CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA - REFORMATION OR RETRIBUTION
31/08/2011.
Capital punishment, in other words called as execution, or a
death penalty, has drawn the attention of each and every individual in
the world’s largest democracy for the last few weeks. The ultimate
reason is that the rejection of mercy pleas by the president of India,
confirming the execution of the 3 convicts of the former prime
minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, in the year 1991. After the
bomb blast, the judicial process has took 8 years, including the
Supreme Court’s conformation of death sentence of the 3, pronounced
by the Lower Court. Later, the mercy petition has been filed to the
governor of Tamilnadu, but it has been disposed with in 10 days on
October, 1999. the 3 convicts have filed their second mercy pleas to
the governor, it has also achieved the same result in the month of
April 25th 2000.
A day later, they filed their clemency to the president of India
and has got the similar result, but it took 11 years and 4 long months
to come to the conclusion by conforming the death penalty for those 3
convicts. Various communities have stressed various questions and
solutions related to this issue, but there is an inevitable question
that is “what happened for the past 11 years?” is still a hidden one.
This led to the misleading environment among the society, specifically
among the people of Tamilnadu, who are now crawling towards justice.
Due to the unexpected government order, the term capital
punishment has stolen the spotlight at present, and led to the public
debate with regard to the pros and cons of death sentence. Discussing
this issue require concrete ideas to have an eye on the most
deterrent punishments in the constitution. On one hand, thoughts and
views describes the importants of death sentences, which specifically
stresses that “human society with out deterrent solutions might
provide a significant path to those who commit callous crimes, and
helps in assisting them to do the same in their future in the form of
reformation.” On the other hand, the human rights activists, legal
philosophers, penologists and social activists believe that death
sentence cannot be an effective alternative for a murder.
Now the 3 convicts have no other options, but to knock the doors
of justice through a petition. They filed a petition seeking that
their death sentence should be commuted because of 11 years of delay.
The petition has been filed in Madras High Court, and on 30/08/2011,
the petitions were taken to hearing in front of a newly constituted
bench of justice.
Reiterating the facts during the hearing in the Madras High
Court, one of the eminent Jurists in India, Mr. Ram Jethmalani
portrayed that “the 3 convicts are already under severe mental torture
by facing the minutes of suffering on their death row for 136 months,
therefore, opting death penalty after making them to wait for 11 years
and 4 months long, is unconstitutional and it is against Article 21 of
the constitution, which deals with protection of life and personal
liberty.”
Quoting the high court and supreme court judgments, Jethmalani
addressed that the delay was a ground for the commutation of sentence,
he said “unless the delay is properly explained or justified, it makes
the deth penalty immoral, illegal and, according to me,
unconstitutional.” If we look in to the address of Mr. Jeth Malani, we
can notice that even a death penalty must be done with in a
time span of 2 years. Unless there is a
completion of the death penalty with in 2 years, the death sentence
can be commuted to life imprisonment.
The statistics provided by Legal Service India states that, in
the year 2006, during the tenure of Dr. A.P.J Abdulkalam’s presidency,
there were 20 mercy pleas which includes this 3 convicts. The final
mercy plea on that period was the clemency of terrorist Mohammed Afzal
Guru, indulged in 2001 parliament attack. The official sources
calculated that at present there are 29 mercy pleas waiting for the
president’s nod. In that, some of the pleas were filed before 1992 and
most of the petitions are expected to be commuted to life imprisonment
due to the delay in justification. Jurists and social activists says
that, now a days, capital punishment is getting increasingly averse
effect among the judges, as a matter of fact, they believe that the
Indian penal code (IPC) 302 is against the ethos of democracy and the
people. the present scenario paves path to the questions such as,
Whether death penalty be abolished?
Whether the Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination case satisfies all the
relevant legal tests incorporated under law and laid down in various
judicial decisions?
Whether the provisions of section 302 I.P.C. are against the ethos of
article 19 and 14?
All these questions rise to debate over this issue. No doubt, this is
not an issue which can be solved by a separate bill or by means of any
one of the committees or by independent bodies, but it is
indispensible that this has to be understood and responded for the
betterment of the community and the country.
From the time immemorial this problem stayed as for a long period
with unsolved queries. Legal philosophers, jurists, judges and social
scientists should not stand divide, as that of the case of Afzal Guru,
which polarized the nation in to kasmiries on oneside and the others
on the otherside. Several steps have been taken to curve the level of
capital punishment by considering the quantitative data must be a part
of a process because, the consideration must also be given to the
qualitative and retributive characteristics of the death penalty.
