Site icon Legal Vidhiya

A WORLDWIDE PERSPECTIVE ON THE DEATH PENALTY (END OF LIFE OR END OF CRIME)

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love

This article is written by Anjali Bajaj of 2nd Year of Gopaldas Jhamatmal Advani Law College, Bandra, Mumbai University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

ABSTRACT

Death is an irreversible and solemn punishment that has stirred intense debate across the globe for centuries. The death penalty, or capital punishment, is the state-sanctioned execution of individuals convicted of serious crimes, such as murder, rape. Capital punishment or the death penalty is punishment that works on the doctrine of “Rarest of rare cases”. Its worldwide status varies significantly, with some countries actively practicing it while others have abolished its execution.  The death sentence still generates controversy and reflects a wide range of beliefs and behaviors in a society where social, ethical, and legal standards fluctuate. The geographical distribution of the death penalty is highly varied. Proponents argue it deters crime and provides justice, while opponents cite human rights concerns, the risk of wrongful convictions, and racial disparities. The United Nations promotes a global moratorium on executions, reflecting an international trend toward abolition. The death penalty remains a divisive issue, reflecting complex ethical and legal debates concerning justice, rights, and the sanctity of life. This article imparts the latest and multidimensional overview of the death penalty’s status, shedding light on its prevalence, the arguments in favor and against it, contemporary trends, and the role of international organizations and human rights advocacy.  

KEYWORDS

Death Penalty, Capital Punishment, Heinous Crimes, Rarest of Rare Cases, Moratorium, Sanctity of Life, Advocacy, Interchangeably, Abolished, Retentionist, Juvenile Offenders, Mercy Petition, Covenant, Deterrence, Wrongful Conviction.

GOVERNED BY

In India, the death penalty, also called capital punishment, is regulated by the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other pertinent legislation. It’s vital to note that the death penalty is not mandatory for specified offenses. In India, the courts have the discretion to award either the death penalty or other forms of punishment, such as life imprisonment, based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

INTRODUCTION

The death penalty, a deeply divisive and morally charged issue, has long been a subject of universal issue, debate, and scrutiny. It represents one of the most profound and consequential decisions a society can make – the power to take a human life in response to heinous crimes. As the world evolves in social, ethical, and legal dimensions, so does the discourse surrounding capital punishment.

The death penalty, also called capital punishment, involves the state-sanctioned execution of an individual convicted of the most dangerous crimes, such as murder or terrorism. Although the terms “death penalty” and “capital punishment” are frequently used interchangeably, some people think the two provisions have different meanings, though the connotation has barely changed. Capital punishment is the actual execution or killing of the criminal following the application of the death penalty, whereas the death penalty is just the imposition of the death penalty on a capital offender by a court of law. This penalty can only be carried out under a final judgment rendered by a competent court.

It’s important to distinguish between extrajudicial executions and the death sentence. The primary distinction between the two is that executions are carried out extrajudicially without following the due process of law, and when an offender is found guilty in a court of law, the death sentence can imposed.

The death sentence has historical origins in prehistoric cultures, but its continuation and current use are still hotly contested. Regional differences are apparent from a global viewpoint when it comes to the death penalty. It is still a recurring punishment in some regions of the world, although it has either been fully discontinued or its use has drastically decreased in some parts. Understanding the worldwide viewpoint on the death penalty requires knowledge of this historical backdrop.

THE STATUS OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA

The death penalty is legal in India, and it is considered a punishment for the rarest of rare crimes under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other laws, including crimes like murder, criminal conspiracy, war against the government, terrorism-related offenses, and some cases of rape leading to death. Indian law provides for judicial discretion in sentencing. In cases where the death penalty is a potential punishment, judges are inclined to decide whether to award the death penalty or an alternative punishment like life imprisonment based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

In India, citizens are guaranteed the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, which says that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. The key word in Article 21 is “except according to procedure established by law.” It means that the deprivation of a person’s life or personal liberty must follow a legal and just procedure. Concerning the death penalty, it implies that the imposition of the death penalty must be by the legal procedures and safeguards set out in Indian law.

