What's new

Every country should have a death penalty

srh

Senior T20I Player
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Runs
18,288
Some crimes are so heinous that their punishment should be only death. For example this guy who committed mass murder of innocents at a religious place in New Zealand. It feels stupid that you don't give these guys a death penalty and instead keep them alive in jail and tax payers bear the living expenses of those guys. :facepalm:
 
Absolutely agree. Not just a death penalty, but a public spectacle so that everyone can see what happens to murderers. In the case of the NZ murderer, I would feed him to a pack of lions and live stream it for the world to see. An alternative would be to use the person, while alive, for medical research and experimentation. At least some good might come of them in that way.
 
Every country should have death penalty for mass murderers, child molesters and rapists.
 
Absolutely agree. Not just a death penalty, but a public spectacle so that everyone can see what happens to murderers. In the case of the NZ murderer, I would feed him to a pack of lions and live stream it for the world to see. An alternative would be to use the person, while alive, for medical research and experimentation. At least some good might come of them in that way.

These punishments would be barbaric and sadistic, actions that would be worthy of the killer himself. That’s the moral conundrum with the death penalty.

I would add, with regards to the cost, that in the US their Death Row inmates spend an average of 15 years in prison anyway, and sometimes much longer. NZ being an equally famed county of “tolerant western values”, that average of 15 years would potentially be even longer.
 
These punishments would be barbaric and sadistic, actions that would be worthy of the killer himself. That’s the moral conundrum with the death penalty.

I would add, with regards to the cost, that in the US their Death Row inmates spend an average of 15 years in prison anyway, and sometimes much longer. NZ being an equally famed county of “tolerant western values”, that average of 15 years would potentially be even longer.

I am not sure that putting someone to death for mass murder is the same thing as the mass murder itself. The fact that it is savage is the whole point - it is meant to serve as a deterrent. I think it would be a more effective deterrent than a comfortable prison stint at tax payer's expense.
 
The theory behind the death penalty is deterrence.

However stats prove that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. Criminals will continue to kill and smuggle drugs. USA and SA are prime examples.

Saying this, in the developed world, criminals can escape the death penalty based on evidence; unlike in some parts of the world where talking a cow for a walk results in instant death.
 
I am against the death penalty. You can make a case that life in prison is worse than death. I personally would choose death over being locked in a cell for the rest of my life.
 
Its too easy for them. I'd lock them up in a small cell for the rest of their miserable lives.
 
I am against the death penalty. You can make a case that life in prison is worse than death. I personally would choose death over being locked in a cell for the rest of my life.

In most countries life imprisonment means 14-20 years in jail and then you are out, possibly sooner based on good behaviour.


You think a person who molested children will not go back to his evil ways after being released?
 
In most countries life imprisonment means 14-20 years in jail and then you are out, possibly sooner based on good behaviour.


You think a person who molested children will not go back to his evil ways after being released?

If they think think they could get away with it, I'm sure many would. However you can create laws to protect children. For example in America, we have the sex offender list, where they have to register in some cases for the rest of their life. Once they are on the list they cant live near a school, they need to update their home and work address with the police every year, their neighbors usually find out. I think that's a big enough punishment, along with the prison time.
 
Why should people who destroy family's childhoods and lives be able to live and have a comfortable room watch TV read magazines work out in gym get 3 meals a day at the expense of tax payer. These people should be executed ASAP anyone thinking otherwise is stupid with this so called forward human rights crap.
 
Can death by torture by an option? Lock up monsters like these in a small with a rabid dog.
 
Some crimes are so heinous that their punishment should be only death. For example this guy who committed mass murder of innocents at a religious place in New Zealand. It feels stupid that you don't give these guys a death penalty and instead keep them alive in jail and tax payers bear the living expenses of those guys. :facepalm:

That would mean that justice is based on revenge not mercy and rehabilitation, where the state is as much a murderer as the terrorist.
 
