Abstract:

The enduring issue of capital punishment vs. life imprisonment is a very important one regarding modern legal systems. It is believed that these penalties are effective in preventing public violence and putting the offenders to justice. However, critics argue against the ethics of such measures claiming it includes wrongful executions, discrimination, and inadequate evidence of violence suppression. This paper seeks to delve into the intricacies of these sentences from the sociological, psychological, and legal angles of crime and punishment. In addition, it focuses on international views on capital punishment, the consequences of life sentences, and non-violent forms of dealing with crimes like rehabilitation and crime control. Ultimately, the study proposes shifting from a retributive justice system to a more just, responsible, and progressive society.

Introduction:

History has bore witness to countless controversies on whether any brutal form of punishment can be justified. There are also critics who vehemently oppose these methods as inhumane and go against humanitarian treatment. This could be seen since these forms punishments are designed for the most egregious of all crimes like murder, rape, extinction and terrorism. These extreme forms of justice are needed as they are claimed to act as deterrents to future offenders. The death sentence for a character who has caused a defiance to the moral fabric of society through depravity is claimed to be the strongest form of justice and able to sustain heinous individuals from harming the society any longer. Life imprisonment I think is also a great respect as through this the family is able to rest believing that the criminal will pose no more threat to the individual.

Both penalties, it is argued, maintain the norms and values of society while also delivering the required satisfaction on the justice scale by demonstrating that the level of the punishment fits the level of the crime.

Nonetheless, this position remains far from being a consensus. Opponents of the use of the death penalty and life imprisonment argue that there are several ethical, legal and practical reasons which undermine the case for this application. One of the most sensitive issues is that the death penalty is irreversible. Whenever the death penalty is in the consideration, there always remains the possibility of the rule of law not being applied in its due course and an innocent person being executed. The possibility of such a miscarriage of justice have very strong implications on the moral standing of state killing and if a society can ever be able to defend killing an individual in the name of the state, given the scope for margins of error. Also, the criminal justice system is not free of bias, and a host of scholarly works indicate that race, class, and economic status bias the imposition of the death penalty, making its application discriminatory and unjustifiable. The huge pesos needed to drive death penalty cases, usually much more than the costs of maintaining a person for life in prison also add to the debates’ emotive force, as detractors consider whether such funds could be better spent elsewhere on tackling the issue of crime in the longer term through crime prevention or rehabilitation efforts.

The death penalty has been widely debated on many levels. The question as to how the controversy of deterrence works is also equally concerning. It is a known fact that many people are under the impression that harsh punishments should be effective deterrents to criminal acts but the evidence that amplifies such a belief in the form of supporting statistics does not really exist. The inherent threat of punishment is not as essential in crime prevention as other sociological factors which encompass poverty levels, healthcare, education, and other social services as many criminologists would argue. The evidential deterrent effect of the death sentence is in most cases negated by the fact that the majority or many that commit violent crimes seem to have poor reasoning, cognition or judgment but mostly due to addiction, psychological problems or even mental health problems. The death penalty with its purpose and functions fails as a threat and the US lawyers for life struggle to find consistency in the avowed justification of its use. Then the important question arises as to the utility of punishing an individual with death.

Compounding the issue is the emerging understanding of human rights as an essential cluster of modern law and ethics. The introduction of harsh penalties needs to be viewed not only through the prism of crime and punishment but rather with a broader perspective focusing on human dignity and human rights. As societies progress and legal frameworks begin to reflect these values, the death penalty and life sentence raise an ethical question of disturbing proportion. At a time when human rights seem to be the sine qua non of many social movements, it becomes necessary to scrutinize more closely the question of whether the state has a right to inflict such irreversible effect.

Crime, Justice, and the Value of Human Life: A Deeper Perspective

Crime is not a break in the law but relates more to people, choices, and circumstances. Each crime has a story to it and each punishment has an impact on actual lives. Imprisonment is not justice; it’s about a safer society and justice for all. Are we doing things right in the aspect of crime, too much punishment and not enough prevention? Let’s dig deeper why people commit crimes, how justice systems respond, and if the death penalty is a good deterrent.

Why Do People Commit Crimes?

Nobody is born a criminal. Behind every crime, there is a reason—sometimes desperation, sometimes environment, sometimes mental struggles. We will only truly reduce crime if we understand its root cause.

