Laws were originally established to create order in the society. It is a simple idea that bad deeds or crimes are followed by proportional consequences, or punishments. However, being right or wrong not always a clearly objective question. For example, it is a little wrong to say that tomato is a vegetable. It is very wrong to say it is a suspension bridge. Similarly, not every crime is equally serious, which calls for different punishments of varying severity. The one to be discussed is the capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, which, as the name suggests, dictates that the perpetrator of the crime be put to death. It is a widely debated topic whether it is morally correct for the law enforcement to play god, taking away the life of the people that have been convicted of proportional crimes.
Before we get into the argument, let us assume that we are talking about just and impartial law enforcement implying that it takes decisions impartially and keeping in mind the well being of the whole population that looks up to it for their safety. Keeping this in mind, I believe capital punishment is justifiable for proportionate crimes.
And here is why.
Death penalty is a very serious punishment, and it comes with a brutal finality. But for a person to be given such a sentence, the crimes must be proportionally inhuman. And such mentalities are the enemies of law and order in a society. It may be argued that a life imprisonment is equivalent to a death penalty and should be used as an alternative to it. The idea behind it being that the individual would develop remorse for their actions. But the overwhelming odds are that the thought of spending their life in imprisonment would amplify their inhuman tendencies, rather than create remorse. Furthermore, it is to be understood that the law enforcement does not take pleasure in the killing of that individual. The underlying intention of a death penalty is not to take revenge for the acts that one has done. The intention is to set a precedent that crimes of such nature are met with dire consequences. The finality of this punishment acts as a way of instilling fear in the minds of people that maybe be prone to committing such crimes in the future
Let us consider a person who has killed another person for some reason. Was he justified in taking the life of someone for any reason whatsoever? If the person is imprisoned for life, what does it entail? For the perpetrator, it is a lifetime of being confined to an unhealthy atmosphere. For the society, it would mean that such a person continues to live on in some place, no matter how secure. For the law enforcement, it means that they must deploy people to guard such a person in a prison, which comes with its own risks and financial considerations. For someone with such tendencies, it would mean that no matter what they do, they would somehow keep living and a possibility that they may escape their sentence. In such cases, the decision of the law enforcement to sentence them to death would alleviate these concerns.
In conclusion, I would like to say that capital punishment is more about setting a precedent than to punish that particular individual, and that if a proportionate crime was committed, the law enforcement, for the collective good of its population, is within its rights to sentence said person to death.
Image(s) source - Google
- Siddhant S. Naik.
(Team Dayatva Member)
Comments
Post a Comment