How do countries legitimize the death penalty?

Author: Aishath Shaufa Ahmed

Steps towards the abolition of the death penalty in countries or imposing a moratorium on its use are common. Yet, it leaves us to wonder how countries that impose capital punishment legitimize it. The death penalty is presumed to serve objectives such as deterrence and retribution. Ideally, it is expected to be administered as humanely as possible, and the provision of adequate judicial support is expected to ensure no wrongful convictions occur. There is a downward trend in executions in most countries, and rather than the complete abolition of the penalty, some countries practice the act in what they justify as an extreme restriction.

Article 6 of the ICCPR states that the death penalty should be imposed only for the “most serious crimes” following the rule of law in place. Following the interpretation of this article, the scope of capital punishment has shifted to a more limited agreement.

It was held by the Human Rights Committee in Chisanga v Zambia that imposing mandatory death sentences for a crime that did not result in the death of the victim was deemed unfitting. The committee upheld that the nature of mandatory death sentences violated an individual’s right to life. Especially, where the brutality and consequence of the crime could be considered. It is observed that the committee took into consideration that mandatory death sentences violated the defendant’s right to life.

In Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, the High Court of India executed Mr. Kasab on the basis of terrorism following the principle of the “rarest of the rare case“. It is upheld that crimes of assured terror are more probable to result in the death penalty. Most importantly, where exists the reassurance that fair trial and due process guarantees are in place. If the courts believe the facts of the case to be of uncommon circumstance, then the death penalty could be imposed.

Thus, we can observe that there’s a continual effort toward creating a constrictive framework for defining the offenses and standards by which an individual should receive the death penalty. Therefore, one may argue the death penalty is a want of utmost justice and not mere desire. We comprehend the judiciary’s intricacy in uncovering the seriousness of the offenses and assessing the culprits. This may suggest that the death penalty is a rare conviction.

Yet, it is worth noting that some countries still perform executions on drug charges. It is debated by UN Human Rights bodies that drug charges do not fit the limitations, nor the threshold established. Likewise, they stress that executions do not contribute to the deterrence of drug abuse or drug-related crimes. They likewise emphasize how, if used, the punishment should limit to intentional killing. Countries that have

It is important to acknowledge individuals such as Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, who was sentenced to death in April for drug trafficking charges in Singapore. The UN High Commissioner stated that such executions are incompatible with the ICCPR and its judicial norms. Although continual efforts exist to limit the scope of capital punishment, some countries persist in convicting individuals for what they deem to be ‘serious crimes.” Such crimes are notably not what the ICCPR believes to be of the seriousness required for executions. This ultimately has led to the violation of international law and individuals’ right to life.

Similarly, on March 12th, Saudi Arabia conducted 81 executions on terrorism-related charges. UN High Commissioner discussed how, upon their investigation, they detected unfair trials and absent due process of law and that some crimes did not meet the threshold for “serious crimes”. They have conducted executions for non-violent crimes by reason of endangering national unity or undermining the state’s reputation.

However, it appears that the seriousness of the offenses for which death sentences are carried out is interpreted independently and not through the ICCPR by Saudi. It is impossible to rule out a political agenda or bias in these mass executions by Saudis. In countries such as Saudi, the likelihood of imposing the death penalty in terror-related cases are common. Also, minorities are targeted in the hopes of eradicating them under the veil of extreme crimes.

Countries such as the UK have maintained a far distance from the penalty but are progressively more inclined on proposing it for terror-related charges. There’s surging support for executions for terror-related crimes over the past few years in the country due to the extreme cases of terrorism the country has faced.

We can observe both restrictions and broadness in diverse judicial systems in terms of the death penalty. There exist judicial safeguards and inflexible legal frameworks in countries that have narrowed down the possibility of executions, even if not abolition. Thus, the death penalty cannot be considered arbitrary. However, crucial lapses in its usage still exist and we must find it important to rectify them.