CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA

Abstract
The greatest level of punishment granted in any society or democracy to preserve law and
order is "capital punishment" or "death penalty." But killing another person in the name of
justice is the same as killing someone. Instead of focusing on the criminal, we should focus
on eradicating the crime. China is the only country in the world where the death penalty is at
its peak, with over 1000 executions each year, but in India, the philosophy of "Rarest of
Rare" is upheld, and death sentences are often commuted to life imprisonment. Once
sentenced to death is imposed in China, it is irreversible. As a result, rather than hanging
someone to death, we should choose a different strategy, namely the reformative approach, so
that he might better himself.

Keywords:Capital Punishment, Death Penalty, Rarest of Rare.

Introduction

1
Punishment is used as a coercion to enforce the law, and it is the duty of the state to punish
criminals in order to protect society and maintain law and order. In the past, there wasn't any
law to punish criminals, but it depended on the kings to decide the quantum and extent of
punishment. But with the passage of time, the law developed, and various theories for giving
punishment also developed to maintain law and order in the state. The highest punishment
given in recent times is "Capital Punishment."

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the legal killing of a person who has
committed a heinous crime, or as we can say, a crime that is prohibited by law 1. The sentence
given in this regard is a death sentence. Crimes that result in capital punishment are called
capital crimes or capital offenses. Such a punishment is sanctioned by the government in
which a person is hanged till death by the state as a punishment for the heinous crime he has
committed.

The definition and extent of heinous crimes amounting to capital punishment can vary from
country to country and age to age, but its implication has always been the death sentence.

Whenever a court awards punishment, it is always based on certain theories, and these
theories are known as "Theories of Punishment".

1. Deterrent Theory

2. Reformative Theory

3. Expiation Theory

4. Preventive Theory

5. Retributive Theory

If we look at these theories, we can say that the Reformative Theory is better because there is
scope for improvement, whereas in the Deterrent Theory there is no scope for improvement.

Like in Tihar jail, the prisoners make 'Dhoop Batti' which is a good way to make them adjust
to society.

The death penalty is a very serious topic around the globe as it means taking the life of a
person.

China is a country that awards the maximum number of death penalties and carries out the
maximum number of executions, about 60% in number.

If we take views from different members of society, then we will get views like-

Some people believe that such criminals deserve death as they didn't think before committing
the crime. Some say that the death penalty shouldn't be given but that it should be converted
into life imprisonment so that he can regret the crime he has committed. And some say that a
1
Roger Hood, Capital Punishment, Encyclopaedia
Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/capital-punishment (Last visited on Jan 10,2022)

2
second chance should be given to him because we are no ones to decide who has to live or
who has to die.

Evolution
Historically, the death penalty can be based on Babylon's Codex Hammurabi in the 18th
century BC. The death penalty was codified for 25 different crimes. It was in the 10th century
A.D. that hanging became the common method of execution in Britain, replacing such
methods as drowning, beating to death, impalement, and burning alive. After independence in
1947, India continued its Indian Penal Code 1861, providing the death penalty for murder. 2
Many members of the Constitutional Assembly advocated the abolition of the death penalty
during the drafting of the 1949 Indian Constitution, but no such provision was adopted. It is
estimated that there were 3000 to 4000 executions between 1950 and 1980. Both Lok Sabha
and Rajya Sabha introduced bills to end the death penalty in the next two decades, but none
of them was adopted. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure of India (1898), the
punishment for murder was the death penalty. Even before the courts had the opportunity to
decide about the validity of the death penalty, the 35th Law Commission recommended that
the penalty be retained since it acts as a deterrent and creates fear among criminals. Since the
revision of the Code of Civil Procedure in 1973, the concept of the death penalty has
changed. Under the 1898 Act, judges must provide reasons for not imposing the death
penalty, but under Article 354 (3) of the 1973 Act, the specifics for imposing the death
penalty instead of life imprisonment must be given. In the 1980 landmark Bachan Singh
judgment, 3the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty should only be used in the
“rarest of rare” cases.

