Open Access Research Article
Should Capital Punishment Be Abolished Or Not?
Published Paper
Article Details
SHOULD CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT BE ABOLISHED
OR NOT?
AUTHORED BY - SUMIT
SAMANIYA &
SHRUTI
KUMARI
MANAV RACHNA UNIVERSITY
INTRODUCTION
Changing times demand change with time. Reformative measure as a
corrective institution to reform the inmates is undoubtedly a great step in the
field of penology. it is a topic of great concern between penologist that
modern time requires inmates to be reformed on one hand while on another
capital punishment imposed by the state to the offender is creating obstruction
as capital punishment closed each and every door of reformation. It is due to the reason that only a living
human can be reformed.
In this article an attempt has been made to understand that “should
capital be abolished or not” . To be in a position
to critically analyze,
we should consider both sides of the coin.
Types of punishment (section
4 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
2023)
1. Death penalty
2. Life
imprisonment
3. Imprisonment (rigorous and simple)
4. Forfeiture of property
5. Fine
6. Community service
Who can award capital
punishment in India ?
In India a session
court (including court
of Additional Session judge), High court And
Supreme court has power to award capital punishment to convict, provided Where
a sentence of death is awarded by Court of Session (including court of Additional session
judge) then such sentence is subject to confirmation by High
Court of concerned state.
Mode of
Execution
1.
Hanging
2. Lethal injections
3. Firing squad
4.
Gas chamber
5. Electrocution
6. shooting
Capital punishment should be abolished (Arguments against)
1. An individual who ends somebody’s life does not allowed to live in the society. This assertion underscores the belief that those who commit such grave offenses should face commensurate
consequences, including the ultimate penalty.
2. The
one who had committed such inhumane crime,
forfeits his right
to life that is those who are responsible for such
a serious offense must bead the corresponding consequence, including the loss
of their own life.
3. Hanging the convict of death penalty
is one the best method to effectively eliminate murderers from the society.
Some consider this procedure as the only way to guarantee that people who
have committed horrible crimes like murder can never again threaten the public.
It acts as a strong deterrent to future potential criminals.
4. It is economical and less expensive
to execute a convict than to give them shelter
in prison further
it will be injustice to the victim
and his family
if such convict who has
killed someone does not get equal pain and sufferings but allowed to get free
shelter and food in the same country.
5. Capital punishment prevents
overcrowding in the jails that means capital punishment serves to alleviate
overcrowding in the prisons. It is a common argument that the death penalty helps reduce jail overpopulation. A decrease in the number of prisoners may result in
better living circumstances for those behind the bars.
6. If a convict who had taken ones life
is given life imprisonment , it will create danger for other criminals
and such convict
can take lives of other in jails
too.
7. If
death penalty is abolished it will encourage
the other offenders
and there will be nothing to deter the potential
criminal from committing the graver offence.
8. The
principle of “an eye for an eye” is often
invoked in discussions surrounding capital punishment. This concept suggests that
punishment for a crime should be proportional to the offense committed. In the
context of capital punishment, penologist argues that executing individuals who
have taken the life of another is a just and fitting to their actions.
Capital punishment should be abolished (Argument in favor )
1. Only
the divine power (God) has right to give birth to someone
and hence to take
away it . human does not
possess any right to take away anybody’s life.
2. Capital punishment ends all possible
way of transformation and reformation because only the life can be reform and
not the death. By putting someone to death, society eliminates any
opportunities for them to change for the better or grow personally and atone
for their crimes. This punishment guarantees that there are no more
opportunities for future atonement, improvement or positive development . thus
, the death sentence neglects the basic possibility of human rehabilitation by eliminating any chance that offender will ever make a positive contribution to society.
3. Capital punishment is a killing of human being
and all killings are considered wrong hence death sentence is
also wrong. The capital punishment is ntrinsically incompatible with the norms
that forbid killing . since the death sentences is an example of state
sanctioned killing, it follows that it is morally repugnant if we agree with the premise that killing is intrinsically immoral
in all circumstances .