In most countries life imprisonment means 14-20 years in jail and then you are out, possibly sooner based on good behaviour.

To give them some reason to change their behaviour.

But in the U.K. every murder carries a whole-life tariff. The offender may be bailed but will be returned to jail thereafter for the slightest offence.


You think a person who molested children will not go back to his evil ways after being released?

Yes, sometimes. Some such offenders are recidivist and others are reformed.
 
That would mean that justice is based on revenge not mercy and rehabilitation, where the state is as much a murderer as the terrorist.

On the flip side of the argument what would 'justice' be in this particular case? The dead cant be brought back to life and the families destroyed cant be reunited. Maybe the loved ones of the victims feel that only death penalty would be justice in this case?
 
Mass killers should be punished every day until they die. Getting the death penalty is the easy way out.
 
I absolutely support death penalty, not because of justice served or deterrence or anything but more because, I don't want my tax money going to subsidize certain things.

If someone is evil enough to orchestrate flying planes into a building, raping/killing women or children, mass murdering innocents in a place of worship ... do we want our hard earned tax dollars going to subsidize their meals+cable tv+comfy life? Heck no!

Plus, posts above raise a good point. Alternative to death penalty is life without parole, which is effectively enforced in the US and the bad guy/gal never gets out. But in many countries "life sentence" is only 14-20 years. If the crime is bad enough then even minors will be tried as adults in the US, which is how it should be. Think about that 16/17 year old main perp in the 2012 Delhi gang rape ... does he deserve to live? Sadly he is enjoying life and freedom now thanks to India trying him as a minor and letting him go scot free.

So many loopholes in the system without death penalty. I would say a non-barbaric mode of death penalty followed by mandatory donation of organs and mandatory use of the body for medical research is an optimal solution.
 
These punishments would be barbaric and sadistic, actions that would be worthy of the killer himself. That’s the moral conundrum with the death penalty.

I would add, with regards to the cost, that in the US their Death Row inmates spend an average of 15 years in prison anyway, and sometimes much longer. NZ being an equally famed county of “tolerant western values”, that average of 15 years would potentially be even longer.
Why you are ok with wasting tax payers money for 15 years?
 
On the flip side of the argument what would 'justice' be in this particular case? The dead cant be brought back to life and the families destroyed cant be reunited. Maybe the loved ones of the victims feel that only death penalty would be justice in this case?

And then the family of the killer is bereaved too. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
 
Sometimes it's not enough.

The white christian terrorist who murdered people in the mosque deserves more than a death penalty. Being a Muslim the death penalty would simply be a ticket to his real punishment. Only God can give justice and he will.
 
And then the family of the killer is bereaved too. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

The problem I have with this point of view is that justice is not only about deterrence but also about compensating the aggrieved party for its loss. In cases of corruption or financial irregularities, in addition to punishing the accused, the most important aspect of justice is the recovery of the financial losses suffered by the victims or the society in general. If someone steals something from me, the first requirement of justice is not that he be punished but that my stolen property be returned to me. Debates about capital punishment however often reduce justice to exclusively to deterrence or rehabilitation and ignore this aspect. If the only way that the victims can be compensated for their loss is by awarding death penalty to a murderer, then so be it.

An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind but forgiving the person who blinded me should be my voluntary decision and not something the legal system forces me to do.
 
The problem I have with this point of view is that justice is not only about deterrence but also about compensating the aggrieved party for its loss. In cases of corruption or financial irregularities, in addition to punishing the accused, the most important aspect of justice is the recovery of the financial losses suffered by the victims or the society in general. If someone steals something from me, the first requirement of justice is not that he be punished but that my stolen property be returned to me. Debates about capital punishment however often reduce justice to exclusively to deterrence or rehabilitation and ignore this aspect. If the only way that the victims can be compensated for their loss is by awarding death penalty to a murderer, then so be it.

An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind but forgiving the person who blinded me should be my voluntary decision and not something the legal system forces me to do.

