Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the killing of a person as punishment for a crime. While some countries have abolished it, others still practice capital punishment for serious crimes. This document discusses perspectives on the ethics of capital punishment and examples of its application and impact. It notes that while some argue it serves as a deterrent or just retribution, others believe it is inhumane or risks executing innocent people. The document examines specific cases where innocent people may have been wrongly executed. It also analyzes how politicians can influence death penalty cases for political gain rather than justice alone. In less than 3 sentences.

1. ETHICALAPPROACH OF
CAPITALPUNISHMENT
By Samax

2. Capital Punishment
• Capital punishment is the
killing of a person as a
punishment for an offense.
Crimes that can result in a
death penalty are known as
capital crimes or capital
offences.

3. The Death Penalty Worldwide
Brown = DP only for times of war
Orange = DP for adult offenders
Red = DP for adult and juvenile offenders
Dark blue = Abolition
Light blue = No DP in 10 yrs

4. Where Countries Stand
Total abolition in law or practice: 140
• for all crimes: 97
• for ordinary crimes only: 8
• in practice: 35
Retention: 58
• Top five executors in 2011: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and
the USA

5. India Statistics based on national
crime records bureau
• According to a December 13, 2012 report, 477 people were on death row in
India. Between 2001 and 2011, an average of 132 death sentences were
handed down each year.
• The Supreme Court confirms barely 3 to 4 death sentences each year.
• The last execution to take place in India was the July 30, 2015 hanging of
Yakub Memon, convicted of financing the 1993 Mumbai bombing.
• India voted against abolishing death penalty in UN moratorium. Where as
111 countries voted in favor.

6. QUESTIONS
• What is the risk that an innocent person will be executed ?
• Is capital punishment ethical or unethical ?
• Do politicians influence Capital Punishment?

7. What is the risk that an innocent person
will be executed?
The risk to an innocent person cannot be calculated but the risk
is not zero.
Since 1973, 151 people have been released from death rows throughout
the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone,
10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row.
Brief Fact !
Source – Amnesty International

9. System Failure : Error-Riddled
• 70% of all death sentences are reversed due to serious error such as:
• incompetent defense lawyers
• police or prosecutorial misconduct
• Capital trials produce so many mistakes that it takes three judicial
inspections to catch them
• Of the 2,370 death sentences thrown out due to serious error, 90% were
overturned by state judges—many were the same ones who imposed the
death sentence in the first place
(Liebman Study – Columbia Univ.)

10. System Failure : Deterrence
Of the top US academic criminological society presidents,
88% reject the notion that the death penalty acts as a
deterrent to murder.

11. System Failure : Wrongful Convictions
140 people have been released from death row due to
evidence of their innocence since 1973 (including one in
2012).
Source: Death Penalty Information Center

12. Cameron Todd Willingham
Executed in 2004
This is despite the wife’s testimony that he had never abused the children
and, in fact, “spoiled them rotten.” While laboratory tests verified that an
accelerant was used only near the front porch, the prosecutors alleged
that the fluid was deliberately poured near the front porch, children’s
bedroom, and in the hallway to start the fire and impede rescue attempts.
.
In 1991, a fire occurred at
Cameron Todd Willingham’s
home in Texas killing his three
young daughters. Willingham
escaped the fire with minor
injuries and his then-wife was not
home at the time.
Prosecutors charged Willingham
with starting the fire in an attempt
to cover up his abuse of his girls.
Case 1

13. • Gerald Hurst, who has a PhD in chemistry, reputed claims that the
extreme heat of the fire meant that an accelerant was used. The
Board of Pardons and Paroles received Hurst’s argument but still
denied Willingham clemency
• Willingham was deemed an “extremely severe sociopath” by a
psychiatrist using only Willingham’s Iron Maiden and Led Zeppelin
posters as indications of his fascination with violence and death.
• Witness testimony during the fire was contradictory and
inconclusive.
• During his trial in August 1992, Willingham was offered a life term
in exchange for a guilty plea, which he turned down insisting he
was innocent.
• Willingham was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004.
• In June 2009 the State of Texas ordered an unprecedented re-
examination of the case and may issue a ruling on it at a later
date.
Case 1