Crimes

Section under IPC or any other Act Offense

Being a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit a
120B
capital offence
Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting
121
waging of war, against the Government of India
Abetting a mutiny in the armed forces (if a mutiny
132
occurs as a result), engaging in mutiny
Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to
194
procure a conviction of a capital offence
Threatening or inducing any person to false
195A evidence resulting in the conviction or death of an
innocent person
2
Death Penalty Information Center, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-i-history-death-penalty (Last visited on Jan
10,2022)
3
Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 (Y Chandrachud, A Gupta, N Untwalia, P Bhagwati,
R Sarkaria)

3
 302, 303 Aggravated Murder
305 Abetting the suicide of a minor
Kidnapping, in the course of which the victim was
364A
held for ransom or other coercive purposes
Rape if the perpetrator inflicts injuries that result in
376A, Criminal law amendment act, 2013 the victim's death or incapacitation in a persistent
vegetative state, or is a repeat offender
Banditry with murder – in cases where a group of
five or more individuals commit banditry and one of
396 them commits murder in the course of that crime, all
members of the group are liable for the death
penalty.
Part II, Section 4 of Prevention of Sati Act Aiding or abetting an act of Sati
31A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Drug trafficking in cases of repeat offences
Substances Act

Execution Methods
There are two main ways to execute capital punishment in India. Hanging and shooting.
According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, hanging is a method of execution in a civilian
court. Both hanging and shooting are listed as official execution methods in the military court
of the 1950 Army Act.

Hanging
Most of the death penalties in India are carried out by hanging. This method of execution is
practiced in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Botswana, India, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia,
Nigeria, Palestinian Authority (Hamas authorities, Gaza), South Sudan, Sudan. ‘Long rope’ is
the most commonly used hanging method. In some countries, prisoners are weighted a day
before to find out the right length of rope to ensure a quick death. Some countries use cranes
to publicly hang the culprit. In India, after independence Godse was the first person to be
executed by death penalty. According to a study by National Law University, Delhi 755
people have been hanged till date. The most recent executions in India took place in March
2020, when the four 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder culprits were executed at the Tihar Jail
in Delhi

Shooting

4
Apart from hanging, shooting is the other method of execution. This method is practiced in
India, China, Indonesia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Taiwan, Yemen. The Army,
Navy, and Air Force Acts all empower the military to execute someone who has been
sentenced to death by a court-martial. These Acts provide the court-martial tribunal the
authority to decide whether the condemned individual shall be hung or shot to death.

Section 163 of the Air Force Act, 1950 provides that:

"In awarding a death sentence, a court-martial shall, in its discretion, direct that the
offender shall suffer death by being hanged by the neck until he is dead or shall suffer death
by being shot to death."

The firing Squad typically involves the prisoner tied on a chair or on a pole with a black hood
pulled over their head. The shooters aim at the prisoner's heart standing 20 meters away.

Category of offenders excluded from Capital Punishment

Minor
Under Indian law, a person under the age of 18 at the time commitment of a crime is not
punished by the death penalty.

Pregnant Woman
According to an amendment in 2009, clemency must be granted to a pregnant woman who is
condemned to the death penalty.

Intellectually Disabled
According to the IPC, if an individual committing a crime is mentally ill or not able to
understand the nature of the act, or the act is wrong, then that person can be rebuffed with the
death penalty.

Rarest of Rare
The doctrine of the rarest of rare was introduced in the case of Bachan v. State of Punjab4.
In this case, the supreme court laid down this doctrine for the offenses culpable with death to
decrease the ambiguity between the courts when to go for capital punishment. This decision
enjoyed a majority of 4 to 1 and also upheld its constitutional validity and said that the death
penalty should be surrounded by the doctrine of "Rarest of Rare cases. " However, its scope
remained undefined. The Ratio Decidendi of the Bachan Singh case is that the death penalty
is constitutional only if it acts as an alternative to lifetime imprisonment.