That’s mixing statute law (punishment by the state) with common law (compensation of a party who is owed a tort by another). That’s the British system, so it will be the NZ system too.

As for forgiveness see that poor bereaved man who has already forgiven the shooter in NZ and wants to embrace him. Forgiveness takes away the other’s power over you. That man is a saint!
 
Mianwal Ranjha, Pakistan – When the judge read out a sentence of death, 17-year-old Muhammad Iqbal could scarcely believe it, and reached out for his brother.

As guards converged upon him to escort him away from the courtroom and back to prison, the teenager was desperate to speak to his family.

“The words ‘sentenced to death’, I didn’t know much at that time about appeals and everything else,” he recalls, sitting on a rope bed in the winter sunshine in his native Mandi Bahauddin, in central Pakistan. “I thought they were going to execute me [right then].

“My brother was in the courtroom at the time of the verdict, I called to him, to see him one last time and to say goodbye to him.”

Iqbal, now 39, would spend 21 years on death row before a court ruled earlier this year that he had been sentenced incorrectly, commuting his sentence and releasing him on June 30.

During his trial, where he was convicted for murder, he says he was largely unaware of how the legal proceedings functioned, a concern that is emblematic of fair trial concerns in a country where the death penalty is applied widely, according to lawyers and activists.


Pakistan is one of 56 countries worldwide who retain the use of the death penalty in law and practice. In 2019, it continued to hold the world’s largest recorded death row population, with more than 4,225 people awaiting execution, according to rights group Amnesty International.

Pakistan’s penal code carries the death penalty for at least 33 crimes, ranging from murder, gang rape and kidnapping to blasphemy, adultery, treason and various narcotics charges. The Pakistani government is currently considering a proposal to expand the use of the penalty and to add public hanging as a form of execution.

“The reason [for expanding the scope for rape cases] is that there is no deterrence,” says Faisal Javed Khan, a senator for the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party. “We want severe punishments for rapists because there is no deterrence whatsoever.”

In 2019, Pakistan held the record for the most death sentences handed out by its court system, with more than 632 convicts sentenced to death, which is 27.3 percent of all death sentences worldwide, according to Amnesty’s data.

For prisoners like Iqbal, accused of murder, the problems begin right from the moment of arrest.

‘Needed to escape that hell’
“They tortured me, telling me to confess to the crime,” he says, of the days after he was arrested by police in connection with a robbery near his home in which a man was killed.


“Under torture, I confessed that I had done it, I was so desperate that I accepted responsibility for it. I just needed to escape that hell somehow.”

Pakistani police deny the use of torture officially, but rights groups have documented its routine use by police across the country, particularly in cases of violent crime.

Iqbal, whose family owns a small farm where they grow rice, wheat and fodder for their five buffaloes, did not have the resources, or knowledge of the justice system, to hire a competent lawyer, and his trial was conducted swiftly, taking no note of his allegations of a confession obtained under torture.

“I had […] the kind of lawyer who just files 13 bail applications a day. My father didn’t have the money to hire anyone else,” he says.

“He never met me. I only saw him many months later during a hearing, to know that this man is my lawyer.”

Access to the right lawyer, in a justice system like Pakistan’s, where a case depends greatly on proceedings at the trial court level, can be the difference between life and death, say experts.


“It really does make a huge difference – if you have a committed lawyer or if you have a lawyer who knows the judges, which comes with a heavy price tag,” says Reema Omer, South Asia legal adviser for the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).

“Who you are plays a huge role in the kinds of lawyers you will get, how quickly the case is decided, the kind of facilities you get in prison, and whether you are even aware of your rights as an accused or a convict.”

Play Video
The Pakistani legal system mandates the right to a legal defence for those who cannot afford lawyers, but does not state guidelines or qualifications for lawyers to be appointed by the state.

