. The agent or manager of such person under like circumstances.

c. Illegal payments in connection with an election.

d. False statement in connection with an election.

e. Failure to keep election accounts.

Capital Punishment in Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, we exercise death penalty as capital punishment to execute the

murderer or a convict of vital crime from ancient time. From which time we
exercise it didn’t know. Though the sentences of death penalty pass frequently
from the courts the executions of those sentences are not frequent as well. Every
year very few convicts are executed in Bangladesh. Sometimes the Government
of the country releases the convict by showing the political issue.
In Bangladesh, penal provisions have been made in Penal Code* 1860.The
following eight types of offenses are punishable by death:

Murder: Sec-302

Murder by life convict: Sec-303

Abatement of suicide of child or insane person: Sec-305

Attempt to murder by life convict causing hurt: Sec-307

Dacoit with murder: Sec-396

Giving or fabricating false evidence with to procure conviction of capital offense:

Sec-194

Waging or attempting to wage war against Bangladesh: Sec-121

Abatement of mutiny: Sec-131

Other Laws in Bangladesh which Deal with Capital Punishment

Section 19A of the Arms Act, 1878, deals with capital punishment. Section 25 B
of the Special Powers Act permits death penalty. Provisions of the Section, 7-9 of
the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2003 permits capital punishment for the
criminals under this Act. Besides these, some provisions of some other laws deal
with capital punishment in Bangladesh. Acid Santras Ain is one of the most
important Acts in this category.

Famous Cases of Death Penalty

Ershed AH Sikder vs. State

Fact

The case of the prosecution is brief, is that over the Khulna ferny great affairs
condemned prisoner Ershad Ali Sikder called Monir to come to a meeting
scheduled to be held at Ghat No-4 adjacent to Ice Factory of condemned
prisoner Ershad Ali Sikder. Monir along with his companions haled, Mohammad
All proceeded towards the ghat. When Monir disclosed his identity, he was
allowed to proceed to wands the Ice factory. Then Ershed Ali Sikder and his
companies attracted Monir. Ershed Ali Sikder with is cut rifle blow on the head of
Monir who fell down on the innocent. He then ordered to finish him. Monir was
seriously grievous injuries on his person. When lie confirm that Monir is dead
than he assailed Khaled with Shabul hammer, parson etc. Condemned prisoner
Ershad Ali Sikder danced on Khaled’s chest. Khaled was taken to Khulna Sadar
Hospital where he succumbed to his in Junes.

Judgment

The Additional Session Judge, the 1st court of Khulna on consideration of the
evidence and materials on record the facts and circumstance of the case
convicted and sentenced Ershad Ali Sikder death penalty. The learned court also
sentenced two others to death sentence two others to imprisonment for life and
other accused 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to a fine take 5000/- and for
default to out of 1 years rigorous as punishment. The petitioner is Erthad Ali
Sikder. Then leave to Appeal to the High Court Division. But the high court
decision on correct consideration of the evidence of prosecution witness and all
other materials on record reject the leave to Appeal.

Rofiqul Islam Mollah vs. State

Fact

Salma Begum, daughter of Pachu Sharif, given in marriage with sole accused
Rafiqul Islam Mollah. Pachu Sharif received information that his daughter had
died in the house of his son-in-law in the night. He went there and saw the dead
body of his daughter lying on the floor of the verandah of the dwelling house of
the accused. He then went to Gopalgonj Police station and made a statement to
the above effect. The charging officer of Thana went to the place of occurrence
and prepared inquest on the dead body of the victim of Salma Begum and sent
the same to the morgue for post-mortem examination. On receipt of the
post-mortem report, the aforesaid charge officer entrusted SI Md. Mojibur
Rahman with an investigation. The investigation officers investigate into the cash
and submitted Charge-Sheet against Md. Rafiqul Islam Mollah husband of victim
Salma Begum.

