The Death Penalty

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is the most severe and irreversible punishment available within legal systems. It represents the deliberate taking of human life by the state following a judicial process. Across the world, its use is highly divisive: some states defend it as a necessary deterrent to crime and an expression of justice, while others reject it as cruel, error-prone, and incompatible with modern human-rights principles. Despite an international trend toward abolition, several large countries — including the United States, China, India, and Pakistan — continue to retain the death penalty in law or practice.

This essay critically analyses the principal arguments for and against capital punishment, then examines how those arguments manifest in practice through comparative case studies of the above four jurisdictions. It concludes that although the death penalty continues to exist for political, cultural, and symbolic reasons, its practical, ethical, and legal problems outweigh its supposed benefits.

Arguments in Favour of the Death Penalty

Supporters of the death penalty put forward three main justifications: deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation.

Deterrence is the most common argument — the idea that the fear of execution discourages potential offenders from committing heinous crimes. Proponents argue that in countries with strong enforcement, such as China and Singapore, the death penalty contributes to low rates of violent crime and drug trafficking. China retains capital punishment for a wide range of offences including murder, terrorism, and major corruption, claiming that it helps “maintain social stability.”

A second justification is retribution, the belief that the punishment should fit the crime. From this perspective, execution provides a proportional response to extreme wrongdoing. In parts of the United States — particularly in conservative states such as Texas — capital punishment is defended as a moral necessity that expresses society’s condemnation of murder. For victims’ families, the death penalty may appear to deliver closure or a sense of justice.

Third, advocates cite incapacitation: execution permanently removes dangerous offenders from society, ensuring that they cannot re-offend or harm others. In countries with weak prison systems, such as Pakistan, this argument is often tied to concerns about overcrowding, escapes, or terrorism.

While these rationales appeal to public emotion and moral intuition, their empirical foundation and ethical consistency remain deeply contested.

Arguments Against the Death Penalty

Opponents of capital punishment raise objections on empirical, moral, legal, and humanitarian grounds.

1. Lack of Deterrent Effect. Numerous studies have found no credible evidence that the death penalty deters murder more effectively than life imprisonment. The United States offers a telling case: among states that retain and those that have abolished the death penalty, homicide rates show no consistent difference. The U.S. National Research Council concluded that deterrence studies “should not be used to inform policy judgments about the death penalty,” because their methods cannot isolate causality. Similarly, Canada and most of Western Europe — all abolitionist jurisdictions — have sustained low homicide rates, contradicting the deterrence hypothesis.

2. Risk of Wrongful Execution. Perhaps the most powerful argument against capital punishment is the irreversible risk of killing an innocent person. In the United States, at least 189 death-row inmates have been exonerated since 1973, often due to DNA evidence or exposure of prosecutorial misconduct. Statistical analysis suggests that about one in every 25 people sentenced to death may be innocent. In Pakistan, concerns about flawed trials, torture-tainted confessions, and inadequate legal representation further amplify this risk.

3. Discrimination and Inequality. Empirical research shows that capital punishment is often applied unevenly. In the U.S., racial minorities and the poor are disproportionately represented on death row. In India, death sentences are more likely against defendants from lower castes or marginalised communities. Such inequalities undermine the principle of equal justice under law.

4. Violation of Human Rights. International human-rights instruments increasingly view the death penalty as incompatible with the right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The United Nations and the European Union both advocate global abolition. India and Pakistan, while parties to the ICCPR, continue to impose death sentences, often invoking national security or public sentiment.

5. The Death Row Phenomenon. Long delays between sentencing and execution create psychological torment known as the “death row phenomenon.” Prisoners may spend decades in isolation, uncertain of their fate. In the United States, the average wait before execution exceeds 20 years. In Japan and India, inmates are informed of their execution only hours beforehand, causing extreme mental suffering. Courts in India have recognised this as a form of cruel and degrading treatment and commuted some death sentences on this ground.

