Open Access Research Article
THE LAST VERDICT: EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
THE LAST VERDICT: EVALUATING THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY
- RAHUMATH
(LLM
Criminal Law Student)
Amity
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Noida
ABSTRACT
The usage
of the death sentence in India is critically examined in this article, which
also discusses its historical underpinnings, ethical ramifications,
effectiveness, and alternatives. The effectiveness of the death sentence in
deterring crime, upholding justice, and safeguarding human rights is a topic of
continuous debate, despite the fact that it is only used to the most heinous
crimes1. In India, the death penalty has a long history that was shaped by
colonial, religious, and cultural influences. Since its establishment in the
Indian Penal Code of 1860, the death sentence has remained legal throughout
independent India, with a few notable exceptions. In the landmark case of Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the "rarest of rare3" principle
was devised, which gives judges guidance when imposing the death penalty.
Deeply
ingrained moral concerns over the death penalty have spurred debates concerning
morality, justice, and the intrinsic value of human life. Critics contend that
both the fundamental right to life and the rules prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or
humiliating punishment are violated by the death penalty. This adds to the
ethical complexity, as evidenced by worries about erroneous convictions,
arbitrary sentences, and inconsistent application.The effectiveness of the
death penalty in deterring crime is still up for debate. Although proponents
assert that it can be used as a form of punishment for serious crimes and has a
deterrent effect, the main body of this research, which was founded on the
Doctrine of Rarest of Rare Cases, deals with a number of cases in order to
determine the study's object. The study examined whether the jury's verdicts in
the heinous crimes were rendered with the general public's opinion in mind,
concluding that, in the rarest of circumstances, the death penalty is indeed
just and equitable. The study indicates that the judiciary has the
discretionary authority to administer capital punishment; however, it must
adhere to public demand in order to ensure the safety of all individuals.
Keywords;
Death sentence, Arbitrary, Human life, Fundamental Rights, Crimes
INTRODUCTION
“We don’t know if capital punishment is a deterrent, but we
know that men we execute will not murder again”.
-Mario Puzo
The word
"crime," which comes from the Latin word "cerno," which
means "I take decisions, I judge, and I give judgment," has been
embraced by the public. The initial significance of the Latin word crimen means
"to charge" or "to weep with sorrow." A phrase from the
American Greek mix language called "krima" (kpiua), from which the
Latin cognate has been borrowed, literally means that an intellectual error is
an offense against the community rather than a wrongdoing against an individual
or moral principles. Crime is defined as an act that violates the laws of the
land, and the perpetrator is subject to punishment in accordance with the
clauses found in the applicable land laws. Stated otherwise, a crime is an act
that violates the law and is subject to punishment from the relevant state or
nation's government. Even though there isn't a single, widely recognized
definition for the term "crime," several people have defined it in
various ways, all arriving at the same conclusion that a crime is an act that
has been deemed unlawful and is subject to legal punishment. In any state, the
crime, often referred to as an offense, is detrimental to society as well as to
an individual. The death penalty, also known as the capital punishment, is a
form of punishment for transgressions. It needs to be kept apart from
extrajudicial executions that take place without following the proper legal
procedures. For the most horrible crime committed against humanity, it is the
harshest punishment available impacting society. According to each nation's
established legislation, the severity of such criminality varies. Draco (fl.
7th century BCE) advocated the death penalty for murder, treason, arson, and
rape in ancient Greece, despite Plato's contention that it should only be
applied to the incorrigible. Additionally, the Romans manipulated it for a
broad variety of offenses, even though throughout the republic, citizens were
briefly freed. Additionally, the majority of the world's main religions have
supported it.
The death
penalty is currently a hot topic of discussion worldwide as people's
perspectives shift with the times. People form their own values, which are
often accompanied by admirable opinions and have been followed for many decades
or even centuries. As the concept of human rights has grown, people have become
more conscious of their rights and power, as well as what they deserve and
whether they deserve to live. Some people continue to hold the view that it is
morally wrong to keep one person alive at the expense of another's life.