14. De Luna immediately told police that he was innocent and he offered the
name of the person who he saw at the gas station. Police ignored the fact
that he did not have a drop of blood on him even though the crime scene
was covered in blood. De Luna was arrested too soon after the crime to
clean himself up. The single eyewitness to the crime, Kevin Baker,
confirmed to police that De Luna was the murderer after police told him he
was the right guy.
Carlos De Luna
Executed in 1989
In February 1983, Wanda
Lopez, was stabbed to death
during her night shift at the gas
station where she worked.
After a brief manhunt, police
found De Luna hiding under a
pick-up truck. Recently released
from prison, he was violating his
parole by drinking in public.
Case 2

15. • At trial De Luna named Carlos Hernandez as the man he saw
inside the gas station, across the street from the bar where De
Luna had been drinking.
• Hernandez and DeLuca were strikingly similar in appearance
but, unlike DeLuca, Hernandez had a long history of knife
attacks similar to the convenience store killing and repeatedly
told friends and relatives that he had committed the murder.
• Friends confirmed that he was romantically linked to Lopez as
well. De Luna’s lawyers knew of Hernandez’s criminal past but
never thoroughly investigated his previous crimes.
• On December 7, 1989, Texas executed 27-year old Carlos De
Luna
Case 2

16. Utilitarian..
factors Happy/Unhappy Reason Utility
Victim Wanda Lopez Unhappy Injustice. Low
Wanda Lopez Family Unhappy Injustice Low
Culprit – Hernandez Happy Not Punished High
Hernandez Family Happy Not Punished High
Carlos De Luna
(Innocent)
Unhappy He was Innocent Low
Carlos De Luna’s
Family
Unhappy Injustice Low
Government Unhappy Wrong Execution Low
Society Unhappy Injustice Low
Total Utility : Very Low
Total Happiness : Very Low
Case 2

17. Kantianism Analysis
• Proposed Rule: It is ethical to risk an innocent
person’s Life for the sake of continuing the
practice of capital Punishment.
• Duty: Government should fulfill the motive for
which they want to continue this Practice at any
Cost.
• 1st Imperative: If we Universalize the rule, every
innocent Person can be executed at some point,
which takes away our fundamental Right to Life
from us.
• 2nd Imperative: If we execute the innocent Person,
we are using him as a means to an end to fulfill
our motive.
UNETHICAL
Case 2

18. Capital punishment
Retention :-
• Retribution theory:- Eye for an eye make the world blind.
It brings relief for the victim’s family.
Criminal deserves punishment as retribution for his act (By John
Locke)
• Deterrence :- Deterrence is the use of punishment as a threat to deter
people from committing a crime.
Remove those who are violence prone
• Incapacitation :- Offenders should be prevented for committing
future crime.
Removal from society or by some other method that restricts their
physical ability to reoffend in some other way.

19. Abolishment
Abolishment:-
• Cost factor:-cost of capital punishment is 10 times more than life
imprisonment,
• Human right to live :- Every human has the right to decide whether to live or
die, even those who committed crimes. Capital punishment undermines
human dignity.
• Irreversible :- In many more cases, there are “near misses” in which people
are given last minute reprieves in light of new or unexamined evidence.
• Rehabilitation:- It is the re-integration into society of a convicted person and
the main objective of modern penal policy, to counter habitual offending

20. Adam Bedau for abolishment
• Bedau’s second line of argument: Capital Punishment is
Unfair
1. We are incapable of applying the death penalty fairly.
2. If something cannot be done fairly, it should not be done at
all.
3. Therefore, the death penalty should not be used.

