ABSTRACT
Death Penalty is a controversial topic in today’s date and there is a question mark on its effectiveness and ethical aspects. This research paper considers the same and delves deeper into the effectiveness and considering the pros and cons of death penalty. The proponents view it as a deterrent against crimes and a form of retributive justice. The opponents highlight its potential for wrongful convictions, unjust applications and inhumanity. Through the analysis of landmark cases and expert opinions, the research paper evaluates the efficiency or applicability of death penalty as a deterrent. It also takes into consideration the aspect of human rights principle, regarding the cruel and inhumane punishment. Exploring the global landscape of capital punishment, it compares the practices and legal stances of different countries. The ethical dilemmas surrounding state-sanctioned execution are critically assessed, including the moral legitimacy of taking a life and the risk of executing innocent individuals. The article also addresses the financial burden of death penalty cases, which are often more expensive than life imprisonment due to lengthy legal processes and appeals. Ultimately, it provides a balanced and comprehensive analysis of the death penalty debate, highlighting both its theoretical justifications and practical ramifications. It aims to foster a nuanced understanding of this complex issue, encouraging informed discussions about the morality, legality, and effectiveness of capital punishment in modern society.
INTRODUCTION
The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has been one of the most contentious and long-standing issues throughout the history of criminal justice. Its use provokes strong feelings, since it gets at basic issues of morality, justice, and human rights. Some view it as a necessary tool of justice that it acts a deterrent to crimes and provides retribution to the most of the egregious crimes, while the others criticize it as inhumane, imperfect and irreversible mode of punishment which might also wrongfully affect the innocent. The controversy of death penalty is not abstract rather has real world implications which affect the legal systems, public opinion and the lives of those sentenced to death. Throughout history, capital punishment has been employed by civilizations for millennia, from ancient Mesopotamia’s Code of Hammurabi through the Roman Empire’s crucifixions. It was essentially viewed as a tool to preserve social order and dispensing justice, but with the development in the system, the concept of justice and human dignity also developed.
The 20th and 21st centuries have seen a rising tide of international action to abolish the death penalty, driven by concern for human rights abuses, miscarriages of justice, and disproportionate use of the death penalty. However, many nations, such as the United States, China, and several Middle Eastern countries still retain the death penalty, arguing for its need in punishing the most serious crimes.
The modern debate surrounding the death penalty raises a number of urgent questions: Does it actually deter crime? Can a system of justice subject to human fallibility be entrusted with the authority to end a life? Is capital punishment inherently unfair, or is it a moral imperative for victims’ families in search of closure?
This paper seeks to investigate these intricate questions by analyzing the historical roots, legal systems, and ethical reasons for and against the death penalty. It also evaluates the wider implications of capital punishment, such as its social, ethical, and economic costs. Both arguments of the debate are analyzed so that the article can provide a total and balanced view on one of the oldest and most contentious topics of contemporary jurisprudence.