Capital Punishment?

Recently, I came across a post in Wipro blogs putting forward the old question of morality of capital punishment - whether or not it should continue in today's world. I'll just put forth here the series of thoughts which that post triggered off in my mind.

Every man has his right to live, his right to his own thoughts - and his rights to act upon them.

Just because I think a path is right, something is ‘just’, does not necessarily make that really right or just. What is really ‘just’? No one knows. Your philosophies and principles should change with time. If they do not, you are not learning – you have closed yourself to the world. (Your rate of change of philosophies can slow down with age, but they should never stop.)

Similarly, just because the majority happens to believe in a certain thing, it doesn’t sanctify that thing as the 'right' one. (One's singular ideals have as much chances of being right as the majority's opposite ideals. So, why should one confrm to majority? For stability/security? But does not world become insecure/imperfect for the one who is forced to conform?)

Every man has right to his opinions and ideas. And to act upon them. If, however, I think he is acting wrongly, I’d act against it - but at the same time, I’d uphold that the other should act only in the way he thinks is right. Similarly, if the majority thinks he is acting wrongly, they have every right to act against him. Result? The stronger in might wins. And that is perfectly logical. And that is the only thing which has always happened. That is what actually has always shaped ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. And I think that this is the only acceptable and logical way one can justify any ‘code’ or ‘law’ in society. That the majority – read ‘stronger’ mass – wants something to happen in a certain way. Not by arguments or opinions or ideas or ideals.

And by this code, in the same way that a man has every right to end another’s life if he thinks that is needed according to his perspective of events and is willing to face oppositions from person(s) thinking otherwise (he has actually done so always, and will do so forever), the government can also administer death if it feels threatened from the individual and deems it a necessity (again, has done so always, and will do so forever). It can administer death for its own defense. It does so in war. It can do so in domestic incidents also. Though I personally don’t like it this way - I like winning over the adversary - that only is true power - yet I’d not say that this is wrong if followed.

Along the same lines, I do not have anything against the terrorist himself who believes in what he does and kills a thousand lives who are innocent in my eyes. However, since I think it is not just that the thousand innocent lives be dead, I’ll do whatever I can to thwart the terrorist’s efforts. But I wont - and cannot - say that he is wrong.

Only when the government - the system - becomes so strong and controlling that it no longer fears individual activists (’Brave New World’?) - only then can it afford to think of abolishing capital punishment altogether. Otherwise, death sentences will be needed and are perfectly justified.