“Justice or Vengeance? Unpacking the Death Penalty”

In this thought-provoking episode of The Perspicacious Perspective, we confront one of the most divisive moral and legal questions of our time: is the death penalty ever truly justifiable—or is it simply vengeance masquerading as justice?

We explore the global landscape of capital punishment, examining which countries still enforce the death penalty and the predominant methods of execution used today. From lethal injection to hanging, we ask not just how the state kills, but why.

The conversation turns to miscarriages of justice in the West—cases where flawed systems, circumstantial evidence, or human error nearly led to irreversible consequences. Alongside this, we reflect on infamous unsolved crimes like the Tylenol Murders, which continue to haunt public consciousness and shape debates around punishment, fear, and justice.

Finally, we take a sobering journey through the history of execution and torture—uncovering some of the most gruesome physical and psychological methods ever devised—and consider whether modern capital punishment is truly more humane, or simply a sanitized continuation of brutality.

With clarity, empathy, and critical reflection, this episode challenges you to reconsider what justice really demands—and what it should never allow.

Transcript

Welcome to the Perspicacious Perspective.

I’ll be talking about whether the death penalty is ever justifiable in this episode. 

The death penalty has been abolished in all European countries apart from Belarus. 

Most of us know that the USA still retains the death penalty which is why I thought it would be a good idea for an episode and why I think it still should be spoken about.

I’ll be talking about countries which still have the death penalty, what the most predominant methods are for execution, and whether I think the death penalty is ever justifiable.

So how many countries still have the death penalty?

As of the end of 2024, 54 countries retain the death penalty in law and practice, meaning they actively carry out executions. This represents approximately 28% of the world's nations. 

While the exact list of these countries can vary slightly depending on definitions and recent legal changes, notable countries that actively used the death penalty in 2024 include:

·       China: which is believed to execute thousands annually, though exact figures are classified as a state secret.

·       Iran: which recorded at least 972 executions in 2024, primarily for drug-related offenses and political dissent.

·       Saudi Arabia: which carried out at least 345 executions, including for non-violent crimes. 

·       Iraq which executed at least 63 individuals, mainly for terrorism-related charges.

·       The United States: which conducted 25 executions across several states.

·       North Korea and Vietnam: which is believed to carry out executions, but lack of transparency makes it difficult to confirm numbers.

·       And Egypt, Singapore, Yemen, Somalia, Belarus, Japan, Indonesia, and Pakistan: are also among countries that conducted executions in 2024. 

While 15 countries carried out executions in 2024, the number of countries retaining the death penalty in law is higher, as some haven’t conducted executions in recent years but still have legal provisions allowing for it.

What are the most popular ways people are executed in these countries?

Lethal injection is the most commonly used method in the United States, China, and a few other countries that aim to present execution as a clinical, painless procedure. It typically involves a sequence of drugs designed to sedate, paralyze, and then stop the heart. However, botched executions and debates over the ethical sourcing of the drugs have led to growing controversy and increasing use of alternative methods in some U.S. states.

Hanging remains a prevalent method in countries such as Iran, Japan, Singapore, and Pakistan. It can be swift if done correctly using the long-drop method (which is designed to break the neck instantly), but in many cases—particularly with short-drop hangings—it results in prolonged suffering through strangulation. In Iran, public hangings are sometimes used as a tool of deterrence and spectacle.

Shooting—either by firing squad or a single bullet to the head—is still widely used in countries like China, North Korea, Somalia, and Indonesia. In China and North Korea, a single executioner may deliver a fatal shot to the head or neck. In other nations, such as Indonesia, a traditional firing squad is used, often with a blindfolded prisoner standing or seated. While some argue this method is quick and effective, others view it as brutal and traumatic, particularly when death does’t come immediately.

Beheading is a form of execution still practiced in Saudi Arabia, where it’s typically carried out with a sword in public. This method is deeply rooted in the country’s interpretation of Islamic law and is used not only for murder but for crimes like apostasy (which is the crime of leaving Islam) and drug trafficking. While defenders argue that it is swift, critics condemn its barbarity and the psychological terror it inflicts.

In addition to these main methods, there are countries like Egypt and Iraq that still use hanging, often in prison settings, and others like Vietnam, where lethal injection has replaced previous methods such as shooting. However, in states with weak legal transparency, the specific procedures often remain obscured, raising concerns about human rights abuses and due process violations.

So is the death penalty ever justifiable?

The death penalty is obviously used as a deterrent.

In its simplest from, the death penalty is supposed to deter people from committing the gravest of crimes; the taking of another person’s life. Why? Well because the person who was murdered will never get their life back- so to many of us, the fairest way to avenge the murderer is to take their life too. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth.