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE DEATH PENALTY'S HISTORY.
The Code
of King Hammurabi of Babylon, which regulated the death penalty for 25 distinct
offenses, was created in the eighteenth-century B.C. The death penalty is
further described in the Draconian Code of Athens, which mandated the death
penalty for all offenses.
The offenders received death sentences that included burning alive, drowning, beating to death, and impalement. In the tenth century A.D., hanging was adopted as the common means of execution in Britain. In the century that followed, under William the Conqueror, hanging individuals was outlawed save in times of war.
The offenders received death sentences that included burning alive, drowning, beating to death, and impalement. In the tenth century A.D., hanging was adopted as the common means of execution in Britain. In the century that followed, under William the Conqueror, hanging individuals was outlawed save in times of war.
Theories of punishment.
DETERRENT
THEORY
When
punishment is used to keep an offender from committing the same crime again or
to discourage potential offenders from committing comparable crimes, this is
known as deterrence. It serves as a warning to other possible criminals about
the consequences of imitating the wrongdoing[1].
"No
one punishes a wrongdoer on account of his wrongdoing unless one takes
unreasoning vengeance like a wild beast," according to Plato, who first
promoted it. "But he who undertakes to punish with reason does not avenge
himself for the past offense since he cannot make what was done as though it
never came to pass; he looks to the future and aims to prevent that particular
person and others who see him punished from doing wrong again."
A normal
mind is deterred by the certainty of punishment and the identification of an
offense, while a criminal's mind lacks this deterrence. criminal activity
without considering the repercussions. However, deterrence is ineffective for
crimes driven by passion, greed, impulsivity, or fear. When a criminal seeks
punishment out of guilt, deterrence is useless[2].
Detention serves more as a warning about punishment to make possible offenders
fearful.
RETRIBUTIVE THEORY
"This
older conception of punishment is sharply distinguished from mere social
hygiene: it does not make primary, as modern thought does, the reduction of
crime or the protection of society from the criminal; instead, it makes primary
the meting out to a responsible wrongdoer of his just deserts," Professor
Hart said, capturing the essence of the retributive theory of punishment.
Retaliation
is the natural reaction of every victim to the perpetrator. The need for
punishment is clear and well-founded. Dealing with the perpetrator and
punishing him was the victim's responsibility long ago. The victim was
compelled to give up their right to punish their perpetrator, though, as
society evolved, and this idea was abandoned. Retribution was carried out by
assigning the offended person's resentment and fury to the community. Society's
desire to punish the guilty took precedence over the sentiments of the victim[3]. It
is possible to argue that punishment, as a manifestation of society's
collective interest, is equally immoral as the offense. It is important to
remember, however, that this imposition does not violate any laws.
REFORMATIVE THEORY
In
contrast to the other approach, this one seeks to stop the crime rather than
get revenge. It takes a more humanitarian view of penalties and is based on the
idea that a crime's requirement for a penalty stems from societal demands.
Therefore, society is attempting to stop the offenders from committing any more
crimes in the future by locking them up. By doing this, society is shielded
from any antisocial elements.
Every individual has value and dignity, and society is
prepared to invest time and effort in reclaiming them for their own sake not
just to prevent them from hurting society in the future. This is what drives
rehabilitation. The emphasis of reformative theory is on individualism. It
centers on a criminal's transformation and the idea that convicts can be
re-educated and reformed.
PREVENTIVE THEORY
This theory, in contrast to the other, seeks to stop the crime
rather than exact revenge. It takes a more compassionate stance toward
penalties and is based on the idea that the need for a penalty for a crime is a
result of societal demands. As a result, when society sends criminals to
prison, it is also trying to stop them from catching another crime. This
safeguards the community against any antisocial elements.