Judgment
The Additional Session Judge of Gopalgonj on consideration of the evidence and
maleness on record and the facts and circumstance of the case convicted and
sentence Rafiqual Islam Mollah under section 302 of the penal code death
penalty. Now the question remains, whether the learned Additional Sessions
Judge was legally justified in inflicting the sentence of death instead of the
sentence of imprisonment for life on the accused. The fact of the case does not
show that the accused used any heavy or sharp cutting or lethal weapon or even
acted with cruelty in committing murder of the victim. There is also nothing on
record that the murder was pre-planned and cold-blooded. In such view of the
matter, we hold that it will meet the ends of justice if the sentence of death
inflicted upon the condemned accused is reduced to imprisonment for life.

In the result, the death reference is rejected and the accused-appellant is

sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offense under section 302 of the
Penal Code.

Capital punishment and the various modes of execution

In this chapter, we will discuss the scope of capital punishment and the various
modes of execution of a sentence of capital punishment in various countries and
in perspective of Bangladesh.

Methods of Executing Death Penalty

The ancient and modern methods of execution are discussed here under this
topic:

Ancient methods

An appraisal of the administration of criminal justice of ancient times reveals that

death penalty was commonly used in cases of heinous crimes. However, there
was great divergence as to the mode of its execution. The common mode of
inflicting death sentence on the offender was fructification, drowning burning,
boiling. Behead throwing before wild beasts, flaying or skinning off alive, hurling
the offender from rock, stoning, straining, and amputating. Shooting by gun or
strives him to death. These draconic and barbarous methods of punishing
criminals to death were justified on the ground that they were the quickest and
easiest modes of punishment and at the same time carried with them an element
of deterrence and retribution. They have, however, fallen into disuse with the
advance of time and modern humanitarian approach to penology.

Modern methods

There are eight main methods of execution in current use worldwide:

i. Beheading: Only two countries execute people by chopping their head off:
Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

ii. Electric chair: (the US only) Nobody knows how quickly a person dies from
the electric shock, or what they experience. The ACLU describes two cases
where prisoners apparently lived for 4 to 10 minutes before finally expiring.

iii. Firing squad: The prisoner is bound and shot through the heart by multiple
marksmen. Death appears to be quick, assuming the killers don’t miss. In the
U.S., only Utah used this method. It was abandoned in favor of lethal injection on
2004-MAR-15, except for four convicted killers on death row who had previously
chosen death by firing squad. This is used in Belarus, China, Somalia, Taiwan,
Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and others.

iv. Guillotine: A famous French invention not used in North America. It severs
the neck. Death comes very quickly.

v. Hanging: If properly conducted, this is a humane method. The neck is broken

and death comes quickly. However, if the free-fall distance is inadequate, the
prisoner ends up slowly being strangled to death. If it is too great, the rope will
tear his/her head off. This method is used in Egypt, Iran, Japan, Jordan,
Pakistan, Singapore, and others.

vi. Lethal injection: Lethal drugs are injected into the prisoner while he lays
strapped down to a table. Typically, sodium pectoral is injected to make the
prisoner unconscious. Then pancuronium bromide is injected. It terminates
breathing and paralyzes the individual finally; potassium chloride is injected to
stop the heart. If properly conducted, the prisoner fades quickly into
unconsciousness. If the dosage of drugs is too low, the person may linger for
many minutes, experiencing paralysis. Executions in the U.S. are gradually
shifting to this method. This technique has been challenged recently by those
who feel that the prisoner may not be rendered unconscious by the drugs. Some
suggest that this method can be extremely painful. After a botched execution of
Angel Nieves Diaz in Florida during 2006-DEC, Florida and nine other states
have placed a hold on executions. This method is used in China, Guatemala,
Philippines, Thailand, and the U.S.

vii. Poison gas: Cyanide capsules are dropped into acid producing Hydrogen
Cyanide, a deadly gas. This takes many minutes of agony before a person dies.

viii. Stoning: The prisoner is often buried up to her or his neck and pelted with
rocks until they eventually die. The rocks are chosen so that they are large
enough to cause significant injury to the victim, but are not so large that a single
rock will kill the prisoner. Used in northern Afghanistan and Iran, as a penalty for
murder, adultery, blasphemy, and other crimes.

