teggy

Before we answer that. Lets look at what Capital Punishment is and a bit of its brief history.

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital origins from Latin capitalis, literally "regarding the head" (Latin caput). Hence, a capital crime originally was to be punished by the loss of head.

Historically, the execution of criminals and political opponents was used by nearly all societies—both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent. In most places that practice capital punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as punishment for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultry, incest and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy (the formal renunciation of the State religion). In many retentionist countries (countries that use the death penalty), drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are also punished by the death penalty. In militaries around the world courts-marshal have imposed death sentences for offenses such as cowardice, desertion, insubordination, and mutiny.

[Extracts from Wikipedia]

Now, when you pick a choice as your opinion on it, please kindly explain why you chose the option you chose. I believe we can extract a lot out of this topic and should be able to spread out a spectrum of different opinions.

Credit for the Suggestion/Poll Starter: Gesto, one of our respected regular contributors in WA.

teggy

I'll start first. I have voted No, because i feel that leniency leads to rise in crime. While crimes are found in all parts of the world, there are less crimes in places which still carry and practice capital punishment.

Several surveys are available for the comparison. While the laws of some nations/states may be seen as cruel, but they deliver results as far as the decline in crime in concerned.

gesto

Thanks Teggy.Lets see how it goes.

ravage

voted no because i believe in local people making their own laws

gesto

I vote YES .

I want to approach this from Philisophical aswell as current reality angles.

I believe nobody has right to take anyone's life.(Not applicable when it comes to defending your own countries soil).

Having implemented death penalty has not helped any country to bring down it's crime rate.(Atleast I believe).For example U.S is one of the countries where maximum number of culprits are sentenced to death and sent to death(either by electrocution or by injecting lethal poison),but U.S has one of the highest criminal rates in the list of civilized,developed countries.

Britan has long ago abolished death punishment and has got a lower crime rate than U.S. It may be because of socio-cultural reasons aswell.But this is the fact.

Above all,I do not believe that by taking out one's life,you can show an example to the society and literally warn it's elements the repercussions of a bad guy's deeds.

ravage

^ you argue that the US death penalty rate is high but the crime rate is high. the penalty rate could also be high because the crime rate is high.

nonetheless even if one buys your argument.. why an international law? why not let countries decide what works for them?

aam bandha

Do you have any links to these comparisons ........ I know in US the states which dont have a death penalty have a lower homocide rates then the states having the death penalty ...... so it is not necessary that it acts as a deterent

gesto

There have been efforts to bring in an abolishment,internationally, to land mines.Again one can argue that this is at countries discretions.But as one can see,there are demands coming in from various countries ,against death sentences.

This is a changing world.We can have more transperent laws to ensure unjustified state executions are not happening

Already we have lost the lives of many innocent persons,as part of state sponsored executions.(The death sentence was abolished in Britan after it was found that an innocent person had been wrongly hanged,back in 60's. ) Let's try to find an end to it.

CM

I voted yes. Frankly a man who rapes children should not be allowed to live life. He should be hanged by his neck.

ravage

^ shouldnt you have voted no in that case?

land mines are deployed during/in preparation of wars, and most wars are international disputes. It makes sense for countries to have a moratorium on what they will and wont do when fighting each other.

i agree, the problem of innocent people being given death is one that any country with such laws has to tackle. that said this is not an international problem, since most death penalty recipients are residents of those countries, therefore an internal matter.

gesto

CM, If `NO' was your answer ,you should have `NO'-the second option.

teggy

So far, it seems most people are not in the favor of a universal law that abolishes Capital Punishment.