The basic idea behind the preventive theory is that the criminal
should be held in custody for an extended length of time to stop him from
committing new crimes during that time. Rather than considering the offender's
guilt for the offense for which he was sentenced, the length of the detention
time is determined primarily by the necessity to safeguard the public.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND ETHICAL ASPECTS
The sanctity of life, justice, and morality are all major topics
in the discussion surrounding the death penalty's morality. The necessity of
protecting human rights and dignity in a law-and-order community is the topic
of this conversation[4]. The claim made by those reason against
the death penalty is that it blatantly infringes upon the rights to life and
inherent dignity, which are safeguarded by the Indian Constitution and
international human rights standard[5].
The ethical argument against the death sentence is predicated on
the knowledge that each individual has a right to life and inherent value[6]. Advocates argue that because the death
sentence allows the government to intentionally take a person's life, it goes
against this core principle irrevocably[7]. Many critics argue that by essentially
serving as a judge of life and death, the state has overreached itself.
In addition, concerns regarding erroneous convictions cast a
long shadow over the death penalty's morality. Throughout history, numerous
accounts of persons who were wrongfully convicted and executed have surfaced,
only to be later exonerated by fresh evidence or developments in the field of
forensics. These examples serve as depressing reminders of the legal system's
weakness as well as the irreversible consequences of executing innocent people[8]. This ethical dilemma calls into
question the sustainability of a system that puts the lives of the defenceless
in danger for the sake of justice.
The arbitrary nature of capital sentencing and the variations in
its application further erode the moral foundations of the death sentence.
Research consistently demonstrates that sentencing guidelines for the death
penalty vary depending on a person's race and ethnicity
socioeconomic status and residential location. These distinctions raise concerns about equity and fairness in the legal system and call into question the notion that justice is unbiased. Because of this, structural injustices that disproportionately affect the poor are perpetuated and the public's trust in the integrity of the legal system is eroded[9].
socioeconomic status and residential location. These distinctions raise concerns about equity and fairness in the legal system and call into question the notion that justice is unbiased. Because of this, structural injustices that disproportionately affect the poor are perpetuated and the public's trust in the integrity of the legal system is eroded[9].
Given India's rich philosophical and cultural traditions, which
strongly emphasize compassion, nonviolence, and respect for human life, the ethical
debate surrounding the death sentence has particular significance there. Indian
morality has always been founded on ideas like dharma (righteousness) and
ahimsa (non-violence), which have an impact on how society perceives punishment
and justice. Therefore, some would contend that the death penalty is
incongruous with these firmly held convictions, casting doubt on how it aligns
with India's moral and cultural heritage.
India's commitment to upholding human rights further complicates
the moral dilemmas raised by the death sentence. As a party to several
international treaties and conventions, India is obligated to protect and
defend the fundamental rights of its citizens, including The International
Civil and Political Rights Covenant (ICCPR)[10]. When the death sentence is used, there
are serious concerns about whether these international human rights norms are
being adhered to, particularly when due process or fair trial requirements are
absent.
In recent years, there has been a greater awareness of the
necessity for a thorough review of the moral underpinnings of the death penalty
in India. Human rights violations, the potential for false convictions, and the
capricious nature of the death penalty have raised concerns resulting in
demands for its outlawing. In their opinions, human rights advocates, civil
society groups, and legal experts have urged lawmakers and politicians to
reconsider the ethical implications of maintaining the death sentence in Indian
law.
The
morality of the death sentence is still up for debate, though, and varying
opinions still have an impact on public opinion and legislative decisions.
Proponents of the death penalty argue that it provides justice and closure to
victims and their families while serving as a vital deterrence against severe
offenses. They argue that the death penalty will be less effective as a
deterrent and that it will be more difficult for the government to maintain law
and order.
The death
penalty's supporters also argue that it is morally justified in cases where the
offense is deemed to be so terrible that no less severe punishment would be
suitable.
The death sentence, they contend, is a form of retributive justice that ensures offenders
endure the full consequences of their actions and that it is morally required of society to hold individuals responsible for their actions[11].
The death sentence, they contend, is a form of retributive justice that ensures offenders
endure the full consequences of their actions and that it is morally required of society to hold individuals responsible for their actions[11].