“The majority of people on death row are from indigent backgrounds and so they have state-appointed counsels,” says Sarah Belal, executive director of legal aid organisation Justice Project Pakistan (JPP).

“That state counsel has no money to do investigations, he never meets you, he gets the file a few days before [the hearing] and goes and argues the case. There is no minimum standard applied for what effective legal representation means.”

For many death row convicts, Iqbal says, that results in a situation where they have never spoken to their lawyers during the trial, and are often unaware of what the charges against them are, or their fundamental legal rights.


“There are some people who don’t even know when their case is being heard,” says Iqbal, of prisoners he was jailed with. “Elderly parents, their child in jail, who have no idea that there is a hearing or that they need to get a lawyer.”

At one stage, Iqbal says, his appeal had been suspended pending a response from a lower court, but his lawyer told his father that the appeal had been rejected.

For almost a decade, as he remained on death row, Iqbal believed that this was the case, and his family pursued the matter no further.

‘Felt my life had ended’
“In Punjabi we have a saying: ‘Even the most friendly dog, if you tie it up it will go mad’,” says Iqbal, of the mental toll that being on death row takes.

“It makes a man more irritable and makes you very frustrated. Any person who has been a victim of injustice, he starts to think that even those working for his betterment are trying to cheat him.”

Death row prisoners in Pakistan are held in cells that are, on average, roughly eight feet (2.4 metres) wide by 10 feet (three metres) long, with at least five prisoners held to a single cell.

Conditions, Iqbal says, are difficult.

“There was just one daal, [and] it was black as night. Other than two times in the week … that was all that was cooked,” he says.

“Sometimes I would even find insects crawling in it.”

Pakistani prisons have separate sections for those sentenced to death.

“We would be shut in the cell for 23 hours a day,” says Iqbal, who was incarcerated in three different prisons during his 22 years in jail. “Half an hour in the morning and half an hour in the evening, we would be let out, but with handcuffs on.”

“In my experience, from the morning until the early afternoon, you are passing your life in routine. You can [pass the time], or speak to other people, or someone new comes in or someone leaves.”

He pauses, his eyes darting from left to right.

“But when the jail is shut, and no one is entering or leaving, that’s a very heavy time for a convict. You spend it just thinking. Thinking about where you are trapped, what will happen to you.”

In 2016, a prison officer came to his cell on one such afternoon, informing him that death warrants had been issued for his execution, in four days’ time. He was swiftly shifted to another prison, one equipped with a gallows to carry out the sentence.

“I had fought so many cases, so many writ [petitions], so many appeals, thinking that through some appeal or writ my voice would be heard. I felt like my life had ended.”


He was escorted to a small cell, where he was alone, and under strict guard to prevent him from doing any possible harm to himself.

“The time passed very slowly,” he says. “Each day felt like a year. It was very difficult. The nights felt very long, and the days felt long as well.”

Hours before he was due to be executed, the Supreme Court issued a stay of execution, as it considered a petition lodged by his lawyers.

‘I had stopped climbing’
Pakistan’s Supreme Court is the court of final appeal in the country’s justice system, and hears dozens of cases a day. Lawyers and activists say the country’s overloaded justice system places a huge burden on the higher courts to overturn trial court verdicts that may be faulty due to inadequate police investigation, faulty evidence or incompetent legal representation.

Omer, the adviser at the ICJ, says the legal system does not have clear sentencing guidelines or standards for when the death penalty is to be applied.

“Judges have taken polar opposite positions, with some judges who believe that the death penalty should be the norm in the murder cases, while other judges have said it should only be applied in serious aggravating circumstances,” she says.


“It’s very problematic because the justice system should be a lot more consistent and you should be able to predict the penalty someone is given. In death penalty cases, it’s crazy, because it’s a case of someone’s life.”

