| dc.description.abstract | The debate whether the death penalty should be carried out or not has been continuing from time to time in different parts of the world. Death penalty is creating an unnatural way of ending life and it is opposite to the recognized human norm of right to life. This right to life has been recognized in many international conventions and there are some international instruments which specifically focus on abolishing the death penalty. In this context the main research issue/problem for this research is to analyze whether a state is legitimately capable of carrying out the death penalty. This legal research has used the doctrinal method which has utilized a critical, philosophical and comparative study method as the main means of coming to a conclusion. Under this method International conventions, declarations, Constitution of Sri Lanka, other legislations and regulations have used as primary sources and journal articles, text books and case laws have used as the secondary sources. Under the provisions put forward by the international instrument the state is positively obliged to protect the right to life and if a state allows carrying out the death penalty it amounts to the violation of state obligations. On the other hand, the state is bound to protect the life of individuals till people die of natural causes. The death penalty is considered an unnatural mode of death and therefore, the state has no legal and moral obligation to do it. Furthermore, the beneficiaries of any human rights treaty are individuals and the state is responsible for granting these benefits to them. Similarly there are many other arguments that have arisen from human rights values which render a State legitimately incapable of executing the death penalty against wrong
doers. | en_US |
