What is Capital punishment? Capital punishment
is the death penalty. It is used today and was
used in ancient times to punish a variety of
offences. The question is, Is death penalty the
best penalty? Today, one of the most debated
issues in the Criminal Justice System is the issue
of capital punishment or the death penalty. What
would it accomplish to put someone on death
row? The victim sadly is dead and cannot be
brought back to life. Does the death penalty
give increased protection against being
murdered? This argument for continuation of
the death penalty has failed as a deterrent. Thus
the continued retention of the death penalty is
futile.
The Human Rights Law Service (HURILAWS)
strongly opposes the death penalty and
maintains that the death penalty is contrary to
the very essence of the notions of human
dignity and liberty and statistics have shown that
it has no deterrent effect whatsoever. The
irreversibility of the death penalty contradicts
the idea that criminals can be rehabilitated and
resocialised and for this reason, contradicts the
notion of freedom and dignity. Our
unpredictable and error-prone criminal justice
system presents a “clear and present danger”
that innocent citizens may be executed and
makes it imperative that alternatives be sought
and we propose life sentence.
The death penalty is nothing but a remnant of
an old system based on vengeance that he who
has taken a life should suffer from the same
fate. Justice has risen above such a traditional
notion of punishment by adopting a principle of
a symbolic, yet proportional sanction for the
harm done; life imprisonment, fines, etc.
The evolution of international law tends towards
the abolition of the death penalty. The Rome
statute of the international criminal court and
the UN Security Council resolutions establishing
the International Criminal Tribunals for the
Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda do not
provide for the death penalty in the range of
sanctions. Specific international and regional
instruments have been adopted which aims to
abolish capital punishment. The UN second
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) aimed at the
abolition of the death penalty (To which Nigeria
is not a signatory), the guidelines to European
Union (EU) policy towards third world countries
on the death penalty, adopted by the European
Union on 29 June 1998, stressed that one of
the EU’s objectives is “ to work towards the
Universal abolition of the death penalty as a
strongly held policy view agreed by all EU
member states.
At the universal level, even if the ICCPR
expressly provides for the death penalty as an
exception to the right to life and surrounds it by
a series of specific safeguards, the general
comment adopted by the Committee in charge
of the interpretation of the Covenant states very
clearly that article 6 on the right to life “refers
generally to abolition in terms which strongly
suggest that abolition is desirable…all measures
of abolition should be considered as progress in
the enjoyment of the right to life”
In Nigeria, offences which attracts the death
penalty are; armed robbery, murder, treason,
conspiracy to treason, instigating invasion of
Nigeria, treachery, fabricating false evidence
leading to the conviction to death of an innocent
person, aiding suicide of a child or lunatic,
robbery and firearms Decree No. 5 of 1984.
Under the various Shari’ a Penal regime
applicable to 12 States in Northern Nigeria, the
offences that carry the death penalty are; Zina
(adultery), molest, sodomy, Inbreeding and
witchcraft
and juju offences. The effect of all this is that
there is a category of crimes which attracts
capital punishment in Nigeria and which cannot
be reasonably justified in a democratic society
but would rather continue to inflict injustice on
those accused of the crime.
Nigeria has applied the death penalty for more
than fifty years. Research has shown that
majority of Nigerians favour its retention. The
few who support the abolition appear not to
fully figure out the complexity of the matter.
The death penalty has a myriad of constraints
and problems have not been properly examined
and an alarming proportion of Nigerians are not
aware of what happens within the criminal justice
system.
In Peter Nemi V State, the court emphasised the
point that a condemned criminal has
fundamental human rights, which must be
recognised by the authorities and enforced by
the courts.
Similarly, several African countries have also
challenged the death penalty. In Uganda, the
Constitutional Court in 2003 held that the
mandatory death sentence was unconstitutional.
In Zimbabwe, the Supreme Court held in 1993,
that it would be unconstitutional to four
prisoners under death sentence because of the
intense and prolonged suffering they had
undergone on death row. In Tanzania, a High
Court ruled that hanging, as a form of
punishment was cruel, degrading and inhuman,
and therefore unconstitutional. In a land mark
decision in 1995, the South African
Constitutional Court held that “the proclamation
of the right to life and the respect for it
demanded from the state, must surely entitle
one, at least, not to be put to death by the
state deliberately, systematically and as an act
of policy that denies in principle the value of the
victim’s life.
Way Forward.
The Nigerian Government should;
Adopt a moratorium on the death penalty as a
first step towards the abolition of death penalty
Restrict the number of offences carrying the
death sentence to the most serious crimes only
Refrain from adopting new crimes entailing the
capital punishment
Make public statistics on the number of death
sentences pronounced and executed, every year,
differentiated by age, gender, charges, etc. And
allow for an informed public debate
Support the resolution adopted every year by
the UN Commission on Human Rights regarding
the abolition of the death penalty
Subject offenders to psychiatric examination to
determine their mental state at the time of the
offence.
In conclude with the wise words of Howard Zehr,
a Professor of Sociology and Restorative Justice
in the Conflict Transformation Program at
Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisburg, VA and
the author of “Changing Lenses: A New Focus
for Crime and Justice”. He stated and I quote “A
restorative approach to justice would understand
that the essence of crime is a violation of
people and of harmonious relations between
them. Instead of asking first of all, "Who 'done'
it? What should they get?" (and rarely going
beyond this) a restorative approach to justice
would ask, "Who has been hurt? What can be
done to make things right, and whose
responsibility is it?" True justice would have as
its goals restoration, reconciliation and
responsibility rather than retribution.

Ñot at all. In the catholic church,they are two classes of sins.1 big sin (unforgiveable) and 2.small sin. (forgiveable) thus no sin lead to heaven. Take for example: out of anger I smash ur phone.do u need to punish me with death sentence? 2. Ok,let say you are five in your family and i attach you with a gun killing four leaving you alive,will u punish me with just a slap? Sins are not level and the punishment shouldn't be of the same gravity.