As all of us have known that the Indian legislation and the
constitution possesses the characteristics of reformative and
retributive theories, we must analyse that the pros and cons contained
by this social issue. In the form of reformative, we can say that the
murderer is also like a patient who has to have a special treatments
and he or she should be discharged from the treatment as soon as they
started accepting the treatment. But the other facts says that, the
deterrent punishments should not be taken out of the legal frame, it
might allow the recidivists who commit crimes, for that, they got
themselves behind the bars, got out of the cage due to the completion
of the sentenced period, then start doing what they did in the past
then again got them selves from where they have been rehabilitated, is
a disgusting factor for indignation society which would like to be
satisfied by killing the criminals.
Rousseau felt that the capital punishment should be imposed on
the situation where nothing stands in favour of reformative theory. He
believes capital punishment Is proper, if the criminal is beyond
redemption. Various countries have capital punishment as their
integral part of criminal justice, but the execution of that
punishment varies because of geographical, cultural and their judicial
framework.
Countries like United Kingdom, France, Japan, Russia, Poland,
Australia, Rumania, and so on, have abolished capital punishment from
their judicial practices by stating that, every individual has an
equal opportunity to under go reformative actions, and strongly
stressing that execution is not the only solution for a murder. On the
other hand, some countries including those who strongly believe in
democracy such as, the United states, India, the others like china,
ETC. are against the abolition. They believe that, death penalty
should be a part of constitution in order to safe guard the vulnerable
communities from horrendous attacks by the incorrigible and harden
criminals.
Previous efforts to curb capital punishment in India: in India,
several efforts have been made to abolish the death penalty, but
according to the report submitted by the law commission says that,
capital punishment should be a part of the judiciary. Legislation
attempted to abolish death penalty during the pre-independence, the
private bill which was introduced in the year 1931 has been rejected
by the then governor general. After Independence, similar bill was
introduced, but the first lok sabha rejected the motion. Later, due to
the efforts made by the social scientists, human rights believers and
abolitionists, the similar kind of bill has been introduced to the
rajya sabha in the year 1958 and 1962 respectively, but got the same
result of rejection after under going a debate. The law commission
submitted its report in the year 1967 and in the Lok Sabha in the year
1971, stating that the capital punishment should be retained, the
executive (President) should continue to possess powers of mercy.
Speaking of the history of execution in India, we must focus the
statistical information of various sources which has difference in
its nature. According to the official government’s report, only 52
executions have been imposed, execution of dhananjoi chatterjee on
August 14 2004 was the Fifty Second and first execution since 1995.
Were as the other report published by the people’s union for civil
liberties, cited information from appendix 34 of the 1967 Law
commission’s report, which states that from 1953 to 1963, there were
1422 executions have been imposed in 16 different states of the
nation. Due to this differentiation, the number of executions made
after independence is a matter of dispute. Among those 52 executions
according to the government’s official report, 40 executions were made
with in a span of 15 years, from 1975 to 1991.
In the year 1983, the Indian top court ruled that death sentenced
should only be imposed on “rarest of rare cases.” reiterating the term
“rarest of rare cases,” the supreme court said that the death sentence
should only be imposed on a criminal who is not eligible to be
considered under reformative conditions. In the same year, the apex
court ruled that, death by hanging should not be barbaric, brutal, or
not be in any form of torture.
Doctrine of rarest of rare cases: in the words of Supreme Court,
the death penalty can be imposed if the criminal satisfies the
doctrine called “rarest of rare cases.” Elaborating the term rarest of
rare cases, the top court suggests that the crime must be in a
posission where there is no space for reformation or the quantitative
as well as qualitative aspects of the crime renders inadequacy for
rehabilitation, therefore, if any reformation act takes place, there
are numerous chances of making the society indignation. For instance,
look in to the death penalty paid to Afzal Guru, who was one of the
planned worker for 2001 parliament attack. During the judgment, the
Supreme Court pointed that, the actions of Afzal Guru has shocked the
mental, social and political environment of the country, therefore
death sentence should be imposed. If we look in to the execution of
Dhananjoi chatterjee, the rape and murder of a minor girl has come
under the category called rarest of rare.