In the case of death sentences, only the president has the power to grant compassion. The High Court must affirm a Sessions Court death sentence for a criminal defendant after it has been handed down. The offender may file a “mercy petition” to the President of India if his Supreme Court appeal is unsuccessful. States are bound to follow specific guidelines for dealing with requests for mercy submitted by or on behalf of death row inmates. The Ministry of Home Affairs should set forth appeals to the Supreme Court and petitions for special leave to appeal by such prisoners to that court. The President of India has the authority to pardon, reprieve, respite, or remit punishment, as well as to suspend, remit, or lessen the sentence of anybody who has been found guilty of a crime, according to Article 72 of the Indian Constitution.

In recent years, there have been growing calls for reform and reconsideration of the death penalty in India. Some states in India have imposed moratoriums on executions, and thereby, challenges to the constitutionality of the death penalty arise. The Indian government has also periodically reviewed the scope of the death penalty and considered its application in some cases.

Human rights organizations and international organizations keep a check on India’s stance on the death sentence. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ Second Optional Protocol, which advocates for the abolition of the death sentence, is not one that India has ratified. India has, however, often refrained from carrying out capital punishment unless the offense was grievous.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE DEATH PENALTY

According to Article 6 of ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)

Applying the death penalty to children and mentally disabled people is seen as being excessively harsh and unpleasant since the nature of the capital offense they committed is seen as being less severe depending on their mental ability and understanding.

WORLDWIDE PERSPECTIVE ON DEATH PENALTY

The death penalty on a global scale is a subject of significant variation and debate. Recently, because the death penalty has been outlawed by many governments, more than 70% of the world’s nations have abolished it. While some countries continue to employ capital punishment as a punitive measure for grievous crimes such as murder, others have moved toward abolition or placed moratoriums on executions. These disparities reflect a complex interplay of legal, cultural, and human rights factors.

Several countries, particularly in Asia and the Middle East, continue to carry out executions, often citing deterrence as a primary justification. China, having a large population, conducts a substantial number of executions, although exact figures are considered a state secret. Other countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia also have high execution rates. In contrast, Europe, Australia, and many countries in the Americas have abolished the death penalty altogether, viewing it as a violation of human rights and an ineffective means of deterrence. The United States retains the death penalty in some states, but the practice has gradually declined in recent years, with some states imposing moratoriums and others working diligently toward abolition. On the international stage, the United Nations and various human rights organizations advocate for a global moratorium on executions and eventual abolition, reflecting a growing consensus against the death penalty based on concerns about fairness, human rights, and the risk of wrongful convictions. The global landscape of the death penalty remains dynamic, reflecting evolving societal values and legal standards. The death penalty is a topic that is frequently discussed and contested worldwide.

ARGUMENTS – SUPPORT DEATH PENALTY

In recent years, the trend has leaned towards abolition, with most countries abolishing or imposing moratoriums on executions. However, the death penalty debate continues, reflecting the enduring global struggle to balance justice, human rights, and public safety.

Supporters of the death penalty argue several essential points in favor of its retention.

One of the central arguments is that the death penalty is a strong deterrent against serious crimes, particularly murder. Proponents contend that the fear of facing execution can dissuade individuals from committing heinous acts, as they would not want to risk their own lives.

Supporters believe that the death penalty provides a form of retribution and justice for the most heinous crimes. They argue that the punishment should be proportional to the gravity of the offense, offering a sense of closure and satisfaction to victims’ families and society.

Capital punishment can provide a sense of closure and justice to the families. Supporters argue that knowing the perpetrator will never be able to harm others can offer solace to those who have suffered loss.

Some proponents claim that the death penalty, when carried out efficiently, can be cost-effective compared to a lifetime of incarceration. They argue that the lengthy legal processes associated with life imprisonment can incur significant expenses for the state.

Supporters assert that the death penalty holds individuals fully accountable for their actions. They argue that sparing a murderer’s life through imprisonment may not adequately reflect the gravity of their crime.