4. It
may result in Grave injustice to the person wrongly sentenced to death. The
irreversible nature of death penalty means that any miscarriage of justice
resulting in the wrongful execution of an innocent person represents an
egregious violation of the sanctity
of life. From this point of view , abolishing death penalty is not only a
matter of moral integrity but also a practical necessity to prevent the
irrevocable loss of innocent lives.
5. Capital punishment leads to feeling of vengeance which brutalize the society.
The act of executing individuals as punishment for their crimes can evoke
strong emotions of anger, resentment, and desire for revenge within society.
6. Capital punishment is unjust and
often discriminatory to people having weak financial means who cannot
afford to properly
defend themselves in the court of
law .
7.
Giving
life sentence with maximum security and solitary confinement is far better idea
than to execute to death. Imposing a life sentence with the highest levels of
security and solitary confinement is a significantly more humane and ethically
preferable alternative to carrying out an execution . by adopting for lifelong
incarnation under strict conditions, society retains the opportunity to
maintain control over the individual, ensuring public safety
without resorting to the
irreversible act of taking ones life. This strategy not only protects the
inalienable right to life but also gives the perpetrator the chance to
rehabilitate .
8. Capital punishment is violative of
basic human right i.e. right to life and also morally and ethically wrong. An individual’s inherent right is directly violated when they are put to death,
depriving them of their right to life.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE (IN BRIEF)
Death penalty
as a punishment has been there in almost every Nation in the globe however with change in time many
states either discontinued or abolished the practice. According to a report by
Amnesty international (latest and
updated – may 2022) worlds leading executioner countries are china, Iran,
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
There are 112 countries
all over the globe that have abolished the death penalty
in their respective laws.
As per the death
penalty information center, about 70% of the world have abolished the death penalty
in law or in practice. While 54 nations still have capital punishment and India is one of them.
The global
perspective on the abolition of capital punishment reflects a complex interplay of moral, legal, and
practical considerations. While there is a growing consensus towards abolition,
challenges persists in addressing concerns about crime rates and justice
systems and navigating cultural and political
sensitivities surrounding capital punishment. Ultimately, the pursuit of
abolition requires on going dialogue, advocacy, and concerted efforts to uphold
principles of human rights, justice and dignity for individuals.
INDIAN
PERSPECTIVE
Capital punishment
is the highest penalty given to convicts in India, it is awarded in extremely
severe cases of Murders , rapes etc. In India life sentence is a rule whereas
the death penalty an exception
in capital offences. we follow
‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine while
awarding capital punishment as introduced in “Bachchan singh vs state of Punjab 1980” case by the
constitution bench of Supreme court, in this case the death penalty is also
held constitutionally valid . moreover in the case of “Machhi singh vs state of
Punjab 1983” the apex court laid down certain considerations to determine
whether a case falls under the category or not.
CONCLUSION
Abolition of
Capital punishment remains a debatable and controversial topic globally
including in India .there is strong arguments both for and against its
implementation, it requires careful considerations of legal, ethical and social
implications. In a country like India where deterrence theory of punishment is
given too much preference still
somehow lacking in deterring potential criminals , it may motivates the
potential criminal and there will be nothing to deter such potential criminal
from committing graver offence if capital punishment is abolished completely. The law commission of India in its 262 report recommended abolition of death penalty for
all crimes except for terrorism and waging war against the government. As per
the contemporary time India is not in a position to put complete ban on death penalty
and it will be a great decision
to maintain status quo and should continue with
‘rarest of rare’ principle laid down in the landmark supreme court judgment which provides that the death penalty
should only be given in a rarest and rare case where the crime is brutal,
heinous and shocking to the collective conscience of society , furthermore
capital punishment should only be given where alternative punishments are
unquestionably inadequate and cause grave injustice to the victim.
REFERENCES
·
N.V Pranjape
book
·
Bharatiya nagrik
suraksha sanhita 2023
·
Bharatiya nyaya
sanhita 2023
·
Amnesty international death penalty report
Article Information
Should Capital Punishment Be Abolished Or Not?
Authors: SUMIT SAMANIYA, SHRUTI KUMARI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/06/17
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.