After the ruling of Supreme Court in 1983, legislation framed
some principles where the doctrine “rarest of rare cases” can be
understood. One of its majour principles is analyzing the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances of the case. The aggravating and
mitigating circumstances should not only consider the qualitative
aspects of the case, but also focus on the quantitative aspects too.
During the judgment of bhachan singh and machchi sing cases, the
judiciary has clearly pointed out the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances which helps in finding whether the case can be
categorized as a rarest of rare case or not. Due to this
justification, it is obvious that drafting a balance sheet of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a particular case has to
be drawn, by focusing on the following
Aggravating circumstances: in this kind of circumstances, the
quantitative aspect of the case place a pivotal role. In this, Dowry
killing, killing of scheduled caste and schedule tribes which arousing
a social rath among the community (not for personal reasons,) murder
committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or
dastardly manner so as to arouse the indignation of the community,
murder of an innocent child, helpless woman, old-infirm person and
public figure who got loved and respected by the community, if the
murder of victims are enormous in proportion. Are the key areas in
which the state of aggravating circumstances of a particular case can
be obtained.
Mitigating circumstances, on the other hand, provided a path to
consider the natural and the qualitative aspects of the particular
case, Where importants are tent to be given on the criminal and the
state of mind in which the crime has been committed, and so on.
Specifically speaking, mental and emotional disturbances of the
criminal during commitment of the offense, age of the convict, where
young and old people cannot be imposed to death penalty, the accused
acted under the duress of domination of other person, where there is a
probability which shows that the accused can be taken in to
rehabilitation facility for reformative actions, and so on.
looking in to the important principle of rarest of rare cases, we
are able to conclude that there is no specification or notice with
regard to delay in response from the president’s office. Due to the
lack of specification about the period of response by the president,
has earned the indignation of the community, which led to protests,
strikes, human chaine to show solidarity, ETC.
the present response to the mercy plea of 3 assassins, which has
been filed in the year 2000, and not responded by 2 consecutive
presidents, finally got the rejection after a period of 11 years and 4
months, has made the government to sit on a hot seet. Making the
convicts to wait for a single nod (acceptance or rejection) from the
president for more than a decade, is a real issue which is of more
importants with out an absence of doubt. Social activists, and various
human rights organizations condemn that, the convicts have already
been tortured mentally by the delay. Therefore imposing death sentence
after 11 years is absolutely inhuman. The 3 have already spend their
20 years behind bars, and out of which 11 years on a death row. This
rejection should be recalled and 3 of their capital punishment should
be commuted to life imprisonment.
According to the Indian constitution, the imposed death penalty
must take place with 2 years after the conformation of the Apex Court,
if any delay occurs due to any circumstances, then imposing death
sentence is unconstitutional, immoral and it will become an act of
inhuman. Several political leaders, law makers and community members
have the feeling that, the rejection of the mercy plea of those 3
convicts is for a retribution. There is no doubt that our constitution
possess both reformative and retributive characteristics, it also
possess special human rights and the consequence of violation of those
rights too.
Numerous steps are taking place in order to curve the death
penalty of those 3, but on the other hand, some people strongly
believe that, death sentence should be imposed. They are the one who
come under the category of indignation people. Viewing all these
issues, necessary steps are required to be taken to avoid
inflammatory, brutal, diabolic, premeditated and cold blooded killings
like Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, on the other hand imposing of death
sentence for the rarest of rare case should be of definite
differentiation.
To conclude: being a member of a society, every one should know
the choices we make, the consequences and repercussions for that
choices are inevitable under any circumstances. Turning in to another
corner, we must know that every human being is known for his or her
mischiffs, ups and downs and they also have the same consequences.
Therefore killing the killer will not create a better society or a
better nation. unless there is no space for reformation, we can have
an eye on imposing capital sentences. Truly speaking, as the world’s
largest democracy, which known for its unity and integrity, right to
speak and live as its fundamental rights, protection of life and
liberty is its hallmark, are to be considered beforetaking a decision
on such irrecoverable actions. Drafting of clear doctrine of rarest of
rare cases is of higher importants, special eye should be kept on
human life because that is the one which cannot be recovered once it
is gone. Therefore, clear executive, legislative and judiciary
function can only be able to answer to a million dollar question,
which prevails and separates the people into 2
sides of a coin, that is,
“Is Capital Punishment In India For Reformation Or Retribution?”