According to a 2019 report by rights group Reprieve, prepared in consultation with Pakistani legal aid organisation the Foundation for Fundamental Rights (FFR), an overwhelming majority of capital cases are either overturned or commuted on appeal at the Supreme Court [File: Akhtar Soomro/Reuters]
Belal, of JPP, agrees that there is a lack of standardisation of how the law is applied in capital cases.
“Trial court is like breakfast, it’s like the most important meal of the day. They are the most important forum. They have the time and ability to hear all the evidence and call all the witnesses. You need to invest more in ensuring that we have better standards for the trial court.”

The data on criminal proceedings in capital cases appears to bear out the assertion that trial courts in Pakistan often get it wrong.

According to a 2019 report by rights group Reprieve, prepared in consultation with Pakistani legal aid organisation the Foundation for Fundamental Rights (FFR), an overwhelming majority of capital cases are either overturned or commuted on appeal at the Supreme Court.

From a dataset of 310 capital crime cases heard by the Supreme Court between 2010 and 2018, Reprieve and FFR found that 73 percent resulted in acquittals, commutations or orders for a review by the lower court.

In 2018, the latest year included in the dataset, the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty in only three percent of cases.

For Iqbal, whose sentence was commuted in February ahead of his release later in the year, the intervention of the high court was something he could scarcely believe.

“My mind couldn’t accept it, that my case had really changed,” he says. “Because look, a man is constantly beaten down, beaten down, and he keeps climbing, keeps climbing in the belief that he will reach the top of the mountain eventually.

“At that time, I was exhausted, and I had stopped climbing.”

He spent his last day in prison on June 30, before he walked out into freedom.

One thing, he says, stood out for him, and continues to fascinate him every day.

“It was amazing, to see the open sky. I have spent most of my life within a few feet, and when I came out I felt like I was seeing the open sky for the first time in my life.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/...s-plague-worlds-largest-death-row-in-pakistan
 
Last edited:
I fully support death penalty for certain crimes. There is nothing wrong with it.
 
Last edited:
The Trump administration has carried out its 13th federal execution since July - the most of any presidency in more than 100 years.

Dustin Higgs was convicted of murdering three women in a Maryland wildlife refuge in 1996.
 
I am shocked to know that Capital Punishment still exists in USA. Thought it was scrapped all over the developed World.

USA executes more people than third world countries like India.
 
Islamabad, Pakistan – In a landmark verdict, Pakistan’s Supreme Court has ruled that imposing the death penalty on prisoners living with a serious mental illness, particularly those who do not understand the nature of the punishment, “will not meet the ends of justice”.

The ruling was issued by the Supreme Court on Wednesday after the five-member bench had earlier reserved its verdict in the appeals of three prisoners living with mental illnesses against their convictions.

“[W]e hold that if a condemned prisoner, due to mental illness, is found to be unable to comprehend the rationale and reason behind his/her punishment, then carrying out the death sentence will not meet the ends of justice,” reads the judgement, which effectively bans the use of the death penalty for those living with a serious mental illness.

Pakistan is one of the most prolific users of the death penalty worldwide and is home to the world’s largest recorded death row.

In 2019, there were more than 4,225 people on death row in the country, according to rights group Amnesty International’s annual report on the use of the death penalty.

Pakistan’s penal code carries the death penalty for more than 33 crimes, ranging from murder, gang rape and kidnapping to blasphemy and adultery.

In 2019, the country’s courts handed down more than 632 death sentences, which is 27.3 percent of all death sentences worldwide that year, according to Amnesty’s data.

Wednesday’s verdict was welcomed by rights groups as protecting the rights of those considered vulnerable to the misuse of the justice system.

“[Human Rights Commission of Pakistan] welcomes today’s Supreme Court judgement recognising that prisoners with a mental illness are among the most vulnerable and cannot in good conscience be executed,” said the country’s leading rights group in a statement.

Others lauded the provisions within the verdict that necessitate the updating of language in Pakistan’s penal code and further sensitisation training for jail and police authorities on the issue of mental illness.

