Human rights groups and Civil liberties activists raise many reasons why capital punishments should be abolished.Some of them are as follows:
1.Many countries have abolished Capital punishment and hence we also should.
2.There is no corelation between the harshness of punishment and crime rate.
3.In the event of a death penalty is given to a person,there is no way of correcting that error, should fresh evidence surface at a later date .
4. It is an extention of the crude principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
5.A humen being is not entitled to take the life of another humen being even if the state empowers him to do so.
On a proper analysis,it becomes evident that all the above arguements donot hold water.Each country may have their own reasons to include or exclude certain types of punishments in their judicial system.Merely because some countries have abolished death penalty (or for that matter any other provicio of law)it doesnot become imperative on our part to follow suit.
It is very absurd to say that there is no corelation between crime and punishment.To put it more explicitly,the arguement that harsh punishments do not bring down crime rate is an openion expressed by certain sections of people withot any facts or studies to back it up.But it is factually true that middle east has a much less crime rate than most countries where punishment and law enforcement are much stricter and faster.
It is possible that despite all oppertunities to an accused to prove his/her innocence,there may be a remote possibility of some innocent person getting a death sentence . It is also true that there maybe still remote possibility of the person's innocence coming to light at a later date . It also goes without saying that the death penalty that has been awarded cannot be undone at that point of time.But all this is true of all punishments that are awarded ,like imprisonment for a certain period . If the innocence of an accused is proved after that person underwent imprisonment,how can his /her years be made good ?Why,there are upteen number of cases where accused are kept under custody for many years as undertrials and they are aquitted at the end of the trial.If we are to follow the arguement of the ante death sentence lobby ,it may not be possible for any kind of punishment to the accused even if there is solid proof.
Problem is that humen rights organisations are taking extreme positions wherby they are knowingly or unknowingly helping criminals ,ante socials and terrorists.
1.Many countries have abolished Capital punishment and hence we also should.
2.There is no corelation between the harshness of punishment and crime rate.
3.In the event of a death penalty is given to a person,there is no way of correcting that error, should fresh evidence surface at a later date .
4. It is an extention of the crude principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
5.A humen being is not entitled to take the life of another humen being even if the state empowers him to do so.
On a proper analysis,it becomes evident that all the above arguements donot hold water.Each country may have their own reasons to include or exclude certain types of punishments in their judicial system.Merely because some countries have abolished death penalty (or for that matter any other provicio of law)it doesnot become imperative on our part to follow suit.
It is very absurd to say that there is no corelation between crime and punishment.To put it more explicitly,the arguement that harsh punishments do not bring down crime rate is an openion expressed by certain sections of people withot any facts or studies to back it up.But it is factually true that middle east has a much less crime rate than most countries where punishment and law enforcement are much stricter and faster.
It is possible that despite all oppertunities to an accused to prove his/her innocence,there may be a remote possibility of some innocent person getting a death sentence . It is also true that there maybe still remote possibility of the person's innocence coming to light at a later date . It also goes without saying that the death penalty that has been awarded cannot be undone at that point of time.But all this is true of all punishments that are awarded ,like imprisonment for a certain period . If the innocence of an accused is proved after that person underwent imprisonment,how can his /her years be made good ?Why,there are upteen number of cases where accused are kept under custody for many years as undertrials and they are aquitted at the end of the trial.If we are to follow the arguement of the ante death sentence lobby ,it may not be possible for any kind of punishment to the accused even if there is solid proof.
Problem is that humen rights organisations are taking extreme positions wherby they are knowingly or unknowingly helping criminals ,ante socials and terrorists.
No comments:
Post a Comment