death penalty, has drawn the attention of each and every individual in
the world’s largest democracy for the last few weeks. The ultimate
reason is that the rejection of mercy pleas by the president of India,
confirming the execution of the 3 convicts of the former prime
minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, in the year 1991. After the
bomb blast, the judicial process has took 8 years, including the
Supreme Court’s conformation of death sentence of the 3, pronounced
by the Lower Court. Later, the mercy petition has been filed to the
governor of Tamilnadu, but it has been disposed with in 10 days on
October, 1999. the 3 convicts have filed their second mercy pleas to
the governor, it has also achieved the same result in the month of
April 25th 2000.
A day later, they filed their clemency to the president of India
and has got the similar result, but it took 11 years and 4 long months
to come to the conclusion by conforming the death penalty for those 3
convicts. Various communities have stressed various questions and
solutions related to this issue, but there is an inevitable question
that is “what happened for the past 11 years?” is still a hidden one.
This led to the misleading environment among the society, specifically
among the people of Tamilnadu, who are now crawling towards justice.
Due to the unexpected government order, the term capital
punishment has stolen the spotlight at present, and led to the public
debate with regard to the pros and cons of death sentence. Discussing
this issue require concrete ideas to have an eye on the most
deterrent punishments in the constitution. On one hand, thoughts and
views describes the importants of death sentences, which specifically
stresses that “human society with out deterrent solutions might
provide a significant path to those who commit callous crimes, and
helps in assisting them to do the same in their future in the form of
reformation.” On the other hand, the human rights activists, legal
philosophers, penologists and social activists believe that death
sentence cannot be an effective alternative for a murder.
Now the 3 convicts have no other options, but to knock the doors
of justice through a petition. They filed a petition seeking that
their death sentence should be commuted because of 11 years of delay.
The petition has been filed in Madras High Court, and on 30/08/2011,
the petitions were taken to hearing in front of a newly constituted
bench of justice.
Reiterating the facts during the hearing in the Madras High
Court, one of the eminent Jurists in India, Mr. Ram Jethmalani
portrayed that “the 3 convicts are already under severe mental torture
by facing the minutes of suffering on their death row for 136 months,
therefore, opting death penalty after making them to wait for 11 years
and 4 months long, is unconstitutional and it is against Article 21 of
the constitution, which deals with protection of life and personal
liberty.”
Quoting the high court and supreme court judgments, Jethmalani
addressed that the delay was a ground for the commutation of sentence,
he said “unless the delay is properly explained or justified, it makes
the deth penalty immoral, illegal and, according to me,
unconstitutional.” If we look in to the address of Mr. Jeth Malani, we
can notice that even a death penalty must be done with in a
time span of 2 years. Unless there is a
completion of the death penalty with in 2 years, the death sentence
can be commuted to life imprisonment.
The statistics provided by Legal Service India states that, in
the year 2006, during the tenure of Dr. A.P.J Abdulkalam’s presidency,
there were 20 mercy pleas which includes this 3 convicts. The final
mercy plea on that period was the clemency of terrorist Mohammed Afzal
Guru, indulged in 2001 parliament attack. The official sources
calculated that at present there are 29 mercy pleas waiting for the
president’s nod. In that, some of the pleas were filed before 1992 and
most of the petitions are expected to be commuted to life imprisonment
due to the delay in justification. Jurists and social activists says
that, now a days, capital punishment is getting increasingly averse
effect among the judges, as a matter of fact, they believe that the
Indian penal code (IPC) 302 is against the ethos of democracy and the
people. the present scenario paves path to the questions such as,
Whether death penalty be abolished?
Whether the Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination case satisfies all the
relevant legal tests incorporated under law and laid down in various
judicial decisions?
Whether the provisions of section 302 I.P.C. are against the ethos of
article 19 and 14?
All these questions rise to debate over this issue. No doubt, this is
not an issue which can be solved by a separate bill or by means of any
one of the committees or by independent bodies, but it is
indispensible that this has to be understood and responded for the
betterment of the community and the country.
From the time immemorial this problem stayed as for a long period
with unsolved queries. Legal philosophers, jurists, judges and social
scientists should not stand divide, as that of the case of Afzal Guru,
which polarized the nation in to kasmiries on oneside and the others
on the otherside. Several steps have been taken to curve the level of
capital punishment by considering the quantitative data must be a part
of a process because, the consideration must also be given to the
qualitative and retributive characteristics of the death penalty.
