State’s right to punish comes with heavy responsibility

Justice delayed is not the state's excuse for justice denied

By Muhammad Zaman Butt

The concept of punishment has been a longstanding and contentious subject within the realm of legal philosophy, its origins tracing back to the age-old principle of Lex Talionis. When probing the legitimacy of the state’s authority to punish offenders, a vital connection emerges between society and the government. Notably, the teachings of Cesare Beccaria and his followers converge on the idea that the state’s right to punish is rooted in a social contract between the people and the state itself. This contract serves to place constraints on the nature of punishments that the state can mete out. Theoretically, the critical analysis of distinguished criminologists and utilitarian theorists has given rise to the notion of criminal deterrence, encompassing three key facets: certainty, celerity, and severity of punishment; it involves the apprehension of being caught, prompt legal response, and the intensity of the punishment. Therefore, this authority must be used sparingly and must be in place to safeguard the rights of those who are accused throughout the legal process. Those suspected of committing a crime should be treated with dignity and consideration.

Considering the foregoing, our political ideology has a big impact on how the government handles criminal justice and punishment. While progressive governments frequently place a greater emphasis on social justice and rehabilitation in search of alternatives to incarceration, conservative governments frequently advocate harsher sentencing guidelines and punitive policies that emphasize law and order. Also, Pakistan’s legal system, which consists of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Pakistani Penal Code, and other pertinent laws, establishes the state’s power to punish offenders. These laws specify the kinds of crimes, the processes for investigation and prosecution, and the range of penalties that can be applied to anyone convicted of breaching the law. In Pakistan, the protection of a person’s fundamental rights during and after a trial is only one aspect of upholding the right to a fair trial, which is part and parcel of punishing an offender because it ensures that our criminal justice systems and the society in which we live are impartial, egalitarian, and based on justice, as this right has been enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan in 1973 (10-A).

Not only this, in Pakistan, extrajudicial killings, torture, denial of a fair trial, discrimination, excessive use of force, and enforced disappearances are a stain on the rule of law and must end immediately, especially when directed against opposition political parties. The CCD (Crime Control Department) was established in 2025 by the Punjab Government aims to curb the offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, child abuse and drug peddlers. The most alarming part of this Department is that according to Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), so far, CCD carried out almost more than 670 operations that resulted in 924 deaths of civilians without the matter going into the court. Upon this, the Writ Petition was filed in the Lahore High Court, in which almost 1,100 civilians have been extra-judicial killed in a staged encounter including a young lawyer, Zeeshan Dhaddi, at his residence. Later, the plea against CCD was rejected by the Lahore High Court in 2026.

While observing, I was particularly concerned by the case of innocent child (Hania Ahmed), a nine-year-old girl who was wrongfully killed during a CCD operation in Chakwal, it’s extremely tormenting that how the use of force can sometimes result in tragic outcomes for civilians. I also noticed that there is very limited public information available about how many innocent civilians unlawfully may have lost their lives in CCD operations, apart from reported cases like Hania Ahmed’s. The lack of clear data makes it difficult to understand the complete picture and raises concerns about transparency, accountability, and the need for proper investigation of such incidents. It seems police agencies have become the “judge, jury, and executioner” particularly significant because it highlights the risk of allowing law enforcement institutions to take over functions that legally belong to courts. So, it’s high time that the authorities promptly investigate such matters and hold accountable those elements involved in them while strengthening and reforming the legal system. Pakistan needs to address these abuses of power by committing to human rights, legal reforms, transparency, and independent review systems.

The state alone has the authority to punish, but this power carries serious consequences and must be exercised responsibly. Punishment should protect society and prevent further harm, and it is the state’s duty to prove guilt — the accused need not prove their innocence. Strong oversight by government institutions, the judiciary, legal professionals, and civil society is essential to prevent abuse. Ultimately, the judiciary bears the greatest responsibility in ensuring that justice is served, human rights are upheld, and the rule of law is preserved in Pakistan.