‘When absolutely justified’

I was moving, of late, slowly but surely in the direction of abolishment of the death penalty everywhere in the world, but after the burning death of pilot Muath Kasasbeh, the decapitation of journalists and soldiers in Syria and Iraq, and the murder of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, to name a few, I started to lean in favour of capital punishment, albeit on a very limited scale.

The abhorrent killings of innocent people in cold blood shocks the conscience of people everywhere and calls for another look at the death penalty.

When one sees children and innocent civilians put to death in the most savage way, the arguments against death penalty begins to lose.

Whether the death penalty serves as a deterrent to crime is besides the point.

I am not weighing the pros and cons of punishment. I suggest the need to apply just punishment when murder is committed in the most heinous way.

What argument against the most severe punishment, death penalty, is there when one sees people burned alive or decapitated in cold blood? 

How can one show mercy to the killers?

It is often claimed that death penalty does not stop people from perpetrating heinous crimes, yet there is no clear proof of that.

As for the element of doubt, often invoked by those against capital punishment, a fair trial cannot fail to establish guilt or lack of it.

If there is the slightest doubt about the guilt of the accused, the jury must err on the “life” side.

But when guilt is established beyond doubt, why should the life of a killer be spared when the killer made no attempt to spare the life of the victim?

As the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states, the death penalty can be applied only exceptionally and only in case of the most heinous crimes.

I believe we should apply the death penalty when it is absolutely justified.