• Survival for the Poor:

Imagine being a parent with no job, no money, and no way to feed your child. What would you do? For many, theft or fraud becomes the only option when survival is at stake. Instead of just punishing them, shouldn’t we address the root cause—poverty?

• Broken Homes and Toxic Environments:

Children learn about the world from everything, not just from books. If they grow up inside an abusive household or in a violent neighborhood, crime could simply be the norm for them. How can we condemn someone for following the path that they have always known?

• Psychological Problems:

Some crimes result from evil intentions while others are performed because the one committing the crime is mentally ill. Most of the violent crimes are linked with untreated mental diseases, trauma, or substance addiction. Do we punish them or upgrade mental care so that one does not commit such crimes?

• Education and Opportunities Lacking:

Imagine growing up in a place where education is bad, jobs are scarce, and crime is the easiest way to make money. Would you still choose the right path? Most inmates never experienced good education or fair job opportunities. Would increasing these areas of investment reduce the crime rate?

• Influence of the media and society:

Movies, music, and social media often glorify crime, violence, and materialism. A young person who constantly sees criminals portrayed as heroes may believe crime is a shortcut to power and respect. Should we be more mindful of the messages we send?

• Peer Pressure:

Peer pressure is also a main reason for making someone a criminal. Peer influence affects criminal behavior in an individual by social learning. Through interaction with peers, individuals learn criminal techniques through observation. Peer pressure can be hard to resist. For example, some teenagers may become involved in antisocial behavior. Bullying can occur if an individual teenager is seen to ‘do as they are told all of the time’.

• Weak or Corrupt Law Enforcement:

This breeds a culture where criminals feel comfortable committing crimes knowing they can get out of trouble through bribery or the police won’t do much. A proper functioning justice system does not need increased punishment-it needs to function properly for all.

How Shall We Punish Crime?

The appropriate punishment after the great crime has been committed is: what’s the right way to punish? And there are different justice systems suggesting various approaches, but do they work?

Iran	576+	853+
Saudi Arabia	196	172
United States of America	18	24
Iraq	11+	16+

The Death Penalty: An Effective Deterrent?

Proponents argue that the death penalty is an effective deterrent because it instills fear. However, studies claim the opposite is true. Nations which abolished the right to life have not observed a hike in crime. On the other hand, there exist fundamental questions:

• What happens to the innocent executed? Wrongful executions have occurred.

• It is applied discriminatorily. Studies reveal that it disproportionately hits the poor and minorities.

• Is it cheaper? Contrary to public belief, it is actually pricier because lengthy legal procedures cost more money.

Other nations, such as Norway and Canada, have gotten rid of capital punishment and placed a lot of effort on rehabilitating offenders and therefore crime is minimal. Would the world like them to?

Top 5 Countries with most death sentences in 2022 & 2023
Country	2022	2023
China	1000s	1000s
Iran	576+	853+
Saudi Arabia	196	172
United States of America	18	24
Iraq	11+	16+

Psychological Consequences of Imprisonment for Life:

Life imprisonment seems like the next best thing to killing them, but what do people do after many years in jail? Most cases lead to depression, anxiety, and other kinds of mental decline.

Rather than punishing, do we reform offenders? Some prisons around the globe are now implementing education, therapy, and training for prisoners in order to get them better ready to live life differently. Must we rehabilitate before punishing?

Justice is not just about punishing criminals but also about ensuring that the system is fair and effective. However, in many countries, including Pakistan, the legal system faces serious challenges.

How Can We Improve Justice?

• Speed up Court Cases – Delayed justice often leads to injustice. More judges, better procedures, and reduced corruption can help speed up legal proceedings.

• Prison Reform: Prisons should serve the aim of reform and not just detention by providing mental health support, education, and skills-building.

• Fight Corruption: “The rich get away while the poor get punished” system is non-judgmental justice. Sharper laws should be enacted ensuring fairness.

• Educate the People: People should be made aware of their rights and all that occurs within the law so they can fight for fairness and accountability to be enforced in the legal system.

What about Criminals with Mental Illness?

Not all criminals act of their free will. Some are afflicted with grave mental illnesses that make them incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. Courts have devised various tests to determine this:

• The M’Naghten Test – Did the person know what they were doing?
• The Irresistible Impulse Test – Could they control their actions?
• The Durham Rule – Was the crime caused by a mental disorder?
• The Model Penal Code Test – Whether the defendant could fully understand the criminality of their conduct?