But it’s not that simple. 

Assuming the murderer’s faculties were all in place at the time they intentionally murdered someone, their decision to take someone else’s life can never truly be avenged.

How? You might think. Well two people’s lives are never as valuable as the other. 

Take for example an adult man who takes the life of a young child. The devastation the death of the man would cause would pale in comparison to the devastation caused by the death of the child. The death of the child would be mourned by the parents, siblings, extended family and potentially the community or even nation depending on the severity of the murder or the way in which it was carried out, such as the Southport killings which was a mass stabbing that occurred on July 29, 2024, at a Taylor Swift-themed dance and yoga workshop for children in Southport, Merseyside, in the UK. The attack resulted in the deaths of three young girls aged 6,7 and 9, and left ten others injured, including eight children and two adults. The attacker, Axel Rudakubana, was a 17 year old born to Rwandan immigrants who possessed extremist ideologies. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 52 years.

So then it begs the question; is the death penalty the fairest way to avenge someone in such a circumstance?

If the death penalty is so bad, why do a lot of these serial killers voluntarily take their own lives after committing such heinous acts?

Let’s take a look at some of the deadliest mass shootings in documented history. 

In 2017 the Las Vegas Shooting in the United States had 59 fatalities and over 860 people were injured. The assailant: Stephen Paddock, died by suicide before police reached his hotel room.

In 2007 the Virginia Tech Shooting in the United States had 32 fatalities and injured 23 people. The assailant Seung-Hui Chodied by suicide as police closed in on him.

In 2012 the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting in the United States had 27 fatalities which included 20 children who were murdered by Adam Lanza who also died by suicide as first responders arrived.

In 1991 the Luby's Cafeteria Shooting in the United States had 23 fatalities and injured 27 people. George Hennard, the assailant died by suicide after being wounded in a shootout with police.

And in 1982 the Uiryeong Massacre in South Korea had 56 fatalities. The assailant Woo Bum-kon died by suicide using a grenade after the rampage.

It’s almost as if the assailants were happy with the trade off which corroborates my point; that their lives were not as valuable as the lives they were taking. 

So what would be a fairer way to avenge these psychopathic murderers?

Well let’s consider our options and walk through the most horrific methods of torture.

The Rack was Common in Europe during the Middle Ages. A victim was stretched on a wooden frame using rollers and ropes, dislocating limbs and tearing muscles.

Impalement was notoriously used by Vlad the Impaler (which by the way was the inspiration for Dracula). Impalement consists of a sharpened stake inserted through the body—often rectally or vaginally—and the victim would slowly slid down by gravity.

Scaphism was used in Ancient Persia. Victims were placed in a hollowed log, force-fed milk and honey, and covered with more milk and honey to attract insects. Death would eventually come from starvation, dehydration, or being eaten alive.

The Breaking Wheel was used in Europe up until the 19th century where the body was tied to a wheel and smashed with a hammer, limb by limb, then left on display.

The Brazen Bull was a metal bull statue in which victims were locked inside and roasted alive; the design channeled their screams to sound like a bull’s roar.

So those were some of the worst physical torture methods. Let’s look at some of the worst psychological torture methods:

The Chinese Water Torture is where water is slowly dripped onto the same spot of a restrained victim’s forehead, leading to mental breakdown from stress and anticipation.

The White Room is where prisoners are isolated in completely white rooms with no stimulation—light, sound, or touch—causing hallucinations and psychological collapse.

Sleep Deprivation is used in modern interrogations (such as by the CIA) where the extended deprivation of sleep can cause hallucinations, paranoia, and psychosis.

Some of the religious and inquisition methods included:

The Pear of Anguish; where a metal device would be inserted into the mouth, vagina, or anus, then expanded with a screw mechanism to tear tissue.

The Judas Cradle was where victims were lowered onto a pyramid-shaped seat by ropes, impaling the rectum or vagina gradually under their own body weight.

And some of the modern torture techniques include:

Electrotorture: the use of electric shocks on sensitive areas like genitals or fingertips, still used in some authoritarian regimes.

The Falanga (or the beating of the soles) which is supposed to be extremely painful; causing long-term injury and was widely used by various secret police forces in the 20th century.

Waterboarding simulates the experience of drowning which was used in CIA interrogations post-9/11. It caused panic, suffocation, and lasting trauma.

And Crucifixion, boiling alive, amputation and mutilation have all been used as methods of torture since early documented history.

While many of us think some of these torture strategies should be reserved for the worst of crimes (such as mass shootings or child sex offenders), contrarily, many would think that these forms of torture are inhumane and unjustifiable.

The other issue we have is evidence. What would be the threshold of unquestionable evidence to justify the use of such inhumane torture strategies?

And the same question can be posed for the death penalty. What would be the threshold of unquestionable evidence to justify the taking of someone’s life?

And should the government ever have the power to intentionally take the life of a human being?

Let’s look at some of the worst miscarriages of justices where the government was responsible for incorrectly convicting someone accused of murder.

One of the most well-known cases is that of Kirk Bloodsworth, who became the first American on death row to be exonerated by DNA evidence. Convicted in Maryland in 1984 for the rape and murder of a young girl, Bloodsworth was sentenced to death based solely on eyewitness accounts. In 1993, DNA testing proved he was not the killer, and he was released after nine years in prison.

Anthony Ray Hinton spent 30 years on Alabama’s death row for two murders he did not commit. His conviction relied on flawed ballistics evidence and an underqualified defense attorney. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned his conviction in 2015, citing ineffective counsel. Hinton’s exoneration came only after extensive advocacy by the Equal Justice Initiative.

Steven Avery from Wisconsin served 18 years for a sexual assault he didn’t commit. In 2003, DNA evidence cleared him. While his later arrest and conviction for a separate murder remains controversial, his original exoneration laid bare the dangers of confirmation bias and tunnel vision among law enforcement.

Another deeply troubling case is that of the Central Park Five—five Black and Latino teenagers wrongfully convicted in 1989 for the rape and assault of a white jogger in New York City’s Central Park. Despite the lack of physical evidence and inconsistencies in their confessions, they were convicted. In 2002, DNA evidence and a confession from the actual perpetrator, Matias Reyes, exonerated all five. Their story is now emblematic of racial injustice and systemic coercion within police interrogations.

Richard Phillips was wrongly convicted of murder in Michigan in 1972 and spent 45 years in prison, making him the longest-serving wrongfully convicted person in U.S. history. His release in 2018 followed the exposure of false testimony and suppressed evidence. Unlike some others, his exoneration came late in life, but he now devotes his time to painting and advocating for criminal justice reform.

Outside the U.S., notable cases include Colin Campbell Ross, who was executed in Australia in 1922 for the murder of a child based on questionable forensic hair analysis. In 2008, DNA testing of preserved hair samples showed that the evidence used to convict him was wrong, and Ross was posthumously pardoned—86 years after his death.

The United Kingdom saw a famous miscarriage of justice with Timothy Evans, who was hanged in 1950 for the murder of his daughter. Years later, serial killer John Christie—who lived in the same building—was found responsible for multiple murders, including that of Evans’s wife. Evans was posthumously pardoned in 1966, and the case significantly influenced the UK's decision to abolish the death penalty.

Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, a former professional boxer, was wrongly convicted in New Jersey for a triple homicide in 1966. His case, marred by racial bias and suppressed exculpatory evidence, gained public support through advocacy efforts and media attention, including Bob Dylan’s song “Hurricane.” After nearly 20 years, Carter was released when a judge ruled that his prosecution had been based on “racism rather than reason.”

In Louisiana, Glenn Ford was sentenced to death in 1984 for murder, only to be exonerated in 2014 after the state admitted that key evidence proving his innocence had been withheld. Ford spent 30 years on death row and died from lung cancer shortly after his release. His case underscored the devastating human cost of prosecutorial misconduct.

Finally, Joyce Ann Brown, a Black woman from Texas, was convicted in 1980 for a robbery and murder she had no part in. Her conviction relied on mistaken identity, and her airtight alibi was ignored. After nine years in prison, Brown was freed in 1989 thanks to investigative journalism and legal advocacy, and she later became a prominent voice for prison reform.

These cases prove that the government can get it wrong, even though the legal systems in the West are some of the least corrupt legal systems in the world.

We have to also consider the fact that humans are emotional creatures. When people die unjustifiably, we have a tendency to blame others as part of the grieving process, and particularly in the US, minority groups have proven to be used as scapegoats to help the majority ethnicity deal with the trauma of the loss of innocent lives- and vice versa.

This is even how modern terrorism was founded. Extreme Islamist groups justify the killing of innocent lives in the West as retribution for the injustices carried out by Western military operations in Muslim countries.

The advent of the World Wide Web and Social Media can also be a tool to propagandise and influence large swaths of people after the death of someone perceived to be innocent; to sway political opinions and promote government agenda.

This is why I could never trust the government to have the power to take someone’s life. When people are given power they have a proclivity to abuse it.

Human life, as we know it, is the most valuable thing on the planet and I don’t believe the government should ever be trusted to choose when someone’s life should end.

So you might be thinking, so then what’s the best way to avenge murderers?

