The taking of a human life can serve many purposes. Revenge is the most understandable. A victim’s nearest and dearest would probably want to see the life of their loved one’s killer ended. A life for a life. The state might endorse that sentiment, but dress it up in judicial terms to justify taking the life of a human being.


The sanctity of human life is defended by pro-life and anti-euthanasia campaigners. Would they be so keen to preserve the lives of child rapists and murderers, torturers and the perpetrators of crimes against humanity including genocide?

electric chair


There is an argument that whole life imprisonment is a greater punishment than the swift end to the murderer’s life. It certainly avoids the risk of executing the wrong person. Frequent appeals for death row prisoners can extend their imprisonment to decades.

In Arkansas they have seven such death row prisoners sentenced to die by lethal injection. One of the three injections necessary to kill the condemned is nearing its use by date and the pharmaceutical company that makes the drug refuses to provide further supplies on moral grounds. There have been reports of executions going badly wrong and prolonged tortuous suffering the result of the drugs not working as they should.

Execution should not hang over the condemned prisoner for decades and the killing should be swift and humanely carried out. That’s if you approve of capital punishment.

If it is your opinion that taking a life is wrong and is not a fitting punishment for murder, then you might argue that humanity is best served by life imprisonment. Murderers facing a death sentence have nothing to lose by taking more lives. A death sentence is not a deterrent for murder.

Humane justice comes at a price. Rapists and murderers have served their sentences, been released and carried out further rapes and murders. Execution would have prevented that possibility. There have also been prisoners sentenced for rapes and murders they did not commit. Their decades of detention at least made their exoneration possible and their release a possibility.

Some would judge society by the way we treat the worst offenders. Justice should not be an instrument of retribution, but the measured judgement of what is the right and appropriate punishment for wrongdoing.

We might find it easier to condemn war criminals and child murderers to death, But we have to weigh up the possibility of executing those wrongly accused with the permanent removal from society of its worst elements.

It is no surprise that the Turkish president with his newly extended powers is now calling for the reintroduction of capital punishment in Turkey. With the judiciary in his pocket and many of his political opponents in prison, the power to use state killing would not be in safe hands.

Turkish referendum

The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, failed to persuade two thirds of the Turkish parliament to grant him more powers. So he has instigated a referendum on 16 April on 18 amendments to the constitution. This would, in effect, transform Turkey from a parliamentary democracy to a presidential state. It would also facilitate him staying in power until 2029 and allow the president to have party political affiliations.

Turkish president

After the failed coup in July 2016 a state of emergency was declared. Purportedly to arrest those involved in the coup, hundreds of lawmakers and journalists opposed to the government were rounded up. Amnesty International has reported that tens of thousands of civil servants were dismissed, the main Kurdish daily newspaper, Özgür Gündem, was closed down and censorship imposed on websites and internet access.

Opposition parties are opposed to the constitutional changes and foresee presidential rule as a dictatorship.

The outcome of the referendum is predicted to be close. Here is a link to the BBC’s analysis of Erdoğan’s Turkey.