Opinion 
 

Opinion

By Muhammad Zaman Butt | April 2024

The theory of vengeance, or retributive theory, is one of criminology’s best-known theories of punishment and the most contentious feature of legal philosophy. This philosophy asserts that the ultimate punishment is a fitting response to heinous acts, serving as a deterrent and symbolizing society’s condemnation.

Logically, proponents argue that the death penalty acts as a powerful deterrent, dissuading potential offenders from committing capital crimes due to the fear of the ultimate consequence. It underlines the idea of retribution. For instance, if the offender violates the law, he shall be equally punished according to the given law, either municipal, international, or based on the Holy Scriptures.

Still, human rights organisations are totally against the notion that the death penalty should be retained. Apart from this, one thing is sure: if we go against nature, chaos will occur. The verse related to the punishment of retribution in the Quran is, “We ordained therein for them: A life for life, eye of eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.” Moreover, some believe retributive punishment is not the easy solution for curbing crime and maintaining societal peace.

Despite witnessing this, they added that it violates human rights and our fundamental rights, for instance, the right to life. On the flip side, we need to think, and most importantly, the point is to be noted about how we can compensate for the loss of a victim’s legal heirs. Does he not have a right to life, which is violated? Is it sufficient for the victim’s family to suffer significant loss and suffer this mental trauma?

In this circumstance, I believe that penalizing the offender is the best way to curb crime in society and relieve the victim’s family. Not only this, but it is also the best way to set an example for the citizens of society not to break the laws because its sole purpose is to prevent and deter people from resorting to lynching, blood feuds, and other forms of vigilante self-help. Secondly, if the offender knows that he’ll be executed for killing someone according to the legal system or laws based on holy scriptures, it means that neither he is afraid of such a brutal act nor needs his right to life.

Nevertheless, it is crucial to remember that there are convincing arguments against the death penalty’s continued use. The critics claim it is morally dubious, prone to error, expensive to maintain, and ineffectual as a deterrent. Regional differences in legal systems, public opinion, and cultural traditions influence people’s views on the death penalty. Several intricate, interrelated elements, such as pragmatic, ethical, and legal issues, frequently influence the decision to keep or abolish the death sentence.

However, the death penalty is the highest possible penalty awarded to a criminal, especially for those who are killers, terrorists, and hardened criminals, knowing that this results in capital punishment and still not afraid of execution (by various means, e.g., hanging, shooting by firing squad, lethal injection, etc.) for the heinous offence they commit. Particularly, criminologists and human rights activists have been striving hard for a long time to abolish it. Still, they must realize that granting fair justice to everyone and maintaining peace in society necessitates punishment for the offender for their barbaric act.


On the other side, many philosophers, criminologists, and researchers favour punishment. For instance, Jeremy Bentham, an English social reformer, jurist, and philosopher, is one of the finest proponents. Marchese Beccaria Cesare Bonesana, an Italian jurist, philosopher, and criminologist, and his views, like Jeremy Bentham’s theories, were similar. Beccaria first began with the proposition that “Humans are governed by pain and pleasure.” The value of pain somehow relies on duration, intensity, and nearness.

It is a matter of fact that public opinion also plays a vital role in this punishment, and the truth is that in the Muslim world, even in Pakistan, a more significant number of people support the death penalty. The Pakistan Penal Code and other pertinent laws set the legal foundation for the death penalty in the country. The Supreme Court of Pakistan and other courts in the country, through rulings that comply with these statutes, have historically upheld the death penalty offenses.

In addition to that, Pakistan is one of 56 countries worldwide that retain the use of the death penalty in law and practice. According to a Gilani Research Foundation Survey carried out by Gallup Pakistan, the majority (81%) of Pakistanis are in favour of the death sentence. Sikandar Hayat vs. the State is a well-known Pakistani case law that supports the death penalty (2013). In this instance, the court found Sikandar Hayat guilty of several killings and gave him the death penalty. The case brought attention to the death penalty’s use in Pakistan for severe crimes and revealed the nation’s position on the death sentence for specific offences.

Abolitionists usually argue that the death penalty does not cause deterrence. In this regard, I would like to mention that it would be better if we survey those prisoners waiting for their execution in jail; upon this, they would deduce that the death penalty causes deterrence. Secondly, how can we say that it does not cause deterrence while knowing that neither had we gone through this mental trauma (spending nights in death cell), nor do we ever dare to read the philosophical foundation of its retention?

For hardened criminals, i.e., rapists, terrorists, and killers, there must be zero tolerance for them so that they may refrain from committing heinous offences over and over. Even in China, graft cases involving an extraordinarily huge value of three million Yuan or more may incur the death penalty, and this same has to be imposed in Pakistan. Thus, retribution is the only appropriate moral justification for punishment. By adopting this approach, societal balance will be restored to a greater extent.

Read More