Capital punishment has been the subject of vociferous debate in the international arena for some decades now. Capital punishment has existed in almost all societies from the very germination of human civilization. With the application of this retribution sometimes imbalanced against the severity of the offence, the brutality of the method of execution varied, and the social status of the guilty played a vital role in the judicial sentencing.
But as democracy evolved in the west, as feudalism began declining in many cultures, and as the perception of the human rights of the convict gained consideration, humanitarian views toward the most extreme penalty were incorporated into the practice of jurisprudence in many societies over time. Inevitably, crucifixion in ancient Rome dwindled into history, execution as a tool of the Inquisition in Europe faded into a mere part of ecclesiastical tyranny, and death by strangulation as practiced in Tang China ceased to exist.
On March first, Governor Martin O’Malley’s bill to repeal Maryland’s death penalty survived an early test as supporters turned back an amendment that would have allowed executions to continue in some cases. The Maryland Senate paused its debate on the bill that would make Maryland the 18th state in the nation to eliminate the death penalty after advocates of repeal won a key test vote.
Because the US is a democracy with a federal constitution, capital punishment laws are controlled by the individual states. But despite being a union of independent nations, the European Union has abolished the death penalty everywhere except in Belarus. Even in the case of the US, the statistics of executions carried out across the states vary, but there has been a strong postulate from the opponents of this ultimate penalty for a nationwide moratorium. Islamic countries on the on the other hand, never hesitate to execute alleged criminals on charges such as apostasy, heresy and blasphemy in accordance with Sharia’h law, which violates the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948.
Article comments
1 - Glenn Contrarian
Dileep -
capital punishment has been opposed mainly on the grounds that the penalty is irreversible in the case of the conviction of an innocent defendant, and many countries have abolished capital punishment for that reason.
For the first three decades of my life, I was for capital punishment. But when I became aware of just how many are wrongfully convicted of crimes, I felt I had no choice but to oppose capital punishment. I've heard some claim that "well, you have to break some eggs to make an omelet", but these are the lives of innocent people at stake - there's no excuse to have policies where innocent people can be legally put to death by a government (the same logic can be applied to our current drone policy). For anyone who cares, I recommend the Innocence Project.
2 - Christopher Rose
Agreed. Capital punishment is vengeance, not justice, and puts the state on the same level as any common murderer.
3 - pablo
Amazing one issue Glenn and I agree upon
4 - Dr Dreadful
With the application of this retribution sometimes imbalanced against the severity of the offence
That rather depends on which offences are regarded as severe by a particular culture. Murder, which modern western culture regards as the most heinous crime, hasn't always been singled out as exceptionally severe, even in societies where an awful lot of things were punishable by death.
In fact if you look back over the history of capital punishment, most of the types of offences (other than those involving some sort of real or perceived threat to one's ruler) that could render your life forfeit had to do with property. For instance, in Anglo-Saxon England, there was no automatic capital punishment except for treason or sedition. There were not even prisons. Instead there was an elaborate system of fines. Homicide was regarded, for practical purposes, as property destruction, and the murderer and/or his family were expected to compensate the victim's family. If the offender failed to pay the fine, he could be declared an outlaw and anyone who ran across him had carte blanche to kill him.
Seen in that light, our present use of capital punishment - in the few countries that do still practice it - seems to me rather puerile and naive. "Killing people is wrong, and to teach this, we're going to kill people who kill people." Sigh.
P.S. One small correction, Dileep: Belarus is not a member of the European Union, nor is it likely to be as long as the Lukashenko dictatorship continues and the country persists in having one of the most appalling human rights records in Europe.
5 - G l e n n C o n t r a r i a n
I agree - it's amazing that pablo and Chris and I all agree on something! Maybe I should go buy a Lotto ticket today...
...and speaking of uncivilized conduct, Saudi Arabia still crucifies people. I didn't know this until a couple days ago.
6 - Dileep Yogi
Thanks G l e n n C o n t r a r i a n for your information
I never knew I would have to reconsider my statement “crucifixion in ancient Rome dwindled into history."