To most of us the notion of execution by beheading sounds like a medieval concept; a barbaric, savage and out-dated practice, yet Rizana Nafeek, a Sri Lankan maid working in Saudi Arabia, was put on trial in 2005, condemned to death by the Saudi authorities in 2007 and was beheaded on the 9th January this year. Her case remains controversial for many reasons, most notably for the fact that she claims that she was forced under duress to confess to the crime. Governments worldwide, as well as human rights activist groups such as Amnesty International and Avaaz have openly criticised Saudi Arabia for its indifference to human life.
Protesters demonstrating for the release of Rizana Nafeek. Source: Reuters
Nafeek was given the death penalty for killing a Saudi baby in her care in 2005. She denied the charges maintaining that the baby choked to death. However, Nafeek was later sentenced to death as she was found to be guilty by a village court. As well as being denied legal assistance Nafeek was not allowed to present her birth certificate in evidence of her age (Nafeek was only 17 at the time, meaning that her beheading violated international law as it forbids the execution of those under 18 at the time of the alleged crime).
As well as the beheading of Rizana Nafeek, in recent days British Lindsay Sandiford has been sentenced to death by firing squad by Bali prosecutors for trying to smuggle in 4.8 kg of cocaine in May 2012. These events have once again brought to light the matter of the death penalty.
For many decades debates have existed questioning whether the old-fashioned practice has a place in a modern liberal society. I feel the question must be asked: When the promotion and protection of human rights plays such a pivotal role in 21st Century international politics how can the death penalty still exist, particularly in Western democracies such as the USA?
Saudi Arabia has been openly criticised with regard to its practice of the death penalty; Britain termed Nafeek’s killing as “cruel and inhuman” and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also expressed his dismay, voicing concern at “irregularities” in her detention and trial, and at the “increased use of capital punishment in Saudi Arabia”. Britain has also condemned Bali’s decision that Sandiford must face a firing squad; Foreign Office minister Hugo Swire told the Commons “We strongly object to the death penalty and continue to provide consular assistance to Lindsay and her family during this difficult time.”
Amidst all this controversy and debate HCX feels that it is important to assess the pros and cons of the death penalty…
The pros of the death penalty:
- A deterrent against future criminal activity
- Justice is better served
- Closure for families as opposed to life sentences
The cons of the death penalty:
- It goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states the right to life as one of the most fundamental rights
- Revenge mentality of “an eye for an eye” will not help societies progress
- It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong
- Question of our own integrity
- The possibility exists that the convicted criminal may not be guilty
- The punishment is irreversible if new evidence is brought forward at a later time
- The death penalty is discriminatory and is often used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities. It is imposed and carried out arbitrarily. In some countries, it is used as a tool of repression to silence the political opposition
- In many countries there exist flaws in the judicial process which are exacerbated by discrimination, prosecutorial misconduct and inadequate legal representation
- The death penalty denies the possibility of rehabilitation and reconciliation
It is clear that slowly the world is making a move to abolishing the death penalty. In 1977, only 16 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. As of December 2010 that figure stands at 96 and more than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. However, many countries still have extortionately high numbers of executions: in the past year China executed more than 1000 people, Iran over 360, Saudi Arabia over 80 and the USA over 48 to name but a few.
Ultimately do we, as human beings, have the power to take away life in order to serve justice? Does this old-fashioned practice have a place in a modern society? Do state executions really remedy the root cause or just ignore them? These are all questions that are debated and fundamental to the issue of the death penalty. HCX wonder what you think?
Sources:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty