Capital punishment, the death penalty, death sentence, or execution is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the

state as a punishment for a crime. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from the Latin capitalis, literally "regarding the head" (referring to execution by beheading).

Capital punishment or the death penalty is the act of killing or executing a person, who was found guilty of a serious crime, by the government. Without a doubt, executions are considered the ultimate punishment for a crime, because there is no repeal from death. The logical alternative for capital punishment is life in prison without parole, yet a lot of nations still perform the death penalty. This is because the debate whether capital punishment is ethical and justifiable is still widely disputed

Community of Christ Community of Christ, the former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), is opposed to capital punishment. The first stand against capital punishment was taken by the church's Presiding High Council in 1995. This was followed by a resolution of the World Conference in 2000. This resolution, WC 1273, states: [W]e stand in opposition to the use of the death penalty; and ... as a peace church we seek ways to achieve healing and restorative justice. Church members are encouraged to work for the abolition of the death penalty in those states and nations that still practice this form of punishment.[161]

Some forms of Islamic law, as in Saudi Arabia, may require capital punishment, but there is great variation within Islamic nations as to actual capital punishment. Apostasy in Islam and stoning to death in Islam are controversial topics. Furthermore, as expressed in the Qur'an, capital punishment is condoned. Instead, murder is treated as a civil crime and is covered by the law of retaliation, whereby the relatives of the victim decide whether the offender is punished with death by the authorities or made to pay diyah as compensation.[166] Muslims frequently refer to the story of Cain and Abel when referring to killing someone. The Qur'an says the following: "If anyone kills person unless it be (a punishment) for murder or for spreading mischief in the land it would be as if he killed all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people" (

International organisations
The United Nations introduced a resolution during the General Assembly's 62nd sessions in 2007 calling for a universal ban.[133][134] The approval of a draft resolution by the Assembly's third committee, which deals with human rights issues, voted 99 to 52, with 33 abstentions, in favour of the resolution on 15 November 2007 and was put to a vote in the Assembly on December 18.[135][136][137] Again in 2008, a large majority of states from all regions adopted a second resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in the UN General Assembly (Third Committee) on 20 November. 105 countries voted in favour of the draft resolution, 48 voted against and 31 abstained. A range of amendments proposed by a small minority of pro-death penalty countries were overwhelmingly defeated. It had in 2007 passed a non-binding resolution (by 104 to 54, with 29 abstentions) by asking its member states for "a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty".[138]

a)The position in Zimbabwe up to the present time

In Dhlamini v. Carter, 1968 (1) RLR 136 (A), where the court ruled that a prisoner could complain about delay in execution being a cruel treatment, but the only remedy would speed up the execution.The only remedy . . . is to ask for an order that the delay should stop, something which no person sentenced to death is likely to do. in DhIamini and Others vs Carter NO and Another (1) 1968 (1) RLR 136 (A). The facts were that the three appellants had been sentenced to death prior to the declaration of Unilateral Independence on 11 November 1965. Their appeals were duly dismissed. In seeking to interdict the first respondent, the Sheriff, from carrying out the sentences the appellants relied, inter alia, upon the submission that the delay between their imposition and the decision to confirm them was so inordinate as to constitute inhuman or degrading punishment in violation of s 60(1) of the lawful 1961 Constitution. Beadle CJ said: 'If during the course of his punishment, a prisoner is subjected to inhuman "treatment", he can move the Court for relief and the Court will see that the "treatment" is stopped, but that does not affect the original "punishment" which cannot, itself, become tainted with the inhumanity of the "treatment".''The inhuman treatment complained of in the instant case is the delay in carrying out the sentence. If, as I have already found, "treatment" is distinct from "punishment", and if the inhumanity of the treatment cannot taint the lawfulness of an otherwise lawful punishment, then the only remedy an accused, who has been sentenced to death, has under s 60(1) is to ask for an order that the delay should stop, something which no person sentenced to death is ever likely to do. It is to be noted that in Javed Ahmed v State of Maharashtra (supra) the Supreme Court of India quashed the sentence of death, replacing it with imprisonment for life, notwithstanding that the President of India had refused clemency. And in Madhu Mehta v Union of India

(supra) the same distinguished Court issued a similar order, even though the mercy petition had not yet been considered by the Executive. It is essential that this Court, in the exercise of its wide discretion, should award a meaningful and effective remedy for the breach of s 15(1). That, in my view, may best be achieved by ordering that the sentences of death be vacated.

Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union affirms the prohibition on capital punishment in the EU A number of regional conventions prohibit the death penalty, most notably, the Sixth Protocol (abolition in time of peace) and the 13th Protocol (abolition in all circumstances) to the European Convention on Human Rights. The same is also stated under the Second Protocol in the American Convention on Human Rights, which, however has not been ratified by all countries in the Americas, most notably Canada and the United States. Most relevant operative international treaties do not require its prohibition for cases of serious crime, most notably, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This instead has, in common with several other treaties, an optional protocol prohibiting capital punishment and promoting its wider abolition.[139] Several international organizations have made the abolition of the death penalty (during time of peace) a requirement of membership, most notably the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe. The EU and the Council of Europe are willing to accept a moratorium as an interim measure. Thus, while Russia is a member of the Council of Europe, and practices the death penalty in law, it has not made public use of it since becoming a member of the Council. Other states, while having abolished de jure the death penalty in time of peace and de facto in all circumstances, have not ratified Protocol no.13 yet and therefore have no international obligation to refrain from using the death penalty in time of war or imminent threat of war (Armenia, Latvia, Poland and Spain).[140] Italy is the most recent to ratify it, on March 3, 2009.[141] Turkey has recently, as a move towards EU membership, undergone a reform of its legal system. Previously there was a de facto moratorium on the death penalty in Turkey as the last execution took place in 1984. The death penalty was removed from peacetime law in August 2002, and in May 2004 Turkey amended its constitution in order to remove capital punishment in all circumstances. It ratified Protocol no. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights in February 2006. As a result, Europe is a continent free of the death penalty in practice, all states but Russia, which has entered a moratorium, having ratified the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, with the sole exception of Belarus, which is not a member of the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has been lobbying for Council of Europe observer states who practice the death penalty, the U.S. and Japan, to abolish it or lose their observer status. In addition to banning capital punishment for EU member states, the EU has also banned detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.[citation needed]

Among non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are noted for their opposition to capital punishment. A number of such NGOs, as well as trade unions, local councils and bar associations formed a World Coalition Against the Death Penalty in 2002.

Christianity
Views on the death penalty in Christianity run a spectrum of opinions, from complete condemnation of the punishment, seeing it as a form of revenge and as contrary to Christ's message of forgiveness, to enthusiastic support based primarily on Old Testament law. Among the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew, the message to his followers that one should "Turn the other cheek" and his example in the story Pericope Adulterae, in which Jesus intervenes in the stoning of an adulteress, are generally accepted as his condemnation of physical retaliation (though most scholars[144][145] agree that the latter passage was "certainly not part of the original text of St John's Gospel"[146]) More militant Christians consider Romans 13:34 to support the death penalty. Many Christians have believed that Jesus' doctrine of peace speaks only to personal ethics and is distinct from civil government's duty to punish crime. In the Old Testament, Leviticus Leviticus 20:227 provides a list of transgressions in which execution is recommended. Christian positions on these passages vary.[147] The sixth commandment (fifth in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches) is translated as "Thou shalt not kill" by some denominations and as "Thou shalt not murder" by others. As some denominations do not have a hard-line stance on the subject, Christians of such denominations are free to make a personal decision.[148]