In
conclusion, the death penalty in India is a contentious topic that raises
significant questions about morality, justice, and human rights. Critics assert
that the practice breaches an important deterrence against serious crimes,
while advocates maintain that it is an the inherent worth and right to life of
every individual. As India struggles with these moral dilemmas, a thorough
reexamination of the death penalty's underlying principles is required to
ensure that justice is administered in a manner consistent with the principles
of equality before the law, justice, and human rights.
“The
legality of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not violated by the
Supreme Court of India's ruling that the death penalty is appropriate in
exceptional cases.”
The
Supreme Court contested the constitutionality of the death penalty in Jagmohan
Singh v. State of U. P[12].
The court dismissed the allegations that the death penalty breaches Article 21
of the Indian Constitution and that the right to life is a fundamental right.
The death penalty could not be considered a breach of Article 21. The death
penalty was applied in Deena v. Union of India[13],
and the court determined that hanging is not a cruel way to carry out a
sentence and does not, therefore, violate Article 21.
The
Supreme Court ruled in Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab[14]
that Section 303 of the IPC is unconstitutional because it violates Articles 14
and 21 of the Indian Constitution; nevertheless, in extremely rare instances,
the death penalty is still applicable. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
ensure the right to human dignity in life, as well as the right to personal
liberty. It also states that no one's rights may be taken away from them unless
it is done in accordance with a legally mandated process. According to it, the
state may be able to take away someone's life in the name of the law and the public.
According
to the Supreme Court's ruling in Menka Gandhi v. UOI, the death penalty
must be used in a way that is just and reasonable. Every accused person has the
right to a fair trial, so they must rely on the following provisions of natural
and procedural law:
•
The death penalty ought to be reserved for
exceptional circumstances.
•
The death penalty will only be applied for very
specific reasons and will be considered an extraordinary punishment.
•
The accused is entitled to a hearing.
•
Sentences must be tailored to everyone’s
circumstances.
•
The HC must appropriately impose the death penalty.
•
The ability to appeal.
•
According to Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian
Constitution, the accused has the right to ask the president and governor for
forgiveness.
•
Torture of the accused is prohibited.
•
In trial custody, the accused is free to express
themselves.
•
The accused is entitled to select a competent
attorney.
Justice
Iyer argued in favor of removing the death penalty and limiting its application
to white collar offenses in Rajendra Prasad v. State[15]
of U.P.
However,
in the Bacchan Singh Case, the Supreme Court overturned Rajendra Prasad's
decision by a majority, held that death penalty under section 302 of IPC
doesn’t violate Article 21. India ratified the 1979 International Convention on
Civil and Political Rights, which does not outlaw the death penalty but only
permits its application in a fair and non-arbitrary manner.
In T.V.
Vantheswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu[16],
the issue is whether postponing the execution of a death sentence violates
Article 21 and, if so, whether life in prison should be used in its place. The
court ruled that the execution of the death penalty must be postponed in a
reasonable way.
The court
ruled in Triveni Bai v. State of Gujarat [17]
that the death penalty must be postponed until the accused's final breath and
that the trial must be fair.
“The death
penalty is advantageous to society even though it violates human rights in
India”.
No one
shall endure torture or cruel, inhuman, or humiliating treatment or punishment,
according to Article 5 of the UDHR, (1948)[18].
The death penalty was documented by the UN General Assembly as a necessity for
high standards for a fair trial that were once adhered to by all nations, and
the processes to must be reasonable, equitable, and just.
The
complete elimination of the death sentence under all circumstances is provided
for in the 13th protocol of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which was available for member states to
ratify. It is acknowledged that the death penalty is terrible, cruel and
inhumane punishment that violates the accused's fundamental human rights as
stated in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to
human life, liberty, and security is also guaranteed under Article 3 of UDHR
(Ahmed, 2002).
Deterrent,
preventative, retributive, reformative, and rehabilitative ideas are some of
the several theories of punishment. The deterrent theory of punishment places
greater emphasis on removing criminals from society to protect it from them. As
stated by according to this theory, the purpose of punishment is to discourage
lawbreakers from breaching the law.
