For many years the death penalty has been the sentence for murderers, rapists, bombers, serial killers and criminals. Last week, 14 inmates, at Kabul's Pul-e Charkhi prison, were hanged for a variety of crimes, including murder, kidnapping, rape and terrorism. There are many, likely to meet the same fate in the near future. Afghanistan does have the death penalty, but it has been rarely used. Since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, who regularly executed people in public, the government has only carried out the punishment every few years. The president must personally sign an order to have it enforced.

Having heard of it, a loud denunciation was recorded by humanitarian based organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI) strongly opposing the stance of death penalty that violated the right to life as proclaimed in article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating, "The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice."

Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific Deputy Director, Polly Truscott said "We urge President Karzai to halt these executions immediately. The sheer number of people who could be killed by the state is a particularly shocking use of what is the ultimate cruel and inhuman form of punishment,"

"The death penalty should never be used to achieve political gain or popularity. President Karzai would earn much higher credibility if he made greater effort to ensure the rule of law in Afghanistan where detainees are frequently tortured, the judiciary has little independence and serious human rights violations and crimes often go unpunished,". "There are still serious questions about the efficiency and impartiality of the Afghan justice system that have to be addressed immediately," said Truscott.

Being member state of UN, whose General Assembly (GA) has adopted three resolutions since 2007 with a continuously increasing majority, calling for a global moratorium on using the death penalty, she has to abide by it. However, government's continued use of capital punishment is in severe contrast to, not only the resolution of UN but also the trend both globally and in Asia, towards an end to the use of the death penalty.

An end to lives of some wrongdoers last week has been an issue that whether the death penalty should or should not be legal. There are many people that think that capital punishment should be used, as it is the only way to be sure the killing will at least end with that criminal, are anti-crime and criminals. There are others that feel that it should not be used, are pro-life. There are also some in the middle that think that it doesn't really matter because they feel that whatever happens will be right because it was brought up and decided in a court of law.

Those who dissent crimes and criminals are with view that prisons are not hard enough on their inmates that have committed the crime such as murder. In prison, the murderers are not treated harsh enough to magnitude of his crime, instead are treated more or less gently. They killed people, and if they're not going to be killed they sure better not be released to do it again. It should be remembered that the inmate had no mercy when they were raping, or killing innocent person, hence we should not feel sorry for them inflicting capital punishment.

There are lots of issues that arise with the death penalty, such as erroneous prosecution system, risking innocent lives being taken. This shows that their needs to be clear and correct evident on the suspect in custody. Therefore a full fledge forensic laboratory supplemented with all equipments and new technology, such as DNA testing should be built to evade any mistakes made in these life-threatening decisions. It should be ensured that feasibility report is devoid of errors so that the judgment to death is correct.

It is also observed that the death penalty is applied more often to people of lesser income than more fortunate people are. Why does our criminal justice system seek the death penalty in cases dealing with lower class criminals more often than in cases dealing with wealthy criminals?

It is nearly impossible, even upon conviction, to execute an individual of wealth, one who is represented by nine attorneys and no one knows how many investigators who assist them. A wealthy defendant can afford to defend himself or herself better than a poor defendant by: posting bail, hiring attorneys of their choice, hiring investigators, and doctors and experts of their choice. The poor defendant is forced to either accept the state assigned defense attorney, who isn't getting paid sufficient wages per case and is working on at least three other cases so probably isn't going to work as hard for their client, or defend themselves.

Aside to the underlined facts, the issue that is particularly worrying in Afghanistan is the real risk that you are executing the wrong people because the justice system functions so poorly. It's a justice system that relies too much on confessions; some of them are obtained through torture. Studies consistently show that the judicial system is one of the most corrupt parts of the government, enacting poor and biased judgments. Those convicted, and those who are not, are very arbitrary and depend on whether someone can afford to pay a bribe, or has powerful connections within the government.

The pro-life people believe that the death penalty is morally wrong because they feel that only God should have the final authority in death. This shows that the death penalty is just a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore they believe that the criminal should not be punished with death, even though, the criminal had no mercy on his/her victim.

Life is sacred, is an ideal that the majority of people can agree upon to a certain extent. For this reason taking the life of another has always been considered the most deplorable of crimes, one worthy of the harshest available punishment. Thus arises one of the great moral dilemmas of our time. Should taking the life of one who has taken the life of others be considered an available punishment? Is a murderer's life any less sacred than the victim's? Can capital punishment, the death penalty, execution, legal murder, or whatever a society wishes to call it, be morally justifiable?

Capital punishment is immoral is the idea that it creates a climate of violence. If a society punishes a murderer by murdering them what are we saying about violence and crime? Our society teaches its children that crime and violence does not solve anything, and yet our highest form of punishment is no different than the crime it punishes. The underlying question in this issue is if any kind of killing, regardless of reason, can be accepted.