Later, in the case of Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab5, the court tried to lay down the
criteria by which a crime will fall under the category of Rarest of Rare. Criteria as follows:-

4
Bachan v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 (India)
5
Machhi Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab, 1983 AIR 957 (Thakkar, M.P. (J) (India)

5
1. Way of commission of murder– When the murder is submitted in an amazingly fierce,
crazy, devilish, revolting, or unforgivable way so as to stir exceptional and outrageous
irateness of the local area; for instance,

a. For the purpose when the victim's house is set on fire with the expectation of burning him
alive.

b. At the purpose when the victim is tormented to brutal demonstrations to realize his/her
demise.

c. At the purpose when the body of the victim is ravaged or cut in pieces in a merciless way.

2. Motive for the commission of murder: When theological doctrine and cruelty are the
motives behind murder, as an example,

a. A hired killer commits murder merely for the sake of money.

b. A cold-blooded murder committed in a thoughtful design so as to urge control toinherit

property or for the other selfish gains.

3. The socially evil nature of the crime: When the crime of murder belongs to at least one of
the backward classes. Cases of bride fires, known as "dowry-related deaths," are also
mentioned there.

4. Magnitude of the crime: When the proportion of the crime is very large, as an example, in
cases of multiple murders.

5. Character of a victim of murder– When the murder victim is a guiltless youngster, a

helpless lady or individual (because of old age or illness), a public figure, etc.

In the case of Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra6, the supreme court ruled
that the Rarest of Rare doctrine serves as a guideline for enforcing section 354 (3) and builds
on the arrangement that life detainment is the standard and death punishment is an exception.

Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code orders capital punishment for all guilty parties carrying
out life sentences. This section was struck down and held as unconstitutional. In the case of
Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar7, the court ruled on what constitutes "Rarest of Rare
case."The Court held that capital punishment would be granted as it were, "the point at which
a homicide is committed in a very devilish, brutal, or obnoxious way in order to excite
extraordinary and outrageous anger in the local area.

Law Commission Reports

35th report (1967)

6
Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498 (India)
7
Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2008) 4 SCC 434 (India)

6
The Law Commission's first report, on the question of capital penalty abolition, was
published in 1967. The commission recommended that the death penalty should be
retained8.The Law Commission found that the court's subjective discretion in determining the
issues was properly exercised and within the bounds of judicial norms. The exercise of
discretion, according to the research, can be influenced by local conditions, future
developments, the evolution of the community's moral sense, the level of crime at a certain
moment or location, and a variety of other unpredictable factors. Furthermore, the law
commission's report does not address concerns regarding the arbitrary use of the court's
discretion in death penalty cases9.The study also recommended that Section 303 of the Indian
Penal Code, which mandates the death sentence, be retained. This provision was later
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Mithu v. State of Punjab10 in
April 1983. The commission's findings precede the landmark verdict of Bachan Singh v.
State of Punjab11 in May 1980, as well as the significant revisions to the Code of Criminal
Procedure adopted in 1973.

262nd report (2015)

In 2015, India's Law Commission released its 262nd report on the topic of the death
sentence12. In the cases of Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of
Maharashtra13, April 2009, and Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra 14,
April 2013, the subject was brought before the Law Commission, which was chaired by
Justice A.P. Shah. The commission looked into different elements of the death sentence, such
as deterrence, uniform application of rules, and victim justice, and came to the conclusion
that it should be abolished except in cases of terrorism. After careful consideration, the
Commission concluded that the death penalty is no more a criminal deterrent than life
imprisonment. The Judiciary Committee also concluded that focusing on the death penalty as
the ultimate means of justice for victims has lost sight of the restorative and rehabilitative
aspects of justice. In these instances, the courts' discretionary power and inconsistent
application of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab15, May 1980 violate constitutional norms
and the notion of equality, making the entire procedure arbitrary and subject to the judges'
whims. The panel also found that constitutional and legislative safeguards like Article 72 and
Article 161 failed to protect rights from these obstructions 16 1718. In terms of supporting capital
punishment for those guilty of terrorist acts and waging war against the country, the Report
acknowledged that there's no valid penological justification for treating terrorist acts

