DC Debate: Recommendation of no death penalty

Heinous crime calls for death

In India, most people know the law of the land and the rigorous punishments, in spite of which some people involve themselves in heinous crimes.

The Law Commission in its Report No. 262 after discussing the merits and demerits suggested removal of the death penalty in crimes except those of waging war against the State including terrorist activities. The death penalty will be pronounced by judicial courts after conducting a detailed trial over heinous crimes and in the rarest of rare cases.

In a civilised society like India, most persons know the law of the land and the rigorous punishments, in spite of which some people involve themselves in heinous crimes. Sometimes after reading of heinous crimes, people respond instantly and express the opinion that the person involved should be punished at the same level as the act of crime.

The death penalty has existed since times immemorial. Due to capital punishment, society can prevent heinous crime and also with the said apprehension, the people restrain themselves from involving in heinous crimes.

Some Asian countries are imposing the death penalty following limited inquiry, leading to protests by human rights activists. In India, the judicial system is strong and the person who is involved in a crime will have ample opportunities to defend himself to disprove his guilt at various levels. As such, there is no scope of the innocent being punished.

In December 2007, India voted against a UN General Assembly Resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. In November 2012, India again reiterated its stand on capital punishment by voting against the the UN General Assembly resolution; seeking a ban the Death Penalty. The first hanging in free India was that of Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte in the Mahatma Gandhi assassination case. Society had appreciated the same.

In Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench made it clear that capital punishment can be given only in rarest of rare cases.

 On February 3, 2013, in response to a public outcry over the brutal gangrape in Delhi, the Indian government placed an ordinance which applies the death penalty in cases of rape that leads to death of the victim or leaves her in a persistent vegetative state. The death penalty can also be handed down to a repeat rape offender under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013.

 In undivided AP, some offenders who were involved in a dacoity, burnt a bus along with all the passengers on board, even as passengers begged for mercy, Just for fun, they burnt the passengers including women and children. Society agitated against the crime and lauded the judgements of various courts.

In 2006, after the heinous rape and murder of minor children, called the Nithari killings, the whole country was shocked and expressed its opinion that such persons should be punished with the death penalty.

There was a discussion that in case the victim’s family pardons the convict, he can be exempted from the death penalty but no victim will ever come forward to pardon the convict. In case a  lenient view is taken while granting capital punishment, the victims’ morale may be degraded. Hence in my opinion capital penalty may be retained in heinous crimes and in rarest of rare cases.

T.  Sriranga Rao, Advocate in Hyderabad

State killing is vengeance

There is no proof that awarding   death penalty in cases of heinous crimes has ever had any positive impact on the  crime rate in society.

Life is a precious gift of nature. Man can develop weapons with the best of available technologies which can end millions of lives in one go but he cannot ever create life and this fact should be respected and kept in mind when awarding punishments to criminals too. People bring up cases of hardened criminals and say that capital punishment is the solution and it will also prove a deterrent.

However, there is no proof that awarding death penalty has ever had any positive impact on the crime rate in society. There are many countries where death penalties are awarded frequently and they have not become crime-free states. The death penalty, I believe, is an emotional decision and sometimes also an act of vengeance.

The death penalty also depends on lawmakers of a country. We respect Bhagat Singh as a revolutionary and freedom fighter but it was not the case when lawmakers were the British because they felt satisfied in hanging him and thought that it was the right thing to do.

Hanging is more of an emotional decision than an objective punishment. Whenever there is a heinous crime, people start demanding that the person who committed the crime should be hanged. While hanging the criminal will not solve any problem, it will normalise taking life and blood-thirst in society.

A society has to be created where people are more tolerant. Imposing the death sentence sends out a wrong signal in society that killing is fine if it is by the State machinery, which is not right.

In some cases, it might even create unrest in society. Punishment should help in bringing about change in a criminal and not to end his life.

 Of course, if a person commits a crime which is rarest of rare in the true sense of the words and his active involvement in the crime is proved beyond any doubt and awarding capital punishment becomes an objective necessity but not an emotional decision requirement, death penalty can be awarded.

However, the death penalty should never be a knee jerk emotional reaction just because the crime committed is heinous. There is also a necessity for a thorough study on the reasons behind various crimes and the solutions required for avoiding them at the first place, rather than trying to deter a crime by awarding death sentence.

The role of the death sentence as a deterrent for any crime has not been proven yet. There are many countries in the world which realise this and do not resort to death sentence. Life imprisonment even for an entire lifetime is a better option than the death sentence as no one has the right to take life.

Another prime issue related to death penalty is that a person on death row, who is actually innocent, might get punished and there will be no way to bring them back once they are killed.

There are instances wherein there may be a mistake in appreciation of evidences as a result of which a person might get awarded death sentence but he gets acquitted and later in higher court he is acquitted.

Justice Chandra Kumar, Former judge of Hyderabad High Court