Speech of Qualified Medical Professionals about Execution of Capital

Punishment

The American Medical Association ethical guidelines state that “a physician

should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution” and provides a list
of actions that are prohibited. The American Nursing Association states that
“participation in executions is… contrary to the fundamental goals and ethical
traditions of the profession.” Also lethal injection-the intravenous administration of
a tranquilizer, a muscle relaxant, and cardiologic agent for the purpose of judicial
execution-is the standard method of capital punishment in the United States.
Since 2001, lethal injection has been used in 189 of 191 (99%) executions and is
the chief method of execution in 37 of the 38 states that have the death penalty,
as well as for the federal government and military. The American Medical
Association’s (AMA) opinion on capital punishment is found in section E-2.06 of
its Code of Medical Ethics. The AMA states that “A physician, as a member of a
profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not
be a participant in a legally authorized execution.” Participation is defined to
include “monitoring vital signs on site or remotely (including monitoring
electrocardiograms); attending or observing an execution as a physician, and
rendering of technical advice regarding execution.” Because pronouncing death
requires a physician to monitor an inmate’s vital signs, either via
electrocardiogram or stethoscope, it is, therefore, forbidden by the code.
Certifying death, which does not require monitoring but does require the
physician to sign a death certificate, is allowed in the AMA guidelines. Opinion
2.06 also makes specific reference to lethal injection, and forbids the following:
“selecting injection sites; starting intravenous lines as a port for a lethal injection
device; prescribing, preparing, administering, or supervising injection drugs or
their doses or types; inspecting, testing, or maintaining lethal injection devices;
and consulting with or supervising lethal injection personnel.

ARGUMENTS OR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Arguments in Favor of Capital Punishment

Many persons argued many things in favor of the Capital Punishment. Some of
those arguments in favor of the Capital Punishment are discussed here under
this heading.

Retributive Arguments Concerning Capital Punishment

The retributive notion of punishment, in general, is that (a) as a foundational

matter of justice, criminals deserve punishment, and (b) punishment should be
equal to the harm done. In determining what counts as “punishment equal to
harm,” theorists further distinguish between two types of retributive punishment.
First, lex talionis retribution involves punishment in kind and is commonly
expressed in the expression “an eye for an eye.” Second, lex silica retribution
involves punishment through compensation, and the harm inflicted can be
repaired by payment or atonement. Historically, capital punishment is most often
associated lex talionis retribution. One of the earliest written statements of capital
punishment from the lex talionis or “eye for an eye” perspective is from the 18th
century BCE Babylonian Law of Hammurabi: If a builder builds a house for
someone and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in
and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kills the son of the
owner, then the son of that builder shall be put to death.

Critics of classic lex talionis quieted capital punishment point out several
problems with this view. First, as a practical matter, lex talionis retribution cannot
be uniformly applied to every harm of committed. The second sentence in the
above quote from the Law of Hammurabi shows the inherent absurdity of
consistent application: “If it [i.e., a collapsed house] kills the son of the owner,
then the son of the builder shall be put to death.” Second, as a strict formula of
retribution, lex talionis punishment may even be inadequate. For example, if a
terrorist or mass murderer kills ten people, then taking his single life is technically
not punishment in kind. Third, foundational beliefs, in general, have the
unfortunate consequence of appearing arbitrary. If a belief in lex talionis
retribution is foundational. Then, by definition, it cannot be defended by
appealing to a prior set of reasons. The arbitrary nature of this is particularly clear
when we see that there is an alternative retributive view of punishment which is
equally foundational, yet which does not require capital punishment, namely lex
silica retribution.

Finally, critics of capital punishment argue that the true basis of retributive
justifications of capital punishment is not at all foundational but instead rooted in
psychological feelings of vengeance. Even if we grant that vengeance is a
natural human emotion, critics argue that it is an impulse which should be
tempered, just as we do natural feelings of fear, lust, and greed. Laws about
punishment, then, should not be grounded in our extreme feelings, but should
instead be based on our more tempered ones. When we moderate our natural
feelings of vengeance, there should be little inclination to execute criminals.
Immanuel Kant offered an alternative retributive justification of capital punishment
which is not rooted in vengeance. Instead, for Kant, capital punishment is based
on the idea that every person is a valuable and worthy of respect because of
their ability to make rational and free choices. The murder, too, is worthy of
respect: we. Thus, show him respect by treating him the same way he declares
that people are to be treated. Accordingly, we execute the murderer. A key
problem with Kant’s justification of capital punishment is that it tells us what to do
with only ideally rational killers, although many killers are not rational.

