ETHICAL APPROACH OF

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

By Samax

Capital Punishment

• Capital punishment is the killing of a person as a punishment for an offense. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences.

The Death Penalty Worldwide

Brown = DP only for times of war

Orange = DP for adult offenders

Red = DP for adult and juvenile offenders

Dark blue = AbolitionLight blue = No DP in 10 yrs

Where Countries Stand

Total abolition in law or practice: 140

• for all crimes: 97

• for ordinary crimes only: 8

• in practice: 35

Retention: 58

• Top five executors in 2011: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the

USA

India Statistics based on national crime records bureau• According to a December 13, 2012 report, 477 people were on death row in

India. Between 2001 and 2011, an average of 132 death sentences were handed down each year. 

• The Supreme Court confirms barely 3 to 4 death sentences each year. 

• The last execution to take place in India was the July 30, 2015 hanging of Yakub Memon, convicted of financing the 1993 Mumbai bombing. 

• India voted against abolishing death penalty in UN moratorium. Where as 111 countries voted in favor.

QUESTIONS

• What is the risk that an innocent person will be executed ?

• Is capital punishment ethical or unethical ?

• Do politicians influence Capital Punishment?

What is the risk that an innocent person will be executed?

The risk to an innocent person cannot be calculated but the risk is not zero.

Since 1973, 151 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row.

Brief Fact !

Source – Amnesty International

System Failure : Error-Riddled

• 70% of all death sentences are reversed due to serious error such as:• incompetent defense lawyers• police or prosecutorial misconduct

• Capital trials produce so many mistakes that it takes three judicial inspections to catch them

• Of the 2,370 death sentences thrown out due to serious error, 90% were overturned by state judges—many were the same ones who imposed the death sentence in the first place

(Liebman Study – Columbia Univ.)

System Failure : DeterrenceOf the top US academic criminological society presidents, 88% reject the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder.

System Failure : Wrongful Convictions

140 people have been released from death row due to evidence of their innocence since 1973 (including one in

2012).

Source: Death Penalty Information Center

Cameron Todd WillinghamExecuted in 2004

This is despite the wife’s testimony that he had never abused the children and, in fact, “spoiled them rotten.” While laboratory tests verified that an accelerant was used only near the front porch, the prosecutors alleged that the fluid was deliberately poured near the front porch, children’s bedroom, and in the hallway to start the fire and impede rescue attempts..

In 1991, a fire occurred at Cameron Todd Willingham’s home in Texas killing his three young daughters. Willingham escaped the fire with minor injuries and his then-wife was not home at the time.

Prosecutors charged Willingham with starting the fire in an attempt to cover up his abuse of his girls.

Case 1

• Gerald Hurst, who has a PhD in chemistry, reputed claims that the extreme heat of the fire meant that an accelerant was used. The Board of Pardons and Paroles received Hurst’s argument but still denied Willingham clemency

• Willingham was deemed an “extremely severe sociopath” by a psychiatrist using only Willingham’s Iron Maiden and Led Zeppelin posters as indications of his fascination with violence and death.

• Witness testimony during the fire was contradictory and inconclusive.

• During his trial in August 1992, Willingham was offered a life term in exchange for a guilty plea, which he turned down insisting he was innocent.

• Willingham was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004.

• In June 2009 the State of Texas ordered an unprecedented re-examination of the case and may issue a ruling on it at a later date.

Case 1

De Luna immediately told police that he was innocent and he offered the name of the person who he saw at the gas station. Police ignored the fact that he did not have a drop of blood on him even though the crime scene was covered in blood. De Luna was arrested too soon after the crime to clean himself up. The single eyewitness to the crime, Kevin Baker, confirmed to police that De Luna was the murderer after police told him he was the right guy.

Carlos De LunaExecuted in 1989In February 1983, Wanda Lopez, was stabbed to death during her night shift at the gas station where she worked.

After a brief manhunt, police found De Luna hiding under a pick-up truck. Recently released from prison, he was violating his parole by drinking in public.

Case 2

• At trial De Luna named Carlos Hernandez as the man he saw inside the gas station, across the street from the bar where De Luna had been drinking.

• Hernandez and DeLuca were strikingly similar in appearance but, unlike DeLuca, Hernandez had a long history of knife attacks similar to the convenience store killing and repeatedly told friends and relatives that he had committed the murder.

• Friends confirmed that he was romantically linked to Lopez as well. De Luna’s lawyers knew of Hernandez’s criminal past but never thoroughly investigated his previous crimes.

• On December 7, 1989, Texas executed 27-year old Carlos De Luna

Case 2

Utilitarian..factors Happy/Unhappy Reason Utility

Victim Wanda Lopez Unhappy Injustice. Low

Wanda Lopez Family Unhappy Injustice Low

Culprit – Hernandez Happy Not Punished High

Hernandez Family Happy Not Punished High

Carlos De Luna (Innocent)

Unhappy He was Innocent Low

Carlos De Luna’s Family

Unhappy Injustice Low

Government Unhappy Wrong Execution Low

Society Unhappy Injustice Low

Total Utility : Very LowTotal Happiness : Very Low

Case 2

Kantianism Analysis• Proposed Rule: It is ethical to risk an innocent

person’s Life for the sake of continuing the practice of capital Punishment.