Death
sentences and other deterrent punishments should serve as a reminder to society
and those who are prone to committing similar crimes that anyone who does so
will face the same kind of punishment. In this manner, it keeps individuals
from breaching the law, and by getting rid of offenders, it lowers the crime
rate in society. Thus, there are four reasons to support this theory: (1)
prevention; (2) isolation; (3) elimination; and (4) exemplary danger to
society's potential criminals (Bhattacharya, 2013)[19].
In
International glance Article 5 of UDHR provided that “No one shall be subjected
to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[20]
·
Although the standards for the use of the death
penalty are provided by the United Nations and the Economic and Social Council,
those are.
·
The death penalty may only be applied to extremely
serious offenses in the member nations that have not abolished it. And because
we were adhering to UNECOSOC rules, the death penalty was only ever applied in
the most exceptional of circumstances in India.
·
Pregnant ladies and deranged people shouldn't be
given the death penalty.
·
The death penalty shouldn't be applied to minors
under the age of sixteen.
·
Article 14 of the ICCPR states that the death
penalty can only be used following a fair trial.
·
The death
penalty will not be applied retroactively.
·
The ability to appeal to a higher court must be
obtained.
·
The death penalty cannot be applied in a pardon or
appeal.
The Indian
judiciary only applies the death penalty in extremely rare cases that have an
impact on the general population, in accordance with UNECOSOC principles, and
thus practice does not contravene those guidelines. The right to personal life
and liberty is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which also
states that no one may be denied their right unless the legal process is
followed. It implies that it will be considered as just and equitable if
someone has been punished by the law, even if it involves the death penalty[21].
The Indian
Constitution, which governs the country's general populace, states that if
someone repeatedly affects the public by their unlawful actions, their life
shall only be taken away if the guardians of the constitution deem it
appropriate because not only the accused's human rights have been violated, but
we also need to consider the victim's perspective. Victims may take matters
into their own hands and attempt to punish their abusers if they see that the
state is unwilling to do so in the interest of reform and correction, which
will result in chaos. According to Benham's theory of penal objectives, which
states that the offender's pain should be greater than the pleasure he receives
from committing the crime, prescribed and proportionate punishment is therefore
crucial to preventing this circumstance[22].
“When the
Indian judiciary imposes the death penalty, it does so with discretion and
consideration for the general welfare of the populace”.
In Macchi
Singh and ors. V. State of Punjab[23],
the court considers the viewpoint of the general public, whose reaction is so
shocked that they want to give the accused the death penalty because they
affect the general public. The court also mentions in his ruling the
requirements that must be met to grant the death penalty, along with an
example. The court states that the five categories of murder through which the
doctrine of rarest of rare cases shall be considered are motive, manner of
commission, extent of crime, anti-social or repugnant nature of crime, and
victim personality. The jury has the discretion to impose the death penalty
while keeping in mind these principles that promote public welfare and
security.
EFFICACY AND ALTERNATIVES
Because
they think it can deter crime and bring retribution for very horrible acts,
supporters of the death sentence occasionally argue in Favor of its
implementation. However, the precise evidence regarding its deterrent efficacy
remains unclear because research indicates that additional aspects can impact
crime rates more significantly. Furthermore, the increasing recognition of
restorative justice principles highlights the importance of rehabilitation,
community engagement, and reconciliation initiatives in mending harm and
discouraging future transgressions[24].
Alternative sentencing options, such life in prison with the potential of
parole, are not only a more humane and efficient approach to deal with crime,
but they can also aid in rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Advocates
of the death penalty have long maintained that the possibility of execution
deters people from committing serious crimes, and this has been the rationale
underlying their activism. The supporting data, however, is inconclusive and
contradictory. A significant amount although there are those who argue that the
death penalty may have a deterrent effect, no study has shown a correlation
between the death penalty's existence and crime rates.
Other
factors, such as socioeconomic level, access to education and employment
opportunities, and the efficiency of the criminal justice system, may have a
greater influence on crime rates than the dread of the death penalty.