Deferent Effect of Capital Punishment, Incapacitation of the criminal

The fear of being condemned to death is perhaps the greatest deterrent, which
keeps an offender away from criminality. The death penalty in case of murder
serves as an effective deterrent to remind the murderer about the severity of law
towards this heinous crime and this certainly helps in reducing the incidence of
homicide. The old methods of public execution though abandoned today, were
directed to make the sentence as frightening as possible. The present trend,
however, is to keep the number of offenses punishable by death to a minimum
and avoid death penalty as far as possible although its retention in the statute
book is favored even to this day.
Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and
should prove much cheaper and safer for the rest of us than long-term or
permanent incarceration. It is self-evident that dead criminals cannot commit any
further crimes. There are a number of incontrovertible arguments against the
death penalty. The most important one is the virtual certainty that genuinely
innocent people will be executed and that there is no possible way of
compensating them for this miscarriage of justice. There is also another
significant danger here. The person convicted of the murder may have actually
killed the victim and may even admit having done so but does not agree that the
killing was murder. Often the only people who know what really happened are the
accused and the deceased. It then comes down to the skill of the prosecution
and defense lawyers as to whether there will be a conviction for murder or for
manslaughter. It is thus highly probable that people are convicted of murder
when they should really have only been convicted of manslaughter. A second
reason, that is often overlooked, is the hell the innocent family and friends of
criminals must also go through in the time leading up to and during the execution
and which will often cause them serious trauma for years afterward. It is often
very difficult for people to come to terms with the fact that their loved one could
be guilty of a serious crime and no doubt even more difficult to crone to terms
with their death in this form. However strongly you may support capital
punishment two wrongs do not make one right. One cannot and should not deny
the suffering of the victim’s family in a murder case but the suffering of the
murderer’s family is surely equally valid. There must always be the concern that
the state can administer the death penalty justly, most countries have a very poor
record on this. In America a prisoner can be on death row for many years on
average eleven years 2004 figure awaiting the outcome of numerous appeals
and -their chances of escaping execution are better if they are wealthy and/or
white rather than poor and/or black irrespective of the actual crimes they have
committed which may have been largely forgotten by the time the final decision is
taken. Although racism is claimed in the administration of the death penalty in
America, statistics show that white prisoners are more liable to be sentenced to
death on conviction for first-degree murder and are also less likely to have their
sentences commuted than black defendants. It must be remembered that
criminals are real people too. Who has life and with it the capacity to feel pain,
fear and the loss of their loved ones and all the other emotions that the rest of us
are capable of feeling. It is easier to put this thought on one side when discussing
the awful multiple murderers but less so when discussing, say. An
eighteen-year-old girl convicted of drug trafficking. (Singapore hanged two girls
for this crime in 1995 who were both only eighteen at the time of their offenses
and China shot an 18-year-old girl for the same offense in 1998.)There is no such
thing as a humane method of putting a person to death irrespective of what the
State may claim (see later). Every form of execution causes the prisoner
suffering, some methods perhaps cause less than others but be in no doubt that
being executed is a terrifying and gruesome ordeal for the criminal. What is also
often overlooked is the extreme mental torture that the criminal suffers in the time
leading up to the execution. How would you feel knowing that you were going to
die tomorrow morning at 8.00 a.m.? There may be a brutalizing effect upon
society by carrying out executions – this was apparent in this country during the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when people turned out to enjoy the
spectacle. They still do today in those countries where executions are carried out
in public. It is hard to prove this one way or the other – people slop and look at
car crashes but it doesn’t make them go and have an accident to see what it is
like. I mink there is a natural voyeurism in most people. The death penalty is the
bluntest of “blunt instruments” it removes the individual’s humanity and with it,
any chance of rehabilitation and they’re giving something back to society. In the
case of the worst criminals, this may be acceptable but is more questionable in
the case of less awful crimes. There within prison or after escaping or being
released from it.