Examples like Charles J. Guiteau, who killed President James A. Garfield in 1881, make it not so easy to distinguish between mental illness and the intent of committing a crime. So are mentally ill criminals different? Do they share the same burden of responsibility?

The International Death Penalty Debate:

• As at 2021/2022, the Human Development Report has reported 65 countries as having very high human development. In them:
• 14 still retain the death penalty in law and practice.
• 3 allow it but haven’t used it for at least 10 years.
• 2 have abolished it except in wartime.
• 46 have completely abolished it.
• Amnesty International reports that the 193 United Nation member states and two observer states fall into four categories based on their use of capital punishment. In 2024:
• 110 countries (56%) have completely abolished the death penalty.
• 53 countries (27%) still had the death penalty in law and practice.
• 9 countries (5%) have abolished it for all crimes except those committed under exceptional circumstances (such as during war).
• 23 countries (12%) permit its use but hadn’t used it for at least 10 years and are believed to have a policy or practice of not carrying out executions.

In addition, Cook Island, Niue and Kosovo are abolitionist whereas Taiwan is retentionist.

The Objectives of Harsh Punishment for Crime Prevention:

Some argue that capital punishment and life imprisonment are the most important weapons in the battle against serious crime, including murder and terrorism. They argue that:

• The death penalty saves taxpayers the cost of long-term incarceration.

• It is a strong deterrent to prevent heinous crimes because it instills fear.

• It gives justice and closure to the victims’ families.
• Imprisonment for life means that the worst of the bad guys will never be released and will do no more harm.

Proponents argue that tough punishments enhance public confidence in the rule of law as a system of justice. There are ethical, legal, and practical concerns: wrongful convictions can occur and justice must be administered fairly.

A Smarter Approach to Crime and Justice:

Crime is not just bad people doing bad things. It’s about broken systems, lost opportunities, and societal failures. If we really want to reduce crime, we need a balanced approach that prevents crime before it happens through better education, job opportunities, and mental health support, and that applies fair and just punishments by focusing on rehabilitation, not just retribution.

• Stabilizes the legal system to make justice a right and not a privilege.
• Promotes social responsibility because building a safer society is not only the government’s task—it is everyone’s.

Justice should not be about revenge. It has to be about making society better. Every person is worth, and if on the right side, every person can change.

Conclusion:

These complexities surrounding capital punishment and life imprisonment make a strong case for nuanced and balanced approaches to the concepts of justice. These severe punishments find justification in terms of deterring crime and in delivering justice to the victims; it becomes apparent that ethical, legal, and practical challenges from that point on cannot be ignored with all the arguments relaying instead only, on the actual events. Wrongful convictions and systemic biases further raise questions about whether using the death penalty deters crime. In addition, it aligns with the whole world that has now turned toward rehabilitation and prevention, urging the examination of the right measures that focus on the root causes, such as lack of education and mental illness, poverty, and systemic inequalities.

Nevertheless, justice is not always black-and-white, and there are aspects with exceptions. Certain cases exist when only uttermost measures for public security and observance of the rule of law are considered justified on the ground of the heinousness of the crimes. Serial repeat offenders, remorseless criminals, and many other individuals who threaten society continuously could be called on to face greater hardships in sentencing where rehabilitation is simply considered infeasible. This room for discretion must be allowed even under justice reform so that punishment is meted out in relation to the crime and potential for rehabilitation. 

Finally, an effective justice system must provide a middle ground between punishment and reformation. It must not merely be “punishing,” but rather there must be a powerful framework at work in establishing the fairness of and preventing wrongful conviction in the punishment process, providing avenues for rehabilitation wherever possible. Justice must be more oriented towards the building of a safer; more just society within which the light of accountability illuminates the dark reaches of redemption rather than revenge.

Authors:

1. Ahmad Zahid              ahmadbinzahid01@gmail.com
2. Ahmad Liaqat             advocatefuture02@gmail.com
3. Aila Saad                        theailasaad35@gmail.com
4. Haseeba Iftikhar         haseebaiftikharchadhar@gmail.com
5. Hina Shahzadi              hshahzadi070@gmail.com
6. Meerab Imran              meerimran1835@gmail.com
7. Minhaj Bin Ahmad      minhajriaz4@gmail.com
8. Sufyan Ashraf             sufyanashrafkamboh@gmail.com
9. Zainab Arif                    zainabarif949@gmail.com