As all of us have known that the Indian legislation and the
constitution possesses the characteristics of reformative and
retributive theories, we must analyse that the pros and cons contained
by this social issue. In the form of reformative, we can say that the
murderer is also like a patient who has to have a special treatments
and he or she should be discharged from the treatment as soon as they
started accepting the treatment. But the other facts says that, the
deterrent punishments should not be taken out of the legal frame, it
might allow the recidivists who commit crimes, for that, they got
themselves behind the bars, got out of the cage due to the completion
of the sentenced period, then start doing what they did in the past
then again got them selves from where they have been rehabilitated, is
a disgusting factor for indignation society which would like to be
satisfied by killing the criminals.
Rousseau felt that the capital punishment should be imposed on
the situation where nothing stands in favour of reformative theory. He
believes capital punishment Is proper, if the criminal is beyond
redemption. Various countries have capital punishment as their
integral part of criminal justice, but the execution of that
punishment varies because of geographical, cultural and their judicial
framework.
Countries like United Kingdom, France, Japan, Russia, Poland,
Australia, Rumania, and so on, have abolished capital punishment from
their judicial practices by stating that, every individual has an
equal opportunity to under go reformative actions, and strongly
stressing that execution is not the only solution for a murder. On the
other hand, some countries including those who strongly believe in
democracy such as, the United states, India, the others like china,
ETC. are against the abolition. They believe that, death penalty
should be a part of constitution in order to safe guard the vulnerable
communities from horrendous attacks by the incorrigible and harden
criminals.
Previous efforts to curb capital punishment in India: in India,
several efforts have been made to abolish the death penalty, but
according to the report submitted by the law commission says that,
capital punishment should be a part of the judiciary. Legislation
attempted to abolish death penalty during the pre-independence, the
private bill which was introduced in the year 1931 has been rejected
by the then governor general. After Independence, similar bill was
introduced, but the first lok sabha rejected the motion. Later, due to
the efforts made by the social scientists, human rights believers and
abolitionists, the similar kind of bill has been introduced to the
rajya sabha in the year 1958 and 1962 respectively, but got the same
result of rejection after under going a debate. The law commission
submitted its report in the year 1967 and in the Lok Sabha in the year
1971, stating that the capital punishment should be retained, the
executive (President) should continue to possess powers of mercy.
Speaking of the history of execution in India, we must focus the
statistical information of various sources which has difference in
its nature. According to the official government’s report, only 52
executions have been imposed, execution of dhananjoi chatterjee on
August 14 2004 was the Fifty Second and first execution since 1995.
Were as the other report published by the people’s union for civil
liberties, cited information from appendix 34 of the 1967 Law
commission’s report, which states that from 1953 to 1963, there were
1422 executions have been imposed in 16 different states of the
nation. Due to this differentiation, the number of executions made
after independence is a matter of dispute. Among those 52 executions
according to the government’s official report, 40 executions were made
with in a span of 15 years, from 1975 to 1991.
In the year 1983, the Indian top court ruled that death sentenced
should only be imposed on “rarest of rare cases.” reiterating the term
“rarest of rare cases,” the supreme court said that the death sentence
should only be imposed on a criminal who is not eligible to be
considered under reformative conditions. In the same year, the apex
court ruled that, death by hanging should not be barbaric, brutal, or
not be in any form of torture.
Doctrine of rarest of rare cases: in the words of Supreme Court,
the death penalty can be imposed if the criminal satisfies the
doctrine called “rarest of rare cases.” Elaborating the term rarest of
rare cases, the top court suggests that the crime must be in a
posission where there is no space for reformation or the quantitative
as well as qualitative aspects of the crime renders inadequacy for
rehabilitation, therefore, if any reformation act takes place, there
are numerous chances of making the society indignation. For instance,
look in to the death penalty paid to Afzal Guru, who was one of the
planned worker for 2001 parliament attack. During the judgment, the
Supreme Court pointed that, the actions of Afzal Guru has shocked the
mental, social and political environment of the country, therefore
death sentence should be imposed. If we look in to the execution of
Dhananjoi chatterjee, the rape and murder of a minor girl has come
under the category called rarest of rare.