Other Arguments for Capital Punishment

The Bible

The Bible requires the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes, including sex
before marriage, adultery, homosexual behavior, doing work on Saturday and
murder. It even calls for some criminals e.g. prostitutes who are the daughters of
priests to be tortured to death is being burned alive. Most Christians, with the
exception of those in the Reconstructions movement, feel that many of these
grounds for the death penalties no longer apply to Christian societies. U.S.
However, Bible passages are still used to promote the retention of capital
punishment for murderers; some advocate that homosexuals also are executed.

Justice/Vengeance
Many people feel that killing convicted murderers will satisfy their need for justice
and vengeance. They feel that certain crimes are so heinous that executing the
criminal is the only reasonable response.

Cost

Once a convicted murder is executed and buried, there are no further

maintenance costs to the state. This appears to be invalid; the cost to the state
paying for multiple appeals is greater than the cost of imprisoning an inmate.

Public safety

Once a convicted murderer is executed, there is no chance that be will break out
of jail and kill or injure someone.

Arguments against Capital Punishment Effect on society

Effect on Society

Some feel that permitting premeditated murder is totally unacceptable, even if

done by the state. Capital punishment lowers the value of human life as seen by
the general population and brutalizes society. It is based on a need for revenge. It
“violates our belief in the human capacity for the change… It powerfully
reinforces the idea that killing can be a proper way of responding to those who
have wronged us. We do not believe that reinforcement of that idea can lead to
healthier and safer communities.”

Lack of Deterrence

The death penalty has not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the
homicide rate. There are some indications that executions actually increase the
murder rate.

Value of human life

Human life has intrinsic value, even if a person has murdered another individual.
The death penalty denies the sacredness of human life. Live is so precious that
nobody should ever be killed, even by the state.

Cost
The costs to the state of funding appeals by convicted murderers would more
than pay for their permanent incarceration.

Chance of Error

Many convicted murderers are later found innocent and have been pardoned. It
is impossible to pardon a corpse. In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford
Law Review. They found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people
between 1900 and 1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for
which they were convicted and could have been sentenced to death. 139 “were
sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed.”

The family of the executed

Is victimized and punished by having their loved one murdered by the state. Yet
the family is usually innocent of any crime.

Lack of jury convictions

Some jury members are reluctant to convict in murder trials because of the
possibility of executing an innocent person. Thus, many killers go free and are
never punished.

Uselessness

Killing a murderer does not bring his victim back to life. It achieves nothing but
the death of still another person.

Unfairness

The mentally ill, poor, males and racial minorities are over-represented among
those executed. One pilot study of over 2 dozen convicted criminals on death row
found that all had been so seriously abused during childhood that they probably
all suffered from brain damage. Women convicted of murder are almost never
executed; that is a penalty that is almost entirely reserved for men. A 1986 study
in Georgia showed that persons who killed “whites were four times more likely to
be sentenced to death than convicted killers of non-whites.” The Texas Civil
Rights Project issued a report in 2000-SHP which was critical of the justice
system in Texas. They made the following criticisms which could probably apply
to most of the states in the U.S. which still execute prisoners:
The defense lawyers are often incompetent. Judges sometimes appoint friends
or political associates. Other times, no competent lawyer is willing to accept the
case because of the poor compensation paid.

The district attorney is given “unrestricted discretion” in deciding whether to seek

the death penalty. Poor people and members of minority groups are more likely
to be targeted because of prejudice and bigotry.

Jurors, who may support the death penalty, but have reservation about its use,
are eliminated from jury duty. Jurors are often not given the option of a
life-without-parole sentence in murder cases. The appeal process has
“burdensome, if not impossible, procedures.” The process seems designed to
speed cases along rather than grant justice. The rules appear to be in flux: the
highest appeals court in the state reversed about one out of every three capital
sentences prior to 1995. Since 1995, this has reduced to less than 3%. The
operation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles in Texas is severely flawed. They
do not meet as a group to study evidence and discuss a case. Individual
members are sent stacks of documents, and make their decisions via telephone
or fax.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

