Time and again the debate emerges about upholding the death penalty considering its validity in these modern times with arguments ranging from its relevance to serve as deterrence, in the necessity to project our society as humane and that the State should not act as a murderer.
From time immemorial criminal acts have been punished and depending on the severity and grievousness of the crime the death penalty has been enforced. There have been many methods that have been used to implement the death penalty and it has been seen that a public exhibition of the practice was a much awaited event in the past. In fact the public viewing of such events served as a deterrence.
The times in the past were simpler and the crimes more straightforward but as the centuries have rolled by to the present times we have seen crimes getting more complex and horrifying in the manner of their execution. Thus there is more of a need to use the principle of deterrence not to the extent of conducting the events publicly but implement it so that others who are likely to follow the same path know what is waiting for them down the road if they are caught.
The aspect of society to show that it is humane has to be looked at by the principle of reciprocity. Did the perpetrator of the crime show any humanity towards the victim like in the instances of rape or murder? If not, then how can the perpetrator expect humanity from society? Moreover the crime was committed against an individual and the immediate family of the victim should be those that decide on what humanity to show the perpetrator. This cannot be taken away from them and elevated to the level of the society.
Thus the death penalty should remain in our society as the ultimate punishment of our criminal justice system. In fact the process of referral of appeals against the death penalty should be limited to the Supreme Court and the seeking of pardon from the President should be dispensed with.