“The judgement marks a new chapter in the jurisprudence of dealing with mentally ill prisoners. It pivots the focus from retributive justice to rehabilitative care,” said Sarah Belal, executive director of rights group Justice Project Pakistan, which represents all three prisoners in the case.

“The judgement is a landmark because it not only deliberates on specific cases but also on the infrastructure needed to improve mental healthcare in prisons while with calling for sensitised and updated language,” she told Al Jazeera.

Exemption has conditions

Wednesday’s verdict was reached after years of deliberation by the Supreme Court over the issue of prisoners living with a mental illness on death row.

In 2016, a different Supreme Court bench ruled that schizophrenia is “not a permanent mental disorder” and therefore patients did not deserve clemency under Pakistan’s criminal justice laws.

The 2021 verdict now dictates that provincial authorities must constitute boards of medical professionals to ascertain the mental health of prisoners who appeal based on mental health issues.

The Supreme Court order says not all prisoners with mental illnesses will be considered exempt from the application of the death penalty.

t is clarified that not every mental illness shall automatically qualify for an exemption from carrying out the death sentence,” reads the verdict.

“This exemption will be applicable only in that case where a Medical Board consisting of mental health professionals, certifies after a thorough examination and evaluation that the condemned prisoner no longer has the higher mental functions to appreciate the rationale and reasons behind the sentence of death awarded to him/her.”

The case was taken up around the appeals of three death row prisoners who suffer from mental illness.

Imdad Ali, 57, spent 18 years on death row after being convicted for fatally shooting a religious teacher and had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

Kanizan Bibi was arrested in 1989 and sentenced to death two years later for the murder of six people, a charge she denied. She is said to suffer from severe schizophrenia, and her lawyers say she has not spoken a word out loud in decades.

Ghulam Abbas was convicted in 2006 for the murder of his neighbour in the northern city of Rawalpindi, and is also said to suffer from schizophrenia.

In Ali’s case, the court ruled that the trial judge had taken a “slipshod approach” to determining the effect of any mental illness on the case and that his court-appointed lawyer at the appeals stage had also not raised the issue. The verdict has commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment.

In Bibi’s case, too, the court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. Both Ali and Bibi are to be moved to a government-run mental health facility.

In Abbas’s case, the court did not commute his sentence but directed prison authorities to file a new presidential pardon petition explicitly mentioning his mental health condition. Abbas, too, will be moved to a government-run mental health facility.

Welcome move

Belal, the lawyer for the three prisoners, said the move to a mental health facility was welcome.

“Spending years in incarceration and on death row can have a profound effect on someone’s mental health, let alone someone who already has psychosocial disabilities,” she said.

“Imdad’s illness, in particular, is quite acute and will require a considerable amount of time to manage. But we are hopeful Kanizan can return home fairly soon.”

Rights group Amnesty hailed the verdict as “historic”.

“This historic precedent puts a stop to the execution of other prisoners with similar conditions, many of whom have yet to be diagnosed,” said Amnesty’s South Asia Campaigner Rimmel Mohydin.

“However, ultimately the death penalty itself must be abolished, and we urge Pakistan to re-establish an official moratorium on all executions as a first step in that direction.”

Al Jazeera
 
Death penalty will not yield anything for the victims family. Make the criminal work his entire life, but give him peanuts for his efforts and give the rest to the victims family.
 
Absolutely.

How can the families of the victims sleep at night, knowing that the killer of their loved one is living, breathing and possibly roaming the streets?

They'll never see their loved one ever again, but yet this person still exists?

Tragic and complete injustice to those that have lost their life and will never be seen again.
 
My problem with the death penalty isn't that there aren't crimes worthy of being punishable by death, it's that even if it one innocent person is executed, it doesn't seem worth it. I guess it should only be used in cases where there is absolute evidence, such as video of the crime being committed, or a confession.
 
Death penalty will not yield anything for the victims family. Make the criminal work his entire life, but give him peanuts for his efforts and give the rest to the victims family.

