Capital punishment or the death penalty is referred to as legally administered state killing, used as a punishment in response to a crime. This article will evaluate the moral and legal complexities of capital punishment with regard to history, legal frameworks, and public opinion and look into current challenges and debates by examining recent legal cases. Finally, it will consider potential future developments and implications for policy and legal frameworks.

Historically there was the use of capital punishment in the English colonies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.  The extensive list of crimes for which the death penalty was imposed, included offenses such as treason, murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, burglary, arson, counterfeiting, and theft.

The examination of past cases concerning capital punishment, particularly in the United States, has been marked by a complex and contentious debate about the deterrent effect of the death penalty on homicide rates. The Supreme Court’s decision in Gregg v. Georgia in 1976, which ended a four-year pause on executions, reignited discussions about the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrence to violent crime. This decision came after a period of intense scrutiny following the 1972 Furman v. Georgia ruling, which had led to a halt in executions due to concerns about the arbitrary and discriminatory application of the death penalty.

In summary, the examination of past cases concerning capital punishment has underscored the complexity and controversy surrounding the question of whether the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent to violent crimes. Some have suggested that executions save lives by deterring potential offenders, while others have argued that executions may actually increase homicides.

The death penalty has gradually been abolished in several nations and states in recent years. Concerns regarding erroneous convictions, racial injustice in punishment, and the moral difficulties of state-sanctioned murder have been the driving forces behind this.

The key thesis of the deterrence-oriented rationale for capital punishment is that executions are more effective than any gentler sanctions in lowering the incidence of murders by inducing people to fear the consequences of perpetrating such crimes.

The rehabilitative theory, which emphasizes therapy and reconditioning for criminals, is critiqued for potentially prioritizing understanding and treating criminals over providing justice for victims. This criticism raises questions about the effectiveness of rehabilitation in addressing the harm caused by criminal behavior. On the other hand, utilitarian theories of punishment focus on social utility, deterrence, reform, and prevention of future wrongdoing. They prioritize the overall good of society and the well-being of all those affected by punishment.

Conversely, ethical arguments against capital punishment from a utilitarian viewpoint could center on concerns about potential harm inflicted on innocent individuals. Utilitarians may argue that the risk of punishing innocent people in pursuit of societal benefits undermines the principle of justice and goes against our moral intuition. Furthermore, critics might question whether capital punishment truly serves the goal of reforming offenders or preventing future crimes, as evidence suggests that it may not effectively deter criminal behavior.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes significant provisions about the right to life and the rejection of the imposition of cruel punishments. Still, it does not specifically change the death penalty. “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person,” according to Article 3. Subsequently, Article 5 states: “No one shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”

“Every human being has the inherent right to life,” according to Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The law will uphold this right. Nobody’s life shall be taken from them without cause. The death penalty may only be applied for the most heinous crimes in compliance with the laws in effect at the time of the offense in nations that have not abolished it.

Another Article by the Author: Challenges of Mooting in Africa: Our Experiences from FIAE

The death penalty is not permitted for anybody under the age of eighteen, for pregnant women, or in situations where carrying out the sentence would result in genocide. In these cases, the death penalty cannot be carried out under any circumstances. Article 7 states that “No one shall be subjected to torture.” or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”

The debate over the death penalty is significantly impacted by wrongful convictions, which present ethical and legal issues. Legally speaking, the prospect of executing innocent people compromises the core ideas of fairness and due process. The death penalty’s permanent character increases the severity of erroneous convictions and renders any injustices repairable. Because the death penalty contradicts the principles of proportionality and retribution by executing people who are not guilty of the crimes for which they are condemned, the possibility of erroneous executions morally calls into question the legitimacy of the death penalty. Furthermore, the ethical complications of perhaps taking an innocent person’s life raise serious questions about the state’s legitimacy to enforce such harsh and irreversible punishment.

A growing number of legal challenges to the death penalty center on issues of justice and equity, mainly on racial and socioeconomic discrepancies in sentencing. Studies indicate that the death penalty is not always effective in deterring crime, raising doubts about its effectiveness. Changes in social views and beliefs, such as an increasing focus on restorative justice and rehabilitation, are influencing how the death penalty will develop.

Furthermore, there is a greater emphasis on how mental illness and intellectual disability affect guilt, which sparks discussions about whether it is ever right to execute those who suffer from these illnesses. These elements are leading to a reassessment of the justice, equity, and effectiveness of the death penalty, indicating a move toward more compassionate and restorative methods of criminal justice.

In Conclusion, Future developments could result in legislative and policy changes that prioritize justice and equity in the criminal justice system, address structural biases, and reevaluate the effectiveness of the death penalty as deterrence to crime.

References:

• Sarat, Austin and Christian Boulanger, the Cultural Lives of Capital Punishment: A Comparative Perspective (Stanford University Press 2005) 1-2.
• Stuart Banner, the Death Penalty: An American History (Harvard University Press 2003) 5-7.
• Nagin DS, Pepper JV, Deterrence and the Death Penalty(National Academies Press 2012)1-2.
• Matthew H. Kramer, The Ethics of Capital Punishment: A Philosophical Investigation of Evil and Its Consequences (Oxford University Press 2011) 19.
• Pojman, L. P., & Reimann, J., the Death Penalty: For and Against (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1998) pp. 22-26
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A (III), Art 3 and 5.
• International covenant on civil and political rights (adopted 16 December 1966), Art 6 and 7.

Author: Nigus Sintayehu , School of Law, Addis Ababa University (AAU)

About the Author:

Nigus Sintayehu is a law student at Addis Ababa University (AAU) and a Fellow in Young Lawyers Initiative (YLI). Nigus is also serving as the leadership Board Member of the YLI. He excelled in the 4th FIAE IHL moot competition, ranking 2nd and earning the title of Best Defense Memorial. Despite financial constraints preventing his participation in the advanced rounds, his impressive performance showcased his legal acumen and dedication to his studies. He can be reached at: nigusgeletu45@gmail.com