After the ruling of Supreme Court in 1983, legislation framed
some principles where the doctrine “rarest of rare cases” can be
understood. One of its majour principles is analyzing the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances of the case. The aggravating and
mitigating circumstances should not only consider the qualitative
aspects of the case, but also focus on the quantitative aspects too.
During the judgment of bhachan singh and machchi sing cases, the
judiciary has clearly pointed out the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances which helps in finding whether the case can be
categorized as a rarest of rare case or not. Due to this
justification, it is obvious that drafting a balance sheet of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a particular case has to
be drawn, by focusing on the following
Aggravating circumstances: in this kind of circumstances, the
quantitative aspect of the case place a pivotal role. In this, Dowry
killing, killing of scheduled caste and schedule tribes which arousing
a social rath among the community (not for personal reasons,) murder
committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or
dastardly manner so as to arouse the indignation of the community,
murder of an innocent child, helpless woman, old-infirm person and
public figure who got loved and respected by the community, if the
murder of victims are enormous in proportion. Are the key areas in
which the state of aggravating circumstances of a particular case can
be obtained.
Mitigating circumstances, on the other hand, provided a path to
consider the natural and the qualitative aspects of the particular
case, Where importants are tent to be given on the criminal and the
state of mind in which the crime has been committed, and so on.
Specifically speaking, mental and emotional disturbances of the
criminal during commitment of the offense, age of the convict, where
young and old people cannot be imposed to death penalty, the accused
acted under the duress of domination of other person, where there is a
probability which shows that the accused can be taken in to
rehabilitation facility for reformative actions, and so on.
looking in to the important principle of rarest of rare cases, we
are able to conclude that there is no specification or notice with
regard to delay in response from the president’s office. Due to the
lack of specification about the period of response by the president,
has earned the indignation of the community, which led to protests,
strikes, human chaine to show solidarity, ETC.
the present response to the mercy plea of 3 assassins, which has
been filed in the year 2000, and not responded by 2 consecutive
presidents, finally got the rejection after a period of 11 years and 4
months, has made the government to sit on a hot seet. Making the
convicts to wait for a single nod (acceptance or rejection) from the
president for more than a decade, is a real issue which is of more
importants with out an absence of doubt. Social activists, and various
human rights organizations condemn that, the convicts have already
been tortured mentally by the delay. Therefore imposing death sentence
after 11 years is absolutely inhuman. The 3 have already spend their
20 years behind bars, and out of which 11 years on a death row. This
rejection should be recalled and 3 of their capital punishment should
be commuted to life imprisonment.
According to the Indian constitution, the imposed death penalty
must take place with 2 years after the conformation of the Apex Court,
if any delay occurs due to any circumstances, then imposing death
sentence is unconstitutional, immoral and it will become an act of
inhuman. Several political leaders, law makers and community members
have the feeling that, the rejection of the mercy plea of those 3
convicts is for a retribution. There is no doubt that our constitution
possess both reformative and retributive characteristics, it also
possess special human rights and the consequence of violation of those
rights too.
Numerous steps are taking place in order to curve the death
penalty of those 3, but on the other hand, some people strongly
believe that, death sentence should be imposed. They are the one who
come under the category of indignation people. Viewing all these
issues, necessary steps are required to be taken to avoid
inflammatory, brutal, diabolic, premeditated and cold blooded killings
like Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, on the other hand imposing of death
sentence for the rarest of rare case should be of definite
differentiation.
To conclude: being a member of a society, every one should know
the choices we make, the consequences and repercussions for that
choices are inevitable under any circumstances. Turning in to another
corner, we must know that every human being is known for his or her
mischiffs, ups and downs and they also have the same consequences.
Therefore killing the killer will not create a better society or a
better nation. unless there is no space for reformation, we can have
an eye on imposing capital sentences. Truly speaking, as the world’s
largest democracy, which known for its unity and integrity, right to
speak and live as its fundamental rights, protection of life and
liberty is its hallmark, are to be considered beforetaking a decision
on such irrecoverable actions. Drafting of clear doctrine of rarest of
rare cases is of higher importants, special eye should be kept on
human life because that is the one which cannot be recovered once it
is gone. Therefore, clear executive, legislative and judiciary
function can only be able to answer to a million dollar question,
which prevails and separates the people into 2
sides of a coin, that is,
“Is Capital Punishment In India For Reformation Or Retribution?”
No comments:
Post a Comment