The
ethical implications of employing the death penalty as a deterrent should also
be carefully considered. Using people's fear of dying as a deterrent to crime
raises ethical questions about whether this tactic is suitable and how it
aligns with ideas of human rights and justice. Critics contend that the
emphasis on deterrence overlooks the fundamental worth of human life as well as
the social and economic problems that underpin criminal behaviour.
Unlike the
punitive nature of the death penalty, restorative justice principles advocate a
more thorough and community-centred approach to repairing harm and discouraging
future crimes. Restorative justice places a high priority on accountability,
reconciliation, and healing for all parties involved victims, offenders, and
the greater community.
Instead of
concentrating solely on punishment, restorative justice seeks to address the
root causes of crime and make amends for the harm caused by criminal activity[25].
Rehabilitation acknowledges that criminals are capable of evolving and
reintegrating into society.
A key element of restorative justice is reintegrating people into society as law-abiding citizens. Rehabilitation programs aim to address the underlying causes of criminal behaviour and reduce the likelihood of recidivism by giving access to mental health services, education, vocational training, and other forms of support[26].
A key element of restorative justice is reintegrating people into society as law-abiding citizens. Rehabilitation programs aim to address the underlying causes of criminal behaviour and reduce the likelihood of recidivism by giving access to mental health services, education, vocational training, and other forms of support[26].
Community
involvement is another crucial element of restorative justice, which recognizes
that crime impacts not just the victim and the offender but also the greater community[27].
The goal of restorative justice is to create stronger, more resilient
communities that are by including community members in conflict resolution and
offender rehabilitation programs, we can effectively prevent and address
criminal activity.
Additionally,
the moral and ethical objections to the death penalty such as the potential for
the murder of innocent people, the arbitrary nature of sentencing, and the
disproportionate impact on marginalized groups are lessened when life in prison
with the prospect of release is offered. To respond to criminal activity in a
more humane and equitable manner and to promote rehabilitation and
reintegration into society, alternative sentencing tactics place a higher
priority on human rights, justice, and fairness.
It is
still debatable whether the arguments put out by supporters of the death
penalty that it deters crime and is a way to get revenge for heinous crimes are
supported by factual evidence.
Additionally, the increasing acceptance of restorative justice concepts highlights the
importance of community engagement, rehabilitation, and reconciliation efforts in mending damage and discouraging future offenses[28]. Alternative sentencing options, like life in prison with the chance of release, offer a more humane and potentially more effective means of deterring crime while encouraging rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Additionally, the increasing acceptance of restorative justice concepts highlights the
importance of community engagement, rehabilitation, and reconciliation efforts in mending damage and discouraging future offenses[28]. Alternative sentencing options, like life in prison with the chance of release, offer a more humane and potentially more effective means of deterring crime while encouraging rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
CONCLUSION
The death
penalty's implementation in India necessitates a thorough examination and
deliberate deliberation in light of evolving social perspectives, human rights
standards, and equity principles[29].
Critical analysis of the ethical, legal, and practical implications of the
death sentence while yet acknowledging the seriousness of violent crimes and
the necessity of providing victims with justice. In the future, a careful
analysis of alternatives to the legal system, like restorative practices and
rehabilitation programs, could aid India in creating a criminal justice system
that is more efficient, humane, and just[30].
The
discussion around the death sentence in India has mirrored the nation's broader
views on justice, punishment, and crime. Although the death penalty is only
used in the "rarest of rare" situations, due to the fact that it is
an irreversible punishment with implications for justice and
human rights, its application needs to be properly thought out.
human rights, its application needs to be properly thought out.
When
evaluating the death penalty's application, its ethical ramifications must be
considered[31]. The
state's deliberate taking of a person's life raises important ethical questions
about the worth of human life, the propriety of vengeance, and the role of
punishment in a just society.
Human rights norms protect the right to life and inherent dignity, which are infringed by the death penalty, as detractors claim. This emphasizes how crucial it is to uphold these values when administering justice.
Human rights norms protect the right to life and inherent dignity, which are infringed by the death penalty, as detractors claim. This emphasizes how crucial it is to uphold these values when administering justice.