In some regions, there is substantial public support for the death penalty. Elected officials may align with this sentiment to represent the views of their constituents.

Advocates argue that executing those who commit heinous crimes can offer psychological closure to society, reinforcing the idea that certain acts are unacceptable.

Some supporters contend that the death penalty deters violence within prisons, as convicts may be less likely to commit violent acts if they know they could experience execution.

Capital punishment prevents convicted murderers from repeating offenses if they were to be released on parole or escape from prison.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST DEATH PENALTY

Opponents of the death penalty present various arguments against its use. These arguments center on moral, legal, practical, and ethical concerns. Here are some of the main arguments against the death penalty:

The possibility of putting innocent people to death is one of the strongest arguments against the death sentence. Despite legal protections, there have been instances when people sentenced to death were later freed thanks to fresh evidence, DNA testing, or the revelation of prosecution error.

The death penalty cannot be reversed. If new information surfaces after an execution that exonerates the victim, there is no way to undo the error. The punishment’s finality is considered ethically troubling.

Critics argue that the death penalty is often applied arbitrarily and disproportionately to minorities, individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, and those with inadequate legal representation. Racial and socioeconomic disparities in sentencing raise questions about fairness and justice.

Many opponents believe that the state should not be in the business of taking human life, as it contradicts the fundamental principle that killing is wrong. They argue that executing individuals perpetuates a cycle of violence and devalues human life.

Some studies suggest that the death penalty does not have a significant deterrent effect on violent crime. Opponents contend that other factors, such as the likelihood of apprehension and socioeconomic conditions, are more relevant in deterring criminal behavior.

Opponents argue that the death penalty is an ineffective and costly way to address crime. The lengthy legal processes involved in death penalty cases can be more expensive than lifelong imprisonment.

The death penalty is seen as incompatible with international human rights norms that emphasize the right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Critics advocate for alternatives to the death penalty, such as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. They argue that life imprisonment can protect society without the moral and legal complications of execution.

Opponents argue that the application of the death penalty varies significantly from one jurisdiction to another and that inconsistency undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system.

While there may be public support for the death penalty in some regions, attitudes have shifted gradually with growing calls for abolition and concerns about the risk of executing innocent individuals.

Critics contend that the death penalty perpetuates a culture of violence and vengeance rather than focusing on rehabilitation and restorative justice.

The death penalty process can be emotionally traumatic for all involved, including the families of victims and those sentenced to death. Some argue that it does not provide genuine closure and can contribute to further suffering.

These arguments reflect the multidimensional and complex nature of the debate surrounding the death penalty. While proponents highlight its potential as a deterrent and a form of retribution, opponents emphasize the moral, ethical, and practical concerns of taking a human life as punishment. Public opinion and legal perspectives on the death penalty continue to evolve, making it a topic of ongoing debate and scrutiny.

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON DEATH PENALTY

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) – India

In this well-known case, the Supreme Court of India established the “rarest of rare cases” doctrine while upholding the constitutional validity of the death sentence. The court concluded that the death sentence should be applicable in the rarest of rare cases only, where the offense is of such deviant cruelty, brutality, and depravity that it shocks the society’s conscience, and it should be done with careful consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. (1980) – India

In this famous case, Rajendra Prasad was convicted of murder in Uttar Pradesh, India, and punished with the death penalty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The principal issue is the justification of the death penalty and the need for “special reasons” in its application. The Supreme Court ruled that a mere conviction for murder is not sufficient grounds to impose the death penalty. The court also said that the specific reason must be clearly stated. Because the sentencing authority failed to provide specific reasons, the Court commuted Rajendra Prasad’s death sentence to life imprisonment, thereby emphasizing the importance of a clear and reasonable decision in cases of the death penalty.

Roper v. Simmons (2005) – United States

In this case, the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on individuals who were below the age of 18 at the time of the crime. The decision effectively banned the execution of juvenile offenders in the United States.

Gregg v. Georgia (1976) – United States:

Following Furman, this case upheld new death penalty statutes in some U.S. states. The decision established a framework for the death penalty, including a bifurcated trial process and automatic appeals.