8
"Thirty Fifth Report" Law Commission of India. (Last visited on Jan 10,2022)
9
"Consultation Paper on Capital Punishment" Law Commission of India. (Last visited on Jan 10,2022)
10
Mithu v. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 473 (India)
11
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 (India)
12
"The 262nd Report of the Law Commission of India - The Death Penalty" Law Commission of India.
(Last visited on Jan 10,2022)
13
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498 (India)
14
Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546 (India)
15
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 (India)
16
"Article 72 in The Constitution Of India 1949". Indian Kanoon. (Last visited on Jan 10,2022)
17
Article 161 in The Constitution Of India 1949". Indian Kanoon. (Last visited on Jan 10,2022)
18
Law Commission Report on Death Penalty". SCC Blog. 1 September 2015. Retrieved 12 January 2022

7
differently from alternative crimes, but the present concern seems to be that abolishing capital
punishment for these crimes can peril national security.

Rate of execution
The death penalty is legal in India, but only seven people were executed between 1998 and
2018. There were 1,303 death sentences between 2004 and 2013, but only three criminals
were executed during the period. Between 2004 and 2012, not a single execution was carried
out. A special court found Yakub and 11 others guilty and condemned them to death in July
2007 for planning or carrying out the 1993 Mumbai bombings, which killed over 260 people
and wounded many more.In March 2013, SC upheld Memon's death sentence while reducing
the death sentences of 10 others to life in prison, while one later died.

Since independence, 755 people have been hanged in India, according to a study done by
Delhi's National Law University. Before Memon was hanged in 2015, Muhammad Afzal,
who was found guilty of instigating the 2001 attack on Parliament, was hanged on 8 February
2013.

On November 21, 2012, Mohammad Ajmal Amir Qasab, guilty of the 2008 Bombay
terrorist attacks, was hung, while Dhananjoy Chatterjee, accused of killing and raping a
young girl aged 14, was executed in 2004.

Before that, Auto Shankar, nicknamed Gowri Shankar, a serial murderer who was hung in
1995, was one of the most talked-about death penalties.

The four convicts (Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta, and Akshay Kumar
Singh) in the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder case were executed with the death penalty on
March 20,2020. This was the first time four criminals were hung on the same platform at the
same time.

Shabnam and Saleem were sentenced to death by an Amroha session court in 2010, which
was affirmed by the Allahabad High Court in 2013 and the Supreme Court in May 2015. The
death warrants were stayed within 10 days by the Apex Court. Shabnam's request for
compassion, based on her responsibilities to her son Mohammad Taj, was refused by then-
Uttar Pradesh Governor Ram Naik in September 2015. Her mercy appeal was rejected by
then-President Pranab Mukherjee in August 2016. A Supreme Court panel led by Chief
Justice of India SA Bobde maintained the death penalty in January 2020.
In 2019, the courts of the first instance in India handed down 102 death sentences, down 60%
from 162 death sentences in 2018.

Data on death sentences in India varies between sources. According to a 1967 Law
Commission report, between 1954 and 1963, at least 1,400 convicts were executed. However,
after Dhananjoy Chatterjee was condemned to death, it was reported that he was just the 55th

8
person to be hung since 1947, according to government figures. The gap in the estimates
stems mostly from a lack of official figures and a shortage of publicly available data on
executions in India.

Important Cases
Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh19
Facts:- The appellant was charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 and
sentenced to death. The Supreme Court has granted leave to the subject of the judgment.
Contentions were raised with regard to the legality of execution on grounds that there was too
much prudence vested in courts since no principles or rules were accessible, which violated
Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Judgment:- The Supreme Court held that the right to life wasn't a part of Article 19 and,
subsequently, the execution couldn't be called preposterous or against public arrangement.
The composers of the Constitution were aware of execution as permissible under law, which
is confirmed by provisions like Article 72 (1) (c), Article 73 (3), Article 134 and so on. The
implications of those provisions are that the deprivation of life is constitutionally permissible,
assuming it is carried out consistently in accordance with the legal strategy. The Court
likewise paid heed to the 35th Report of the Law Commission of India, which suggested the
retention of capital punishment. It has been held that Article 14, Constitution of India, 1950,
can barely be conjured in issues of legal circumspection since the exercise of discretion for
each situation would be exceptional to its realities and conditions. The caution given to courts
is to force capital punishment subsequent to adjusting the aggravating and relieving
conditions, and it can't be called unguided. Further, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
sets down a detailed methodology with respect to when capital punishment can be forced and
the burden of capital punishment, observing the strategy set up by law, can't be called
unlawful.