The sad reality is that we can never avenge someone who needlessly takes the life of another human being.

Don’t get me wrong, if someone were to murder someone I cared for, I would happily use one of the aforementioned physical torture methods to avenge the murderer since I’m human after all, and would likewise happily assume responsibility for the consequences of my actions- as would most of us. But very few of us would be granted the opportunity to avenge the person who was responsible for the death of someone we cared for. So it’s highly probable you would have to rely on the government- or the legal system- to deliver retribution.

So that means we should think about punishments for capital offences objectively.

Let’s start with deterrence. The death penalty (and even torture) are obvious deterrents which have been used for as long as we can remember. But it still hasn’t been enough to deter individuals from murder, or even mass murder which has become more prominent in the 21st century. The option to take your own life or be fatally shot by a law enforcement officer hasn’t qualified as enough of a deterrent for mass shooters- especially in this mental health epidemic we’ve suddenly become embroiled in, meaning the kinds of people who would commit these malevolent acts don’t seem to mind the idea of suicide or being shot to death.

So if these killers don’t mind dying, the only solution to this problem would be preventing the crime in the first place- which is an option. An option that would give the government the ultimate power to surveil every part of your life- including domestically, as CCTV surveillance has only proven to be effective for reducing property offences- and it would be necessary to have strong law enforcement presence to notice any reduction in violent crimes.

For Americans, that would mean giving up the Second Amendment to the Constitution; which protects the right to keep and bear arms, and ultimately, handing over complete trust to the government to protect all its citizens and to act impartially. That would mean state control redolent of that of a communist system such China, North Korea or Cuba, and if you’ve listened to any of my other podcast episodes, you will be aware of the dangers that come from absolute state control over its citizens.

So if retribution and prevention aren’t feasible options when it comes to murder or other capital offences, how should we deal with this kind of crime?

As I mentioned earlier, we ought to look at capital offences objectively. That means how do we create a society that is as free as possible from crime that poses a risk to society or a democratic government?

I believe that deterrence naturally follows punishment for capital offences. I can’t imagine that murderers will care too much about the difference between suicide, death or life imprisonment when their primary goal is to end the lives of their victims or risk the loss of lives due to their crime.

Most violent crimes take place where people can’t be surveiled which means to live in a society that is completely free of violent crime would mean we would have to give up all our freedoms to the government- which would be a bad alternative.

Let’s remember how rare it is in a civilised society to meet or be acquainted with anyone who has taken someone else’s life intentionally.

With that being said, I think that anyone who commits any capital offense such as murder should be incarcerated. 

I believe that the worst kind of punishment anyone should receive should be solitary confinement.

Why? You might ask. Well irrespective of evidence, the objective goal should be to remove the accused from society with the aim of protecting the society or government. Nothing more.

The government and society should approach capital offences from the perspective of protection rather than retribution.

As mentioned earlier, the White Room is a torture technique that can cause hallucinations and psychological collapse. I think people might be quick to underestimate how torturous such conditions can be as human beings are social creatures.

When left alone, a human has nothing to turn to but their thoughts and imaginations- which as far as I’m concerned- is retribution in itself- especially if the assailant has murdered people. If a heinous act has been committed- the worst possible outcome for the assailant would be to be forced to live.

Conversely, the person is still alive. The accused- if wrongly convicted- will remain in solitude only as long as it takes to gather enough evidence to exonerate the accused. Since science and technology has had a massive impact at exculpating those who were wrongly convicted (such as DNA), and that science and technology is only improving- the accused can feel rest assured that it’s only a matter of time before they’re liberated.

The justification for solitary confinement is simple- society must be protected until unquestionable evidence is gleaned to determine whether the accused is a threat to society or not. And obviously, the extent of the crime one is accused of should determine where the accused should be confined- as prisoners also need to be protected from other criminals.

So that means I would place all mass murderers into solitary confinement. Since they’re a threat to other prisoners, solitary confinement would be the only option. This would keep society safe, the person would have to live with what they’ve done, and most importantly would have little to no opportunity to socialise.

I’m not naïve enough to think that mass shooters don’t know this which is why I believe most of them commit suicide after they’ve carried out their crimes.

It makes the most sense to me that murderers are forced to live rather than given the opportunity to die. This removes the burden of the death penalty argument, ensures no one falsely convicted is murdered, and keeps society safe simultaneously.

If the death penalty is ever universally abolished, the next step would be to determine what levels of psychological torture should be considered humane or not.

If you disagree, please reach out and email me as I’d love to hear any counter-arguments to my stance.

If you enjoyed this episode, go ahead and subscribe to hear more content like this.

Thanks a lot for listening.