In the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations General Assembly adopted
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights This 1948 doctrine proclaimed a “right
to life” in an absolute fashion, any limitations being only implicit. Knowing that
international abolition of the death penalty was not yet a realistic goal in the years
following the Universal Declaration, the United Nations shifted its focus to limiting
the scope of the death penalty to protect juveniles, pregnant women, and the
elderly. During the 1950s and 1960s subsequent international human rights
treaties were drafted, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the American
Convention on Human Rights. Despite this exception, many nations throughout
Western Europe stopped using capital punishment, even if they did not,
technically, abolish it. As a result, this de facto abolition became the norm in
Western Europe by the 1980s. (Schabas, 1997) In April 1999, the United Nations
Human Rights Commission passed the Resolution Supporting Worldwide
Moratorium on Executions. The resolution calls on countries which have not
abolished the death penalty to restrict its use of the death penalty, including not
imposing it on juvenile offenders and limiting the number of offenses for which it
can be imposed. Ten countries are including the United States, China, and
Pakistan. Rwanda and Sudan voted against the resolution. (New York Times.
4/29/99). Each year since 1997, the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights has passed a resolution calling on countries that have not abolished the
death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions. In April 2004, the
resolution was passed by 76 UN member states. (Amnesty International, 2004).
In the United States numbers of death sentences are steadily declining from 300
in 1998 to 143 in 2003.

Obviously, this should not exist as such because some 800,000 people die each
year in Britain alone. Perhaps then it should be re-designated as the “right not to
have one’s life arbitrarily terminated by the state”. Even this more realistic
definition does not really apply in Britain and is probably not entirely possible.
The death penalty ended EST. In 1964 and since then nobody in Britain has been
executed by the state. However, the state does still kill a few of its citizens each
year. The police shoot a small number of people and a few more die due to being
restrained whilst resisting arrest. In none of these cases has there been what the
Americans call “Due Process”. Some 900 people are murdered every year –
does the government do enough to prevent this? We also allow abortion,
effectively on demand, and some 180,000 lives are terminated annually through
this means. Then there is the withholding of health care due to the decisions of
officials that normally go unchallenged. The most high profile case of this recently
was 11 years old Jamie Bowen who suffered from leukemia and whose health
authority declined to pay for further treatment. Her father took them to court and
the case entered the public arena. Jamie was a very courageous and articulate
young lady who won massive public support for her case. Had she been an
unattractive old woman would anybody have cared? I have heard the arguments
on both sides in her case and do not know who was right and who was wrong but
I do know that we do not guarantee the citizens of this country the right to life
particularly where it is going to cost a lot of money.

Presently, more than half of the countries in the international community have
abolished the death penalty completely, de facto, or for ordinary crimes.
However, over 78 countries retain the death penalty, including China, Iran, the
United States, and Vietnam all of which rank among the highest for international
executions in 2003. (Amnesty International, 2004).
Constitutional Prohibition of Capital Punishment in Various Countries

The Republic of Ireland became one of the first countries in the world to
constitutionally band the Capital punishment as death penalty by popular
referendum in 2001 with the approval of the Twenty-first Amendment to the Irish
constitution.

The Federal Republic of Germany prohibited death penalty in its Basic Law in
1949. Costa Rica abolished the death penalty in 1877 and its 1949 constitution
states: human life is inviolable.” and “No one may be subjected to cruel or
degrading treatment or to life imprisonment, or to the penalty of confiscation.”
Presumably, the death penalty is also prohibited by this statement.

Even Czechoslovakia (now divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia)
abolished the death penalty in 1990 after the Velvet Revolution and prohibited its
use in the constitution in 1991 (by the adoption of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights and Freedoms). See 1960 Constitution of Czechoslovakia. This is the
constitution of the Czech Republic.

To sum up, Ireland is nowhere near the first country to ban the death penalty in
the constitution. Amnesty International lists constitutional prohibitions of the
death penalty; as of 1999, 38 countries have done so. (If my count is correct, 42
countries do today according to Use of the death penalty worldwide.) – Mike
Resift 28 June 2005; 13:53 (UTC).