Rajendra Prasad V. State of Uttar Pradesh20

Facts:- The Appellant had been condemned to life detention for murder and had been
conceded pardon. He committed murder on release. The case came up as a criminal allure
and therefore the Court was to make a decision if the case qualified as having 'unique reasons'
needed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to impose capital punishment.

Judgment:- The Supreme Court was dealing with the trouble of condemning circumspection.
It has been expressed that to convey that the attentiveness is managed by all around perceived
standards alone isn't adequate. It should be additionally clarified that these standards are all
together that the act of circumspection doesn't militate against the command under Article 21
of the Constitution of India, 1950, of reasonable and non-discretionary strategies. It has been
19
Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1973 1 SCC 20 (India)
20
Rajendra Prasad V. State of Uttar Pradesh 1979 3 SCC 646 (India)

9
held that the unique explanations behind giving capital punishment can't relate just to the
wrongdoing; however, they should represent basic liberties and, subsequently, the central
opportunities given inside the Constitution. The clarifications should show why a life
sentence would not be enough. Since taking life annihilates the pride of a private person, the
explanations should show why such a radical advance is advocated. Thusly, it must be in
extreme conditions that such a step should be taken. It has also been held that execution
violates fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution of
1950, and thus the power to impose a death sentence should demonstrate that such a sentence
may be a reasonable limitation, if not, it may be a violation of the Constitution. During a
contradicting assessment, Justice Sen expressed that it had been intrinsically and legitimately
impermissible for the Supreme Court, while hearing an allure on the topic of sentence, to
rebuild Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab21

Facts:- A number of writ petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the
constitutional validity of capital punishment as an alternate punishment for murder under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Judgment:- The Constitution Bench confirmed the choice in Jagmohan Singh v. the State of
Uttar Pradesh, with surely some changes. It has been seen that the extension and import of
Articles 19 and 21 were extended by the understanding given to them in Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248. India had likewise become involved in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Court held that this reality had no effect on the
defendability of execution because the Covenant didn't prohibit execution. It has been held
that Article 19, Constitution of India, 1950, is often conjured just when one of the
fundamental freedoms in it is encroached.

Since the right to life isn't a part of Article 19, it can't be conjured to work out the lawfulness
of Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, which gives capital punishment as a substitute
discipline for murder. The execution can't be called unlawful only on the grounds that it, in a
roundabout way, unexpectedly or remotely influences the opportunities referenced under
Article 19, Constitution of India, 1950. The Court deciphered Article 21, Constitution of
India, 1950 as extended in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to express that the principal
architects perceived the appropriateness of the state to deny a person's life or individual
freedom as per a reasonable, just and sensible method set up by substantial law. The Court
dissected Sections 235 and 354, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and reached the resolution
that Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, wasn't violative of Article 21, Constitution of
India, 1950. In noting whether capital punishment fills any penological need, the Court held
that it might not be more right than wrong to settle the difficulty judicially since it had been a
profoundly challenged banter with solid dissimilar perspectives on the two sides. The Court
explained Jagmohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and held that the compulsory prerequisite of a
pre-condemning hearing presented in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 made it
fundamental not exclusively to ponder the conditions of the wrongdoing, yet in addition to
21
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 (India)

10
those of the lawbreaker. In an opinion published as Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1982) 3
SCC 24, Justice Bhagwati stated that the imposition of the death penalty as an alternative to
life imprisonment bondage under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was unlawful
because it gave courts unrestricted discretion to choose between execution and imprisonment.