This. It also removes the concept of tax payers bearing the burden to support these criminals in prison for the entirety of their sentence.
 
I used to be in favour of the death penalty. But not now. Because it's too quick.

Instead, the perpetrator should be made to live a life of misery and extremely hard work. They should not be deliberately tortured, but be provided with very basic amounts of food to sustain themselves, and without recourse to pain killers or other medicines when ill. They should not be executed, but live a long life in the manner described above, and die of natural causes.
 
Absolutely agree. Not just a death penalty, but a public spectacle so that everyone can see what happens to murderers. In the case of the NZ murderer, I would feed him to a pack of lions and live stream it for the world to see. An alternative would be to use the person, while alive, for medical research and experimentation. At least some good might come of them in that way.

Society would become more violent, not less. If the state can use excessive force that permits the citizens to do the same.

As society has become kinder, and punishment is now based on tough love instead of revenge, there is less violent crime.
 
where there is unequivocal evidence that someone has killed someone else they should be sentenced to death to be carried out immediately.

i don't see it as a matter of deterrence, or rehabilitation. an adult who kills someone else does not deserve freedom ever again, and does not deserve to have their incarceration (often running into the decades) paid for by the state (i think the cost is around £40,000 a year).

the finality of taking someones life can only be balanced by the finality of the perpetrator losing theirs, and if they are sentenced to death they are commanding resources that could otherwise be used for the betterment of other peoples lives.
 
South Carolina has brought back the firing squad as a method of execution, making it one of the few US states where it is lawful to carry out a death sentence in that manner.

According to the state Department of Corrections, it will be possible for inmates on death row to choose to be shot among three execution options.

The death penalty was reintroduced in the US in 1977 following a 10-year pause, during which the Supreme Court attempted to address the legal questions around the issue.

According to the DPIC, at least 186 people who have been sentenced to death in the US were later exonerated as a result of improper convictions, 100 of whom were black.

The last person in the US to be executed by firing squad was Ronnie Lee Gardner in 2010, a 49-year-old who killed a man while attempting to escape from a courthouse in 1985.

South Carolina's last execution was in 2011, of 36-year-old Jeffrey Motts who was put to death by lethal injection for murdering a cellmate in 2005.

The US reinstated the death penalty in 1977 since when more than 1,540 people have been executed. More than a third of these executions, 575, have been in Texas, while 43 have been in South Carolina.

There are currently 35 inmates on death row in the state.

According to a press release, the death chamber at the state's prison has been updated with a firing squad metal chair, as well as protective equipment and bullet-resistant glass to separate the witness room.

The release said the firing squad members would be volunteer correctional employees who must meet specified qualifications.

SKY
 
There is a need of having death sentence for certain crimes , like a criminal jurisprudence, says rarest of rare crimes. Some kind of crime deserves death sentence.
 
My problem with the death penalty isn't that there aren't crimes worthy of being punishable by death, it's that even if it one innocent person is executed, it doesn't seem worth it. I guess it should only be used in cases where there is absolute evidence, such as video of the crime being committed, or a confession.

Yes , off course after proper evidence.
 
Pakistan has voted against the draft resolution calling for a moratorium on the capital punishment but a body of the UN General Assembly passed it anyway arguing that the death sentence was against the principles of human rights.

In Pakistan, the moratorium on the death sentence was imposed in 2008.
Advertisement

No executions were carried out from 2009 to 2011, with one in 2012 and none in 2013.

The moratorium was lifted after 149 people, including 132 schoolchildren, of the Army Public School, Peshawar, embraced martyrdom in a terrorist attack in December 2014.

Pakistan carried out seven executions in 2014, 326 in 2015, 87 in 2016, 65 in 2017, and 14 in 2018.

The 193-member UNGA's third committee, which deals with social, humanitarian and cultural issues, gave the nod to the draft resolution by casting 126 votes in its favour against the 37 that opposed it. There were 24 abstentions.