The Adaptability of the Capital Punishment in Various Religions

Christianity

Since its origins, Christianity presented ambiguity about the death penalty.
Substantially excluded in Mt 5,44 (“love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you”), in LC 6, 35-37 (“…don’t judge and you won’t be judged; don’t
condemn and you won’t be condemned; forgive and you will be forgiven”) and in
GV 8, 1-11 (in the adulteress’s episode), that punishment becomes admissible in
Paul’s epistle to the Romans about the submission to authority and a similar
ambiguity can be seen in apologists’ and Church fathers1 texts, from Tertullian
(De Idolatria) and Lactations (Divine Institutions), against death penalty, to
Augustan, who admits in some circumstances the “Sword right”.
In biblical law, the death penalty is commentated, among other crimes, for
premeditated murder (Es 21, 12; LV 24, 7). Kidnapping and selling a person (Es
21, 16; DT 24. 7). Witchcraft (Es 22, 17), violation of sabbatical rest (Es 35, 2),
human sacrifice (LV 20, 2). Abuse and strokes to one’s parents (ES 21, 15; LV
20, 9), adultery and incest (LV 20, 1 0-12; DT 22, 22), idolatry (DT 17, 2-5; 19,
17-18).

Nowadays, Catholic Church has a precise attitude: fighting against the death
penalty, in every case. Pope has more than once made appeals to avoid
imminent executions: the case of Joseph O’Dell, sentenced to death in 1997,
which caused outcry and reactions by all the world’s governments, is an example
of that.

However, the death penalty is theoretically still in force in the Vatican City, only in
case of the attempt on Pope’s life, wellbeing or freedom or in case of the attempt
on a foreign head of state, when the law of this country provides for this penalty
(Vatican law 7th June. 1929. Nr. 11, paragraph 4). In Vatican last executions date
back to Pius IX’s papacy (1846-78).2

Islam

In Islamic law death penalty and its application into the criminal and political field
have had a long and contradictory history, mostly because of the overlapping of
religious society and political society and because of the variety of historical
periods. The Koran, basic point of reference, summarizes Prophet Mohammed’s
religious and social action. Also the ‘URF (local consuetudinary law) and the
Shari’ a (system of the juridical-religious laws fixed on the foundations of the
Koran, of the real prophetical traditions – Hadith -, of the commentary consent
Islam’ -, of the reasoning conducted likewise the Koran’s laws and of the
tradition). The Koran provides the retaliation law for the murderers, the death
penalty for the adulterous women (which must be shut at home without food or
lapidated).

Still, nowadays, Jaw of Islamic countries (like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Iran)
follows the Shari’ a, a very hard law which provides death penalty in many cases
and which is strictly applied. Inequalities among Muslims and non-Muslims in law
application and variety of punishments can be explained not with racism, but with
the religious principle that bases the hierarchy of juridical people on the Shari’ a.
The highest grade of responsibility before the law is for the Muslim man sound of
mind and legally married: his life is protected with precedence by the legal
system. Then comes the free Muslim woman legally named. The Muslim
slave-man, the Muslim slave-woman, and the infidels.

Judges, depending to their opinion, can choose whether applying the Shari’ a or
privileging punishments like imprisonment or penalty; rural people, instead, apply,
for sexual crimes which involve the honors of a family, the URF. Authorities are
harder when they have to remove the old right of revenge which brings useless
bloodshed.”

Judaism

In religious Jewish communities, the ones derived from the Diaspora, there isn’t a
hierarchic structure that imposes moral choices on anyone; all ethnic groups
have a head rabbi and the Jerusalem rabbi has maximum authority (however, he
is a primus inter pares), but each rabbi is independent and his judgments are a
point of reference for the community.

For orthodox Jews, Mosaic law of “a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot”, codified in the 617 precepts of
Leviticus and Deuteronomy, according to which death penalty is a lawful
punishment is still valid. The crimes which it punishes are murder, adultery,
incest, homosexual intercourse, blasphemy, idolatry, violation of Saturday,
divorce (only for women); methods to execute the sentence are stoning, stake,
hanging to wood, stroke with the sword, strangling and administering white-hot
lead drops in sentence’s throat. Actually nowadays these rules are inapplicable in
tote or for some crimes and in the traditional form of stoning, as they contrast
with the law of the countries where Jews communities are; like in Israel, which is
a lay State whose civilian law is independent of religion, though there is death
penalty for military crimes and genocide. So, a Jews don’t find reasons against
the death penalty in his religion, but only in his conscience.