In this case, the doctrine of "Rarest of Rare case" was introduced.

Argument in favour and against

Practical Argument
There likewise are questions regarding whether the execution is often directed in a way
reliable with equity. The people that support the execution except that it's feasible to make
laws and methods that guarantee that only the individuals who truly merit passing are
executed. Conversely, rivals continue. The chronicled utilization of the execution shows that
any endeavor to single out particular kinds of wrongdoing as meriting demise will certainly
be subjective and oppressive. They additionally highlight different variables that they think
block the likelihood that executions are often genuinely applied, contending that poor people
and ethnic and strict minorities regularly don't get great legitimate help, that racial bias
persuades predominantly white juries in capital cases to convict dark and other nonwhite
litigants in unbalanced numbers, and that, since mistakes are inescapable even in a
considerably run criminal equity framework, certain individuals are going to be executed for
wrongdoings they didn't commit. Finally, they contend that, in light of the very fact that the
requests for interaction for capital punishments are extended, those sentenced to death are
frequently remorselessly compelled to be in touch with significant stretches of vulnerability
about their destiny.

Moral Argument
Allies of execution accept that the individuals who commit murder since they need to end the
existence of another, have relinquished their title to life. Moreover, they accept that the
execution may be a simple sort of reprisal, communicating and building up the moral anger of
the casualty's relations as well as of decent residents overall. On the other hand, adversaries
of the execution, following the works of Cesare Beccaria (specifically On Crimes and
Punishments [1764]), contend that by legitimizing the very conduct that the law looks to curb
—killing—the execution is counterproductive to the ethical message it passes on. Also, they
ask, when it's utilized for lesser violations, the execution is unethical in light of the very fact
that it's entirely unbalanced for the mischief done. Abolitionists likewise guarantee that
execution abuses the sentenced individual's right to life more than any other form of
punishment and are usually barbaric and debasing.

In spite of the very fact that passing was endorsed for wrongdoings in numerous sacrosanct
strict records and usually was polished broadly with the assistance of strict orders, today
there's no arrangement among strict beliefs, or among groups or orders inside them, on the
moral quality of the execution. Starting within the last 50% of the 20th century, expanding
quantities of strict pioneers—especially inside Judaism and Roman Catholicism—crusaded

11
against it. The execution was nullified by the province of Israel for all offenses apart from
conspiracy and wrongdoings against humankind, and Pope John Paul II denounced it as
"savage and pointless."

Conclusion
When the death penalty is given to the accused, which is simply more than a punishment, we
put an end to or kill an individual in the name of justice and the law. Killing an individual is
immoral and shows a lack of respect for human life. And protesting against the death penalty
does not mean that someone is abetting the crime. When capital punishment is granted, it
removes the scope for improvement that could have changed a person's life, which is often
why democracies around the world support the reformative theory of punishment and abolish
the theory of deterrent theory.

Even the vilest criminal is still a human being endowed with "common human dignity." Thus,
each and every individual is valued. We cannot decide who lives and who can die based on
the rules and regulations that we have established.

It is true that criminals must be punished for their crimes, but we as civilizations must
eradicate crimes, not just illegal ones. This is often the biggest difference between humans
and animals. We are given precious gifts: "We are one human being" and "killing others
distorts the very purpose of being human."

We call ourselves a "civilized society," but we kill another person in the name of justice. The
principle of the death penalty is based on a deterrence theory that generally sets an example
by instilling fear in the minds of others, and there are other ways through which one can set a
leading example, such as in reformative theory.

By maintaining the death penalty, you can put a person who turns out to be innocent to death.

The concept of the death penalty is old and barbaric and should be abolished because it
involves the killing of humans. Life is precious and death is irreparable, therefore immoral.

Democracy should be based on reform theory rather than deterrence theory, as it provides
opportunities for improvement that change the lives of individuals and provide opportunities
for them to return to society, so reform theory has an advantage over deterrence theory.

12