• Duty: Government should fulfill the motive for which they want to continue this Practice at any Cost.

• 1st Imperative: If we Universalize the rule, every innocent Person can be executed at some point, which takes away our fundamental Right to Life from us.

• 2nd Imperative: If we execute the innocent Person, we are using him as a means to an end to fulfill our motive.

UNETHICAL

Case 2

Capital punishment Retention :-• Retribution theory:- Eye for an eye make the world blind. It brings relief for the victim’s family. Criminal deserves punishment as retribution for his act (By John

Locke)• Deterrence :- Deterrence is the use of punishment as a threat to deter

people from committing a crime. Remove those who are violence prone• Incapacitation :- Offenders should be prevented for committing

future crime. Removal from society or by some other method that restricts their

physical ability to reoffend in some other way.

AbolishmentAbolishment:-• Cost factor:-cost of capital punishment is 10 times more than life

imprisonment,• Human right to live :- Every human has the right to decide whether to live or

die, even those who committed crimes. Capital punishment undermines human dignity.

• Irreversible :- In many more cases, there are “near misses” in which people are given last minute reprieves in light of new or unexamined evidence. 

• Rehabilitation:- It is the re-integration into society of a convicted person and the main objective of modern penal policy, to counter habitual offending

Adam Bedau for abolishment

• Bedau’s second line of argument:  Capital Punishment is Unfair

1.  We are incapable of applying the death penalty fairly. 2.  If something cannot be done fairly, it should not be done at

all. 3.  Therefore, the death penalty should not be used. 

Report By The Hindu

Kantian• Kant advocated two principles regarding how punishment should be

administered.• Law – (1)  People should be punished simply because they have committed crimes,

and for no other reason. (2)  Punishment should be proportionate to the crime.• Universalize:- It tells us that we ought to treat others always as ends, and never merely as

means.  By punishing a criminal, we are respecting his ends, because we are treating him in the way that he thinks people ought to be treated.  Thus, we are not punishing him for our own benefit , but because it is in accordance with the principles that he has endorsed through his actions. 

• Conclusion – Ethical

Utilitarian• It advocates punishing as a deterrent or in order to reform criminals. •  The severity of punishment will depend on what maximizes utility.• Utilitarian also believes that death penalty is morally acceptable

because of its benefits for the society as a whole.

factors Happy/Unhappy Reasons utility

Victim/Family of victim

Happiness Retribution/Justice high

Culprit/Family of culprit

Unhappiness Inhumane low

Government Happy/Neutral Deterrence high

Society More Happiness Reduce crime/Deterrence

high

Does politicians influence in the Capital Punishment?

Afzal Guru Case

• The UPA government does not appear to have any interest in implementing the death sentence given to Mohammad Afzal Guru, the main accused involved in the conspiracy behind the attack on the Parliament House on 13th. December, 2001.

• The death sentence awarded to Afzal Guru had triggered wide-spread protests in Kashmir. J&K politicians like Omar Abdullah of National Conference, Ghulam Nabi Azad of the Congress and Mehbooba Mufti of the People's Democratic Party had pleaded against hanging Afzal Guru..

• Former Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil had said on one occasion that hanging Afzal would prejudice India’s attempt to bring back Sarabjit Singh, an Indian on the death row in Pakistan. His statement on Afzal Guru had invited a lot of criticism from the media as comparing the case of Sarabjit who is facing a death sentence in Pakistan for allegedly being an Indian spy with that of Afzal Guru who is an Indian sentenced to death for being the main conspirator in the Parliament attack is totally out of place.

Yakub Memon Case• Unpublished article by the late B. Raman, a respected counter-terror RAW

officer, who had led the operation to bring Memon back to India from Pakistan in 1994.In the article written eight years ago, shortly after Memon was sentenced, Mr. Raman said he did not believe that Memon deserved to hang.

• The executive in its role as the active arm of the State had an important role to play in this case. When President Pranab Mukherjee had rejected the mercy petition of Yakub Memon twice, he did not do so in his personal capacity. It was the government which had advised him to do so, and Mukherjee’s decision is indeed the decision of the Narendra Modi government. There is, however, continuity in policy. The prosecution pressed for the death sentence of the accused when the Congress was in power in Maharashtra and at the Centre. Government, it appears, had no compunction in seeking the death sentence of the guilty in the Bombay Blasts Case. 

Utility Analysis on Yakub Memon Case

Characters Happy/Unhappy

Reasons High/ Low Utility

Culprits/ Family of Culprit

Unhappy Mercy Petition filed by Criminal.

Low Utility

Victims/ Family of Victim

Happy Justice is given to them. High Utility

Investigating Agencies

Unhappy Article of B. Raman proved he was unhappy

Low Utility

Politicians Happy They are using Criminal as a Vote bank.

High Utility

Society Unhappy Candle Light Marches across the Country

showed their Unhappiness.

Low Utility

UNETHICAL

Kantianism Analysis• Proposed Rule: Politics influencing the decision of Capital

Punishment is ethical. • Duty: Person should be given Punishment, what it deserves.• 1st Imperative: If we Universalize the rule, every person will not

get the punishment he deserves because of the influence by the Politicians and no one will believe in Justice.

• 2nd Imperative: Politicians are Using Criminals as a means to an end i.e. for vote banks and Publicity.

UNETHICAL

Thank You