WORLDWIDE ROLE OF VARIOUS ORGNISATION AND INTERNATIONAL COVENANT

International human rights organizations with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch play crucial roles in advocating for the abolition of the death penalty and monitoring its use globally. These organizations operate universally and promote and defend human rights in several issues, with the death penalty being a prominent focus. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch coordinate with other human rights organizations, legal experts, and civil society groups to create a broad movement against the death penalty. Their work has contributed to increased awareness, changes in policy, and the growing global momentum against capital punishment. While the death penalty remains a contentious issue in many parts of the world, these continue to play a crucial role in advocating for human rights and justice.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is an important international treaty that has a significant impact on the issue of the death penalty. The ICCPR, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 and came into force in 1976, is a comprehensive human rights treaty that outlines a wide range of civil and political rights. The ICCPR has the authority to affect international standards and norms about the death sentence. It provides a framework for abolition and sets clear limitations on its use. Many countries parties to the ICCPR have either abolished the death penalty or imposed significant restrictions on its application in line with the treaty’s provisions. The ICCPR, along with other international instruments and human rights organizations, continues to contribute to the global dialogue on the death penalty and the protection of human rights.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Worldwide, there have been several significant developments and changes in recent years regarding the death penalty. Here are some developments and relevant case laws:

The terrible and violent incident in Delhi while it was freezing outdoors. The girl was brutally raped by six suspects, who also killed her. Not only was she thrown to the ground naked, but also, she was struck in the privates with an iron rod. All of the psychological and physical torture caused her to pass away. A defendant was spared the death penalty because he was a youngster, and one of the defendants committed suicide in jail while the case was being considered in court. The other four defendants, however, were given death sentences and will be put to death in 2020. The finding of this verdict was reached after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors.

Even if there were any mitigating variables, the aggravating factors were high. Given the pertinent facts surrounding the crime and the inhumane torture used on the victim that ultimately resulted in her death, a penalty of death was given because it appeared that life in prison would be insufficient. In India, it is the last case where the death penalty is imposed.

In March 2021, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty can no longer be imposed for drug-related offenses except in cases of trafficking where large quantities of drugs are involved. The decision was based on the principle of proportionality, which requires that any punishment be in proportion to the severity of the offense.

In March 2021, Virginia became the 23rd state in the US to abolish the death penalty. This decision was in response to several high-profile cases of wrongful convictions and growing concerns about the fairness and equity of the capital punishment system.

In April 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision by the lower court to overturn the death sentence of Lee Boyd Malvo, one of the two snipers responsible for the 2002 D.C. sniper attacks. The decision was based on a recent ruling that prohibits mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders.

On February 28, 2023, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights urged all states to end the death sentence, which is continuing in 79 countries.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023, in Lok Sabha on August 11, 2023.

A new provision on the death penalty was included in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023, stating that “the proposed reforms also provide for the death penalty to be used in certain circumstances to punish mob lynchings. Every member of a group is punishable by death or life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years.

Other potential punishments include death for child rape and life in prison without parole for gang rape.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the death penalty remains one of the most contentious and morally charged issues in criminal justice. The death penalty can be said to be state-sanctioned revenge. The worldwide perspective on capital punishment reflects a global dialogue marked by complexity, evolving values, and shifting legal landscapes. Proponents argue for its use as a deterrent and a form of retribution, while opponents emphasize its flaws, risks of wrongful convictions, and incompatibility with human rights.

Recent developments indicate a growing trend toward abolition and a recognition of the inherent problems associated with the death penalty. Many countries have either abolished it or significantly reduced its execution, where some suggested life without parole is an alternative punishment for the death penalty, and international human rights organizations continue to advocate for its worldwide elimination.

The death penalty debate challenges society to grapple with profound questions of justice, ethics, and the sanctity of life. While the future of capital punishment remains uncertain, the ongoing global conversation underscores the importance of continually evaluating and evolving our perspectives on punishment, human rights, and the principles that guide our justice systems.Top of Form

REFERENCES

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version