Furthermore,
the legislation pertaining to the death penalty in India must be carefully
examined. Even while the Supreme Court's "rarest of rare" concept
offers guidance on punishment, there are still issues regarding its application
and interpretation. The arbitrary determination of what constitutes the
"rarest of rare" case raises questions about the consistency and
fairness of the death penalty.
Disparities
in access to legal representation and systemic biases in the criminal justice
system exacerbate issues about equity and fairness in capital cases.
Practically speaking, there is ongoing debate on the death penalty's
effectiveness as a deterrent to crime. Despite
contradictory empirical evidence, proponents argue that the fear of execution may dissuade people from committing serious crimes. Furthermore, research shows that other factors, such as socioeconomic level, employment and educational opportunities, and the efficiency of the criminal justice system, have a bigger influence on crime rates[32]. This highlights the significance of investigating various strategies for crime prevention and rehabilitation.
contradictory empirical evidence, proponents argue that the fear of execution may dissuade people from committing serious crimes. Furthermore, research shows that other factors, such as socioeconomic level, employment and educational opportunities, and the efficiency of the criminal justice system, have a bigger influence on crime rates[32]. This highlights the significance of investigating various strategies for crime prevention and rehabilitation.
Traditional
punitive approaches can be effectively replaced by the principles of
restorative justice[33].
By emphasizing healing and rehabilitation for all parties concerned restorative
justice aims to alleviate the pain brought on by unlawful activity.
responsibility, rapprochement, and communal service. By focusing on mending
relationships and addressing the underlying causes of crime, restorative approaches
offer a more comprehensive and compassionate approach to justice.
Similarly,
rehabilitation is becoming a more important component of alternative justice
strategies. Because they recognize the possibility of reoffending,
rehabilitation programs aim to treat the root causes of criminal behaviour and
lower the likelihood of reoffending. that people might transform and
reintegrate into society. People must have access to mental health therapies,
education, vocational training, and other forms of support in order to be
successfully rehabilitated and able to lead fulfilling lives outside of jail.
Involving
the community is another crucial element of alternative justice tactics.
By engaging the community in programs for crime prevention, conflict resolution, and offender rehabilitation, restorative practices foster a sense of shared ownership and accountability. Increased public safety, a drop in recidivism, and the effective reintegration of felons into society are all helped by deeper linkages to the community and support services[34].
By engaging the community in programs for crime prevention, conflict resolution, and offender rehabilitation, restorative practices foster a sense of shared ownership and accountability. Increased public safety, a drop in recidivism, and the effective reintegration of felons into society are all helped by deeper linkages to the community and support services[34].
In conclusion, it is imperative to
carefully consider and analyse India's application of the death penalty in
light of changing social norms, human rights standards, and justice concepts.
The seriousness of violent acts and the duty to grant victims justice must be
acknowledged, but it is also important to consider the moral, legal, and
practical ramifications of the death penalty. In the long run, a thorough
investigation of alternatives to the criminal justice system, such as
restorative practices and rehabilitative measures, may help India develop a
criminal justice system that is more humane and efficient.
[1] Joel Meyer, Reflections on Some Theories of
Punishment, 59 J. CRIM. L. CRIMINOLOGY 595, 596 (1968)
[2] Leopold, what is Wrong with the Prison
System? 45 NEB. L. REV. 36 (1966).
[3] Supra note 2 at 595.
[4] Subjective nature of selecting
the rarest to rare case doctrine available at
linkhttp://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/DFA397D3-B539-419D-A79B-28D367CFEE09.pdf
visited on (March 5, 2025).
[5] Death penalty directly violates
the right to life available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2024/01/death
penalty-incompatible-right-life visited on (March 5, 2025).
[6]P.K Agrawal the constitution of
India (page no 114).
