Death penalty often justified as being a deterrent, studies have shown that it does not provide the unique protection of benefit to society. When such punishment is applied to systems which are subjected to human error and prejudice, the result is that justice will not be served but perverted. Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. Moreover, it is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. As long as death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated. Like torture, execution constitutes an extreme physical and mental assault on an individual.

Human rights organisations like Amnesty International express their unconditional opposition to death penalty as a violation of the right to life and the right to be not subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In fact, the death penalty has never been shown to be a more effective deterrent than other, more humane forms of punishment. Over two-thirds of the world's countries have abolished death penalty in law or practice. According to Amnesty International's latest information, 90 countries have abolished death penalty for all crimes; 10 countries have abolished for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes and 30 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice, as they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any execution in the past 10 years.While 130 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, 69 countries retain and use the death penalty. But the number of countries which actually executes prisoners in any one year is much smaller. Since 1990, more than 50 countries have abolished capital punishment for all crimes.

Ajmal Amir Kasab, the Pakistani terrorist who killed scores of people during the attacks on Mumbai in November 2008, was on Thursday sentenced to death by a court. When Judge M Tahliyani sentenced Ajmal Kasab , the lone terrorist arrested during the November 26, 2008, carnage in Mumbai , to the gallows, he used a sentence that said that this particular case fell under the bracket of the 'rarest of rare cases'.Section 302, which states that person booked for murder shall be sentenced either to life imprisonment or shall be handed out death sentence. The court also directed the subordinate courts to be extremely watchful while using the powers to hand out a death penalty and made it clear unless and until the court is completely satisfied that the case falls under the purview of the 'rarest of rare cases', death sentence shall not be handed out.There are various factors that go into a case falling under the bracket of 'rarest of rare' cases.

Mass murders and acts of terrorism fall under this bracket. If it is a solitary murder and the accused person has shown remorse, he shall not be handed out death penalty. If the murder is cold-blooded and the accused has shown no remorse, it would then satisfy the 'rarest of rare case' criteria. I am not in favour of death penalty. But in the case of Ajmal Kasab, there was hardly any option other than death penalty as the Judge M Tahliyani rightly pointed out the reasons why he was not sentencing 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab to life, invoked the Kandahar hijack of December 24, 1999, when the Indian Airlines flight IC-814 was forcibly taken to Afghanistan to secure the release three hardcore terrorists in Kashmir."In the court's opinion, Kasab has no chance to reform. Keeping such a terrorist alive will be a lingering danger to the society and the Indian government," said Tahaliyani while pronouncing his verdict, three days after he convicted him for the massacre.

I believe that we should not necessarily abolish the death penalty completely, just make it voluntary. When a criminal commits a terrible, violent offense, give that person the option of life in prison without parole or death. Since we all know that life imprisonment can be "cruel and unusual punishment" as well, let the accused choose how he'd like to spend the rest of his life. If he'd truly rather die than spend his whole life in jail, I find nothing wrong then in using the death penalty. This way would nearly eliminate all the costs of the death penalty - with hardly any appeals and lower trial costs (from eliminating the second, death sentence trial) - and would give the accused more time if he needed to prove his innocence. Obviously an innocent man would choose life in jail and hope that he could prove his innocence to the courts - which makes this alternative almost a guaranteed way to end the innocence on death row.