From Retribution to Abolition The capital punishment in Modern Legal Systems.

Abstract 

The death penalty or also known as capital punishment, which echoes a clash amongst justice,  morality, and human rights, is to this day one of the most passionately challenged subjects in  modern legal systems. Some states support the capital punishment as a form of retribution and a  preventive to grave crimes, while others condemn it as a defilement of people’s rights to life and  dignity. 

Over two-thirds of states have either forbidden or stopped using the death penalty, imitating the  global tendency to elimination. Notwithstanding developing challenges to its legality from  international human rights instruments and court verdicts, it is still imposed in a numerous jurisdictions, mainly in Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Africa. The legal frameworks,  opinions for and against, and worldwide abolition movement are examined in this article, which  emphasizes the delicate balance between public opinion, state sovereignty, and fundamental  human rights principles. 

Introduction 

The death penalty vestiges one of the most disputed matters in modern legal systems.  Contemporary implementations in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia show the ongoing crash amongst old-style justifications retribution and deterrence and the increasing importance on human rights. Universally, the United Nations General Assembly has recurrently advised states to adopt a suspension on executions, reflecting a change to abolition.¹ 

Though in history rooted in criminal codes as the final penalty for grave crimes, the death  penalty is progressively seen as mismatched with the right to life under Article 6 of the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).² Regional instruments, such as the  European Convention on Human Rights, have also prohibited its use.³

This article contends that despite its perseverance in some states, the global legal inclination motivated by human rights standards and judicial interpretation is toward restricting and  ultimately abolishing capital punishment. 

Research Methodology 

This article implements a doctrinal and logical method to inspect the place of the death penalty in  modern legal systems. The research primarily relies on international treaties, such as the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),⁵ and regional instruments,  including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).⁶ Key judicial decisions, such as  Soering v. United Kingdom,⁴ are referenced to illustrate how courts interpret human rights  obligations in relation to capital punishment. 

1. Legal Framework  

Frameworks for International Law  

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 clearly recognizes that everyone has a right  to life, even though it doesn’t explicitly outlaw the death penalty.⁸ Later, the 1966 International  Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allowed capital punishment but only in very serious  cases, and it demanded strict protections to prevent abuse.⁹ The 1989 Second Optional Protocol  went a step further, calling for the full abolition of the death penalty wherever possible.¹⁰ In  Europe, Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights have entirely removed  the death penalty from law. In Africa and the Americas, local covenants like the African Charter  and the American Convention inspire countries to bound implementations, even if they don’t  completely ban them.¹¹ 

2. Frameworks for National Law  

Looking at national laws, the United States still allows the death penalty, but it generally applies  only to particularly serious crimes such as aggravated murder.¹² India also retains it, though 

courts use it very sparingly, only in what they call the “rarest of rare” situations.¹³ In Ethiopia,  executions don’t happen often, yet the law still permits the death penalty for extreme offenses  like terrorism, treason, or aggravated homicide.¹⁴ Around the world, most European and Latin  American nations have abolished it, while countries such as China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia  continue to apply it actively. 

3. Constitutional Provisions  

Some structures protect the right to life but permit exclusions. In India, Article 21 consents lack of life through “procedure recognized by law.” In the United States, the Eighth Amendment  restricts capital punishment by prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment.” By dissimilarity, South Africa eliminated it utterly in S v. Makwanyane (1995).¹⁵ 

Judicial Explanation 

Numerous milestone cases have molded the implementation of the death penalty globally. India for example, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) recognized the “rarest of rare” policy,  restraining capital punishment to extremely monstrous offenses.¹⁶ In South Africa, S v.  Makwanyane (1995) professed the death penalty unlawful, highlighting the right to life and  human dignity.¹⁷ In the United States, Furman v. Georgia (1972) provisionally canceled prevailing capital punishment decrees for uninformed claim under the Eighth Amendment.¹⁸ 

In Ethiopia, jurisdictive clarification of the capital punishment is less established but evolving.  The Ethiopian Criminal Code of 2004 preserves the capital punishment for crimes, for example aggravated homicide, terrorism, and treachery. Though, there is imperfect law addressing wider human rights challenges, showing the country’s steady commitment with international standards on death penalty .¹⁹ 

Critical Analysis  

The death penalty in Ethiopia raises both legal and practical questions. Executions are very rare,  yet the law remains in place, which can create uncertainty and occasionally lead to inconsistent  outcomes. Oversight is limited, and there is little public discussion about the issue.²⁰ Compared 

with India or the U.S., Ethiopian courts have not developed clear rules for applying the death  penalty, such as the “rarest of rare” principle or proportionality standards. Looking at other  countries, those that have limited or abolished capital punishment often have fairer systems and  fewer mistakes.²¹ It seems that Ethiopia could benefit from gradually adopting similar  approaches as debate continues at home and with international partners. 

Recent Developments  

In recent years, civil society groups and international organizations have started paying more  attention to Ethiopia’s death penalty. UN human rights bodies have recommended a moratorium  and encouraged reviewing the law to ensure it is fair and respects human rights.²² In practice,  very few executions happen, suggesting some informal restraint. Media and public discussion are  also increasingly questioning whether the death penalty is fair, especially with the risk of  wrongful convictions.²³ 

Elsewhere, India continues to follow the “rarest of rare” rule, while the situation in the U.S. is  mixed some states have abolished the death penalty, while others still use it.²⁴ These global  trends toward limiting or ending capital punishment may gradually influence Ethiopia’s  approach.²⁵

Conclusion  

The capital punishment vestiges a touchy problem harmonizing justice, deterrence, and human  rights. Ethiopia’s holding, however infrequently practical, generates legal hesitation and  jeopardies unpredictability. Relative examples show how proportionality doctrines and  abolitionist modifications can reinforce justice and support law with international human rights  standards. Beneficial commitment by the courts, legislature, and civil society is vital to update 

the legal framework. Restriction or abolition can guard the right to life though upholding safety of the public, guaranteeing Ethiopia’s criminal fairness system changes in line with together domestic needs and international values.

Citation(S):  

1. G.A. Res. 62/149, Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty (Dec. 18, 2007). 2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 6, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S.  171. 
2. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art. 2, Nov.  4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 (as amended by Protocols Nos. 6 & 13). 
3. Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989). 
4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 6, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S.  171. 
5. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art. 2, Nov.  4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 (as amended by Protocols Nos. 6 & 13). 
6. G.A. Res. 62/149, Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty (Dec. 18, 2007). 8. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (Dec.  10, 1948). 
7. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 6, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S.  171. 
8. Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, G.A. Res. 44/128, U.N. Doc. A/RES/44/128  (Dec. 15, 1989). 
9. Protocols 6 & 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights. 
10. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. 
11. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 S.C.C. 684 (India). 
12. Criminal Code of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation No.  414/2004. 
13. S v. Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) (S. Afr.). 
14. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 S.C.C. 684 (India). 
15. S v. Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) (S. Afr.). 
16. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). 
17. Criminal Code of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation No.  414/2004. 
18. Amnesty Int’l, Death Sentences and Executions 2023, at 5–10 (2024). 21. Id. at 12–15.
19. UN Human Rights Council, Report on Capital Punishment in Ethiopia (2022). 23. Id. 
20. Death Penalty Information Center, State-by-State Overview, 2024. 25. G.A. Res. 62/149, Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty (Dec. 18, 2007).