Say ‘No’ To Death Penalty

Bini Dahal

In the world of justice, there is a rule that every perpetrator must be punished for his or her crime. The punishment could be of different forms depending on the type and nature of the crime committed, the existing laws and the socio-cultural context of a country. The penalty could be in the form of monetary fine, certain years in jail, lifetime imprisonment or death punishment. 

In fact, capital punishment is considered to be the harshest form of sentence an offender can face. This sort of penalty is still prevalent in certain countries around the globe. A recent report published by the Amnesty International demonstrates that the number of execution cases increased by 53 per cent worldwide in 2022. So, from a figure of 579 executions in the year 2021, the number surged significantly to 883 last year. This figure represents 19 countries around the globe. 

According to the human rights organisation, countries such as Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia mete out death penalty to committers. The organisation also states that execution practice takes place in China, too. However, the exact number of executions happening in China is said to be unknown. The report also mentions that in 2022, four countries -- Kazakhstan, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone and the Central African Republic -- abolished death penalty for all crimes. With this, the total number of countries eliminating capital penalty stands at 112. Nepal is one such nations where death penalty is not in vogue. 

The idea of death sentence is very complex. The general reason why some countries still adopt death penalty is because it is regarded as a way of preventing people from committing crimes. Likewise, in the case of Muslim countries, the idea of death penalty emerges from the Sharia law. So, social and cultural context also plays an important role in the emergence of capital punishment. Defenders of death penalty say that it represents a just retribution for certain crimes, discourages crime, protects society, and preserves the moral order.

However, those who are against the notion of death penalty believe it to be a major issue in the realm of human rights. They also feel that capital punishment may not be able to reduce the number of crimes. Amnesty International mentions how capital punishment has been used as a political tool to punish opponents. Thus, a discriminatory aspect of death penalty exists. Also, there could be a situation where innocent people may be executed. At times, the legal system could be flawed and even the innocent people could be declared as perpetrators by mistake, leading to the loss of their lives.  People’s basic dignity and right to life without any torture cannot be ensured when there is a provision of such punishment in the law. Once executed, no one can bring the dead back. So this irreparable situation is a slap on the human rights as a whole. 

Amidst these differences, we need to focus on bringing about thoughtful consideration and reevaluation. Meaningful dialogues have to be made amongst different stakeholders, including governments, legal systems and international organisations. These dialogues should focus on exploring alternatives to capital punishment. 

A comprehensive approach should be followed. Under this approach, one that does not only ensure justice to victims through punishment but also heals, reforms and prevents further harm from happening.  Only by embracing such approach to criminal justice can we aspire to create a society that values life, empathy, and the potential for redemption.