[7] International human rights
available athttps://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/foia/International_Human_Rights_Law_RAIO_Lesson_Pla
n.pdf visited on (March 8,2025)
[8] Irrevocable effects of executing
innocent people and the frailty available at link https://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/MandatoryJusticeRevisited-2-09.pdf
visited on (March 8,2025)
[9] Structural injustices available
at linkhttps://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2017/10/death-penalty
disproportionately-affects-poor-un-rights-experts-warn visited on (March 8, 2024).
[10] International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) available at link
https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20999/volume-999-i-14668-english.pdf
visited on (March 8, 2025).
[11] Retributive justice available at
https://www.britannica.com/topic/retributive-justice visited on (March 8, 2025).
[12] Jagmohan v. State of U. P AIR
1973 SC 947 Cr.LJ 3301973 SCC162 Visited on March 8,2025from
http://www.indiankanoon.org
[13] Deena v. UOI AIR 1983 SC 1155.
Retrieved December 31, 2013, from http://www.indiankanoon.org
[14] Mitthu Singh v. State of Punjab
(1983)2 SCC 277. Retrieved Visited on 9, 2025 from http://www.indiankanoon.org
[15] Rajendra Prasad v. State AIR
1979 SC 916. Visited on March 9, 2025, from http://www.indiankanoon.org
[16] T.V Vantheswaran v State of
Tamil Nadu (1983)2 SCC 68. Visited March 10 ,2025 http://www.indiankanoon.org
[17] Triveni bai v. State of Gujarat
AIR 1989 SC 142. Visited on Mrach
10,2025 frohttp://www.indiankanoon.org
[18] United Declaration of Human
Rights. (1947). Article 5. Visited on March,10 from
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
[19] Bhattacharya, T. (2013). The
Indian Penal Code (ed. VII)
[20] United Declaration of Human
Rights. (1947). Article 5. Visited on March ,10 from
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
[21] The Constitution of India.
(1950). Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.
[22] Ahmed, I.G. (2002). Death
Sentence and Criminal Justice in Human Right Perspective. Published in
University of Calcutta.
[23] Macchi singh and ors v. State of
Punjab AIR 1983 SC 957. Visited on March 11 ,2025 sssfrom
http://www.indiankanoon.org
[24] restorative justice emphasizes
the value of community involvement and rehabilitation available at
https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/media/document/restorative justice.pdf
visited on (March 13,2025).
[25] Restorative justice aims to
address the underlying causes of crime and repair available at
linkhttps://bjatta.bja.ojp.gov/media/blog/what-restorative-justice-and-how-does-it-impact-individuals-involved
crime visited on (March 13,2025).
[26]Rehabilitation programmes lower
the risk of recidivism available
linkhttps://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3720 visited on (March 19,2025).
[27]Essential components of
restorative justice available at link https://restorativejustice.org/what-is-restorative
justice/three-core-elements-of-restorative-justice/ visited in (March 19,2025).
[28] Rehabilitation, and
reconciliation in repairing harm and deterring future transgressions available
at linkhttps://philarchive.org/archive/BRORJA-7 visited on (March 19,2025).
[29] Human rights norms, and equity
available at link https://www.humanrightscommission.ky/human-rights principles Visited
on (March 19,2025).
[30] India develops a criminal
justice system that is more just, humane available at
linkhttps://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-14952-refining-justice-system-s-reaction-to-crime.html
visited on (March 19,2024).
[31] The ethical implications of the
death penalty available at linkhttps://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(23)01004-8.pdf
visited on (March,16,2024).
[32] Melchor De Guzman, Maryann Stone
White, The Criminal Justice System: Theory, Research, and Practice: Theories,
Philosophies, Research and Practice 90 EBCN 3rd Rdn.,( page no 112)
[33]Principles of restorative justice
present a viable substitute for traditional punitive methods available at
linkhttps://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250872.pdf visited on (March,19,
2025).
[34] Increased public safety, a
decline in recidivism, and the successful reintegration available at
linkhttps://www.ojp.gov/archives/ojp-blogs/2019/reducing-recidivism-released-offenders-improves-public
safety visited on (March 20, 2024).
Article Information
THE LAST VERDICT: EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA
Authors: RAHUMATH
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/26
- Issue 7
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.