21. Report By The Hindu

22. Kantian
• Kant advocated two principles regarding how punishment should be
administered.
• Law –
(1) People should be punished simply because they have committed crimes,
and for no other reason.
(2) Punishment should be proportionate to the crime.
• Universalize:-
It tells us that we ought to treat others always as ends, and never merely as
means. By punishing a criminal, we are respecting his ends, because we are
treating him in the way that he thinks people ought to be treated. Thus, we
are not punishing him for our own benefit , but because it is in accordance
with the principles that he has endorsed through his actions.
• Conclusion – Ethical

23. Utilitarian
• It advocates punishing as a deterrent or in order to reform criminals.
• The severity of punishment will depend on what maximizes utility.
• Utilitarian also believes that death penalty is morally acceptable
because of its benefits for the society as a whole.
factors Happy/Unhappy Reasons utility
Victim/Family
of victim
Happiness Retribution/Justice high
Culprit/Family
of culprit
Unhappiness Inhumane low
Government Happy/Neutral Deterrence high
Society More Happiness Reduce
crime/Deterrence
high

24. Does politicians influence in the Capital
Punishment?

25. Afzal Guru Case
• The UPA government does not appear to have any interest in
implementing the death sentence given to Mohammad Afzal Guru,
the main accused involved in the conspiracy behind the attack on the
Parliament House on 13th. December, 2001.
• The death sentence awarded to Afzal Guru had triggered wide-spread
protests in Kashmir. J&K politicians like Omar Abdullah of National
Conference, Ghulam Nabi Azad of the Congress and Mehbooba
Mufti of the People's Democratic Party had pleaded against hanging
Afzal Guru..
• Former Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil had said on one occasion
that hanging Afzal would prejudice India’s attempt to bring back
Sarabjit Singh, an Indian on the death row in Pakistan. His statement
on Afzal Guru had invited a lot of criticism from the media as
comparing the case of Sarabjit who is facing a death sentence in
Pakistan for allegedly being an Indian spy with that of Afzal Guru
who is an Indian sentenced to death for being the main conspirator in
the Parliament attack is totally out of place.

26. Yakub Memon Case
• Unpublished article by the late B. Raman, a respected counter-terror RAW
officer, who had led the operation to bring Memon back to India from
Pakistan in 1994.In the article written eight years ago, shortly after Memon
was sentenced, Mr. Raman said he did not believe that Memon deserved to
hang.
• The executive in its role as the active arm of the State had an important role
to play in this case. When President Pranab Mukherjee had rejected
the mercy petition of Yakub Memon twice, he did not do so in his personal
capacity. It was the government which had advised him to do so, and
Mukherjee’s decision is indeed the decision of the Narendra Modi
government. There is, however, continuity in policy. The prosecution pressed
for the death sentence of the accused when the Congress was in power in
Maharashtra and at the Centre. Government, it appears, had no compunction
in seeking the death sentence of the guilty in the Bombay Blasts Case.

27. Utility Analysis on Yakub Memon
Case
Characters Happy/Unhap
py
Reasons High/ Low
Utility
Culprits/ Family of
Culprit
Unhappy Mercy Petition filed by
Criminal.
Low Utility
Victims/ Family of
Victim
Happy Justice is given to them. High Utility
Investigating
Agencies
Unhappy Article of B. Raman
proved he was unhappy
Low Utility
Politicians Happy They are using Criminal
as a Vote bank.
High Utility
Society Unhappy Candle Light Marches
across the Country
showed their
Unhappiness.
Low Utility
UNETHICAL

28. Kantianism Analysis
• Proposed Rule: Politics influencing the decision of Capital
Punishment is ethical.
• Duty: Person should be given Punishment, what it deserves.
• 1st Imperative: If we Universalize the rule, every person will not
get the punishment he deserves because of the influence by the
Politicians and no one will believe in Justice.
• 2nd Imperative: Politicians are Using Criminals as a means to an
end i.e. for vote banks and Publicity.
UNETHICAL

29. Thank You