The UNGA would call on member states to “progressively restrict use of capital punishment, ensure that it is not applied on the basis of discriminatory laws, improve conditions in detention and establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty”.

The draft would come up for the UNGA’s endorsement next month.

“Justice systems are run by humans and are therefore exposed to mistakes and aggravated by social stigmas and political pressure, particularly in countries with no independent judiciary,” read a statement issued by the European Union.

“The death penalty primarily affects poorer persons and those belonging to marginalised groups,” it added.

After some countries called the draft flawed in an attempt to reinterpret existing human rights instruments, it was adopted following the approval of an amendment, which bagged 103 votes in favour of it against 68 members who opposed it.

There were a total of 13 abstentions.

The amendment affirmed “the sovereign right of all countries to develop their own legal systems, including determining appropriate legal penalties, in accordance with their international law obligations”.

Pakistan voted in favour of the amendment. However, it voted against the draft resolution.

The Pakistani delegate present there said while the amendment had been adopted, Islamabad did not agree with the overall framework of the draft resolution and therefore voted against it.

Maintaining that there was no consensus for or against the death penalty, he said every State had an inalienable right to decide its own laws.

The Pakistani delegate recalled that the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights allowed the capital punishment in a manner consistent with a State’s law and judicial processes.

“[The] death penalty, when applied in accordance with due process of law and judicial safeguards, does not infringe on any other human right,” the Pakistani delegate said.

“The right to life must be protected for the victims of horrific and most serious crimes as well,” he added.

Pakistan’s national legislation was in line with international human rights law, and the death penalty is only applied after adhering to the full due process of law, pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court, and with the right to seek pardon or appeal for commutation, the delegate concluded.


(With input from APP)
 
Saudi Arabia has executed 12 people in 10 days for drug offences after a two-year hiatus, according to a rights organisation.

The spate of executions - most of which are beheadings with a sword - is part of a wider trend that suggests the country is on track for a record year of executions despite Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman previously vowing to reduce the use of such punishments.

The defendants, all males, were sentenced to death after being imprisoned on non-violent drug charges. Three were Pakistani, four Syrian, two Jordanian and three Saudi. Another man from Jordan is believed to have been transferred to the wing for executions on Friday.

That brings the total number of people executed this year to at least 132, exceeding those of 2020 and 2021 combined.

Reprieve, which gathered the data on this week’s executions, said the killings point to a worrying trend after promises by Saudi’s rulers to reform its punitive justice system.

In 2018, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said his administration had tried to “minimise” capital punishment with only those found guilty of murder or manslaughter being subject to capital punishment.

“His Majesty, the King, doesn’t wake up and just sign whatever he wants to sign. He works by the law, by the book,” he told Time Magazine.

In 2020, there were further hints of a softening on non-violent crime after Saudi Arabia proposed to change the law to end the death penalty for drug and other non-violent offences after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...sedgntp&cvid=ad5e4f28673e4e65a6ca73d273d6b62b
 
What do you think is the best way?

Hanging is the least painful way or one of the least which can be done in any age or location. Lethal injection is prob even less but may not be available to all.

This new method in the US, caused horrific pain and suffering. Some may say he deserved it , fair point but the aim isnt torture but execution.

After this first disaster, you'd think they would stop this but a couple of dozen more already in the pipeline.

American society sadly has too many who love misery, pain and death.
 
Hanging is the least painful way or one of the least which can be done in any age or location. Lethal injection is prob even less but may not be available to all.

This new method in the US, caused horrific pain and suffering. Some may say he deserved it , fair point but the aim isnt torture but execution.

After this first disaster, you'd think they would stop this but a couple of dozen more already in the pipeline.

American society sadly has too many who love misery, pain and death.
American society are full of Evil people….
 
The state should kill so that normal people don't have to. Death penalty is a must. Western society has been decaying because they gave up on the ideals which made them great.
 
Back
Top