Abolitionist and Receptionist Countries

More than half the countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in
law or practice. The numbers are as follows:

● Abolitionist for all crimes: 88

● Abolitionist for ordinary” crimes only: 11
 ● Abolitionist in practice: 29
● Total abolitionist in law or practice: 128
● Receptionist: 69

Following are lists of countries in the four categories: abolitionist for all crimes,
abolitionist for ordinary crimes only, abolitionist in practice and Receptionist. At
the end is a list of countries which have abolished the death penalty since 1 976.
It shows that in the past decade, an average of over three countries a year have
abolished the death penalty in law or, having done so for ordinary offenses, have
gone on to abolish it for all offenses.

Abolitionist for all Crimes

Countries whose laws do not provide for the death penalty for any crime-
Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium. Bhutan,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Cote Divorce, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Guiana, Bissau Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kiribati,
Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (former Yugoslav
Republic), Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated
States), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niue, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay,
The Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa and San Marino, The Sao
Tome and Principe, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, The
Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-lasted,
Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu,
Vatican City State, Venezuela.

Abolitionist for Ordinary Crimes Only

Countries whose laws provide for the death penalty only for exceptional crimes
such as crimes under military law or crimes committed in exceptional
circumstances Albania, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cook Island, El Salvador,
Fiji, Israel, Latvia, Peru.

Abolitionist in Practice
Countries which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes such as murder but
can be considered abolitionist in practice in that they have not executed anyone
during the past 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice
of not carrying out executions. The list also includes countries which have made
an international commitment not to use the death penalty 25- Algeria, Benin.
Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Congo (Republic),
Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Malawi,
Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Papua New
Guinea, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Togo, Tonga,
Tunisia.

Extortionists

Countries and territories which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes
Afghanistan, Antigua And Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh. Barbados,
Belarus. Belize. The Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, China, Comoros,
Congo (Democratic Republic), Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guatemala. Guinea, Guyana,
India, Indonesia. Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea (North),
Korea (South), Kuwait. Laos. Lebanon, Lesotho. Libya, Malaysia, Mongolia.
Nigeria. The Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint
Christopher & Nevis, Saint Lucia. The Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Saudi Arabia,
Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia. Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania,
Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago.

Findings

The summary of findings is:

1. Death Penalty degrades the value of human life and brutalizes society.

2. Sometimes it is found that the man who has been convicted and
sentenced to death has been innocent of the said crime.

3. Death Penalty is an impediment to the reformation of the convicted person

according to reformative theory.

4. Death Penalty denies the sacredness of human life.

Conclusion
God gives the life and He alone can take it. The man has no right to take away
the life of any other person even though he is a murderer. For this, I strongly
confused against the death penalty as capital punishment. With the death
penalty, there is the unavoidable fact that some innocent will be executed and
that there is no possible way of compensating them for this miscarriage of justice.
The death plenty is inhumane and barbaric and can never be accepted in a
civilized society. We can never permit taking away one’s life and claim us a
civilized one. It is wrong for the state to kill in order to show that it is wrong to kill.
Because the state that commits the same crime. As a capital punishment death
sentence is not acceptable for two reasons. One objects of defined punishment
over interrupted resulting from law and disorder of law. So from my views death
sentence should be abolished as a capital punishment. Lifelong imprisonment
with rigorous is executed as an alternative to the death sentence for this
objective we should improve the infrastructure of custody system.

Recommendations

The recommendations the studies are as follows:

1. Life is so precious that nobody should ever be killed, even by the state as it
is against human rights.

2. The convicted persons should be given an opportunity to reform

themselves according to reformative theory.

3. The execution of Death Penalty to innocent persons should not be

repeated. For this, human rights commission should be aware of this.

4. Death sentence should be abolished as a capital punishment. Lifelong

rigorous imprisonment should be executed as an alternative of the death
sentence. For this, we should improve the infrastructure of custody system.