Comparative Analysis

United States

The United States remains the only Western democracy to practise capital punishment regularly. Although 29 states have abolished it, 21 retain it, and federal executions resumed briefly in 2020 after a 17-year hiatus. Supporters argue it reflects public opinion and delivers justice for heinous crimes. However, the U.S. system illustrates many of the death penalty’s flaws: racial bias, inconsistent application, and long appellate delays. Studies show that homicide rates in retentionist states such as Texas are not significantly lower than in abolitionist states like New York. Moreover, the high cost of capital trials and appeals often exceeds the expense of lifetime imprisonment.

China

China is the world’s leading executioner, although official statistics remain classified as a state secret. Human-rights organisations estimate that China carries out thousands of executions annually for crimes ranging from murder to corruption and drug trafficking. The government defends this policy as necessary for deterrence and social order. However, China’s lack of judicial transparency and due-process guarantees has drawn global criticism. Despite some procedural reforms, such as requiring Supreme People’s Court review of all death sentences (introduced in 2007), the opacity of the system makes independent verification impossible.

India

India retains the death penalty but applies it relatively rarely, under the “rarest of rare” doctrine established in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980). Indian courts have repeatedly emphasised that capital punishment should be imposed only when life imprisonment is inadequate. Yet inconsistencies remain: terrorism, rape-murder cases, and crimes against women often attract political and media pressure for death sentences. Long death-row delays — sometimes exceeding a decade — have prompted the Supreme Court to commute several sentences, recognising the mental anguish caused by prolonged uncertainty.

Pakistan

Pakistan retains one of the world’s largest death-row populations, with more than 4,000 prisoners awaiting execution. The death penalty applies to over two dozen offences, including blasphemy and drug trafficking. After a six-year moratorium, executions resumed in 2014 following a terrorist attack on a school in Peshawar. Supporters claimed reinstatement was necessary for national security and deterrence. However, human-rights organisations argue that Pakistan’s criminal justice system is plagued by unreliable evidence, torture, and limited access to counsel. The overcrowded and harsh conditions of Pakistan’s prisons amplify the death-row phenomenon, raising serious humanitarian concerns.

Conclusion

The death penalty remains one of the world’s most contentious moral and legal issues. Comparative analysis of the United States, China, India, and Pakistan shows that while cultural and political contexts differ, the fundamental criticisms — arbitrariness, irreversibility, cruelty, and ineffectiveness — apply universally. Deterrence claims lack empirical support; the risk of executing the innocent is inherent and irreparable; and the prolonged psychological torment of death-row confinement offends basic human dignity. As the global movement toward abolition continues, retentionist states face growing pressure to replace execution with life imprisonment without parole — a punishment that ensures justice and public safety without resorting to irreversible killing.

Bibliography (OSCOLA)

• Amnesty International, Death Sentences and Executions 2024 (AI Publications, 2024).
• R Hood and C Hoyle, The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective (6th edn, OUP 2023).
• National Research Council, Deterrence and the Death Penalty (National Academies Press 2012).
• Death Penalty Information Center, The Death Penalty in 2024: Facts and Figures (DPIC 2024).
• B Garrett, End of Its Rope: How Killing the Death Penalty Can Revive Criminal Justice (Harvard UP 2017).
• Innocence Project, DNA Exonerations in the United States (Innocence Project Report 2023).
• S Gross et al, ‘Rate of False Conviction among Death Sentenced Defendants in the United States’ (2014) 111 PNAS 7230.
• Justice Project Pakistan, Death Row’s Living Hell (JPP Report 2022).
• Amrican Civil Liberties Union, Race and the Death Penalty (ACLU 2023).
• Project 39A, Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics 2023 (National Law University Delhi 2024).
• UN Human Rights Council, Moving Away from the Death Penalty: Lessons in South-East Asia (UNHRC 2022).
• N Bojosi, ‘The Death Row Phenomenon and the Prohibition Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment’ (2004) 2 AHRLJ 303.
• Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1 (India SC).
• US Department of Justice, Capital Punishment, 2023 – Statistical Tables (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2024).
• J Donohue, ‘An Empirical Evaluation of the Death Penalty: Panel Data Evidence from the United States’ (2020) 11 Am Law Econ Rev 249.
• Furman v Georgia 408 US 238 (1972).
• Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 (India SC).
• Vatheeswaran v State of Tamil Nadu (1983) 2 SCC 68 (India SC).
• Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, State of Human Rights in 2023 (HRCP 2024).