Death Penalty Are Executions Sometimes Required to Uphold Justice?
Saad Ahmed
15100179
Bushra Butt
Writing and Communication SS-100
Section 4
10th Dec, 2011
Death Penalty
Are executions sometimes required to uphold justice?
Crime is an incontestable part of the society which is a result of social, political and economic imbalance and differences amongst different sects of society. It is obvious that states have to take actions in order to repress and deter crime but the manner in which this is done has always been up for discussion. Death penalty and life imprisonment are the commonly used tools used by the state to reduce homicide rates and other execrable crimes. Although there is a school of thought which considers death penalty as an appropriate and acceptable consequence to horrific crimes however majority still see it as inhumane and objectionable as it not only violates the basic human rights of the people but also sometimes claims innocent lives, does not act as a crime deterrent, is racially biased, costs more than alternative punishments and targets the poor mainly.
Execution of innocent or guiltless person is one of the major arguments for the abolition of death penalty. According to legal experts it is better and safe to acquit nine guilty persons rather take the risk of convicting the tenth innocent person. The criminal justice system especially of developing or under-developed countries like Pakistan is not error-free and the imposition of death penalty upon a criminal convicted on capital charge is most likely to result in injustice. On the commission of a crime, the machinery of law comes into operation with the registration of FIR with the police. Due to low moral standards generally the people implicate innocent persons along with real culprits in the FIR. This is done sometimes to settle old scores and take revenge for excesses committed earlier by the other side. Police in these countries generally is notoriously corrupt and during investigation plays its dirty role; it brings up false witnesses,
15100179
Bushra Butt
Writing and Communication SS-100
Section 4
10th Dec, 2011
Death Penalty
Are executions sometimes required to uphold justice?
Crime is an incontestable part of the society which is a result of social, political and economic imbalance and differences amongst different sects of society. It is obvious that states have to take actions in order to repress and deter crime but the manner in which this is done has always been up for discussion. Death penalty and life imprisonment are the commonly used tools used by the state to reduce homicide rates and other execrable crimes. Although there is a school of thought which considers death penalty as an appropriate and acceptable consequence to horrific crimes however majority still see it as inhumane and objectionable as it not only violates the basic human rights of the people but also sometimes claims innocent lives, does not act as a crime deterrent, is racially biased, costs more than alternative punishments and targets the poor mainly.
Execution of innocent or guiltless person is one of the major arguments for the abolition of death penalty. According to legal experts it is better and safe to acquit nine guilty persons rather take the risk of convicting the tenth innocent person. The criminal justice system especially of developing or under-developed countries like Pakistan is not error-free and the imposition of death penalty upon a criminal convicted on capital charge is most likely to result in injustice. On the commission of a crime, the machinery of law comes into operation with the registration of FIR with the police. Due to low moral standards generally the people implicate innocent persons along with real culprits in the FIR. This is done sometimes to settle old scores and take revenge for excesses committed earlier by the other side. Police in these countries generally is notoriously corrupt and during investigation plays its dirty role; it brings up false witnesses,