To err is human has long been used as gentle phrase to represent the humans are destined to make mistakes. With no doubt the mistakes are the integral part of the life, however when it comes to committing the mistakes which can and sometimes does harm the society, law takes it's curse of action and decides whether the person that has harmed the society should be rewarded the punishment. This whole mechanism works as a flexible architecture to make sure that the criminals are kept away from society as well as ensuring that people are discouraged to take any action that is against the society. There is a universal acceptance of this way of governance to make society crime free one day.
However, the punishment that an offender can get should include the taking the life of guilty? This has for long been subjected to debate. There have been liberals who call it anti society while there exists the conservatives who see capital punishment as a tool to "cleanse" society. History is full of examples where almost all the regime whether in east or in west has extensively used to crush any uprising against the crown, it includes some very barbaric methods, typically in England where the person is first partially hanged and then diesected and his organs burned in front of ailing eyes of dissenter. This sinister attitude was earlier associated with the imperialism. However this soon turned out to be a myth, as the republic France used the death penalties so excessively that all the modern English dictionaries now has a word "guillotine".
With the advancement of the society and gradual development of the liberal view started seeing capital punishment as savage, the main reasoning of the liberals are that since humans can not create a life, it has no right to take it either, another school of thought believes that every one deserves another chance in life, since the offence has already been done, executing anyone would not remedy the loss, rather person be given a chance to rectify it's mistakes. There have been many countries which has taken action to repeal the death penalty, mostly western Europe is a indefatigable advocate of removing death penalty. EU has taken a tough stance that it even did not extradite a person accused to a country where he can be awarded death penalty. New Zeland, Australia the league of such nations are going long with every year.
While there exists the liberal thought, still there are states which extensively uses death penalty in their law enforcement system. The typical examples are United states of America and China, the world two largest economies and super powers. USA executes a criminal if it is proved that action of the person have initiated the war on state, it also uses it in the cases of brutal murder. It is claimed that the frequent death penalty awarded to those who attacked the Muslims after 9/11 have saved many from a black lash. The case of China is however not so neat; it has in past used to execute the political prisoners and the dissenting voices. There also exists some African nation which employ death penalty for homosexuality, the likes of Zimbabwe.
In terms of India, the constitution has laid down that death penalty can be used in certain cases which include treason, wagging war against the nation, murder, act of terror and recently added in case of a plane Hijack. Supreme court, as a interpreter of constitution has unequivocally stated though the death penalty must be used as a last resort, the quote used by supreme court "rarest of the rare" Casar has been religiously followed by the Indian judiciary. The capital punishment in India has been used rarely, there are handful of people who have been executed for their sins. Last person to be executed was named as Dhnanjay that too some year back for raping and subsequently murdering a teenage girl.
There is however, a thumb rule about the law, that is; it has to keep track on all the changes that are taking place in society, since it is only meant for the society. The capital punishment is also the same, with the globalisation on; there arise a need of having uniformity across the worlds, even in terms of law; however then again; with the terrorism a strict law was required to comact it's growing threat. Hence one country, typically India ought to have strict punishment for the heinous crimes, reason being it is one of the most eyed target of the religious fanatics who export terrorists. It has long been argued by the advocates of death penalty.
Thus, to completely remove the death penalty, there should bee an proper alternative punishment, everyone is unanimous of it being the "life imprisonment"; in fact the western countries which have abolished the death penalty uses life imprisonment as a alternative tool, in these countries life imprisonment is essentially means imprisonment for life. This however is not the case in India, where the judge decided it on the case bt case basis but the criminal convicted in life term is eligible for a parole and are released generally after 14 years. Hence to remove the capital punishment, the first step forward to make life imprisonment more full proof.
Still should convicted of heinous criminals not awarded death penalty ? answers to this question can perhaps not be a straight Yes or No. It depends on the case by case basis, even the most buoyant supporter of repealing of capital punishment would disagree if the criminals the likes of Ajmal Kasab are let off. India being fiercely targeted by both internal and external threats could only afford to make death penalty more stringent but can not truly repeal it. The presence of a judiciary which has been pretty reluctant to uses death penalty already has ensued that there would be no such misuse of the punishment.
Death Penalty is very much like possesing the nuclear weapons, they are evil but necessary, one must not use it as long as the water is below the nose. Indian policy has so far been pretty consistent on the above lines.
