Capital punishment is an issue which figures prominently in philosophical, religious and political discussions, and has absorbed the attentions of law-makers and the public worldwide. Right wing politicians usually express strong support for capital punishment, while more moderate, liberal and leftist politicians openly oppose it and seek to eliminate the death penalty from national law. The issue has become a global concern and some attempts have been made to regulate the issues under national as well as international law.
The Universal Declaration of human rights, adopted on December 10, 1948, by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III), states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”(Art 3). The declaration used the term ‘everyone’, which implies the interpretation that no one should be deprived of this basic right, including persons who have been convicted of a crime. The resolution proclaimed ‘life’ as the supreme value that deserved full, unconditional legal protection, regardless the circumstances. The first attempt by the United Nations to abolish the death penalty was made…Read more
Comments
Article 21 guarantees Right to Life except the procedure established by law.
There are some situations when the crime committed is so grave that it becomes necessary to award this.
The crime committed by Ajmal Kasab, or in Macchi Singh's case. or a mass rape case is a very grave offence.
And it has been said by Supreme Court that Capital Punishment cannot be abolished and should be awarded in some cases.
When accused have some basic human rights, then they should keep in mind the human rights of those persons, who become victim of their offence.
Talking of Art. 21, Right to Life has a very wide scope and exception of 'procedure established by law' may seem justified with some of them but not all. Even if it is to be still awarded, and as you mentioned in rarest of cases, don't you think it will become a highly paid business to kill someone big and as it not rarest of rare crime therefore serve the life sentence and its all over.
Yeah right, on moral ground Kasab, Macchi Singh, Gang rapists etc. deserves death sentence but once again take a look at our process of law, you commit a crime today, first judgement comes in say 2 years, although Kasab's case was an exception to be reckon as the fastest trial of such intensity, but every day is not Sunday, and next comes in another few years, then to the apex court and last but not the least mercy petition for which we have very genuine example of Afzal guru. So what I mean is after all these things it is around 15 to 20 twenty years later when something concrete happens. What would you call it other than mockery of Capital Punishment?
Lastly on your human rights point, we don't follow barbarian law that says, an eye for an eye and blood for the blood, so one punishment may serve the interests of both offense and human rights.
And talking about contract killing! yes they have been considered by the court to be a grave crime and there are elements which are to be fulfilled to categorize these offences. There might be a possibility the crime seems to be a murder is not a murder, but a culpable homicide.
Mockery is not in relation to the capital system alone. It is in every area of law from civil to criminal. But, you cannot just invalidate each and every law just because it take time to decide it. There can be various factors behind this.
Capital Punishment is there in the legal system to ensure that no one becomes so evil that he would commit such a grave crime which would endanger the whole society. And, by abolishing it, you are defeating the very purpose for which they have created.
Delay is present in most of the judicial judgments ranging from contract, family issues, divorce, property issue to murder, rape etc. But, it doesnt mean we should abolish each and every law because of the delay in the procedure. Delay should be rectified
and which government is trying to do.
Also, for the latest info. Supreme Court has categorized Honour Killings under this category. Scope of rare crimes is increasing day by day, contrary to your opinion saying that there is no rare crime.
:)
May be mockery is not just in case of it yet it has more damaging effect than others. For once consider the risk involved in death penalties.
Purpose of a punishment varies as per your perspective, but indeed it is never to punish for your sins rather to make you realize your mistake and make you better person at the same time act as deterrent for subsequent crimes.
Scopes may be increasing but that is no solution rather it should be limited to avoid being a mockery all the time and serve the purpose they are there for.
Terming Capital Punishment mockery means terming one of the established law mockery. Courts are smart enough to look into this issue I think.
There exist some grave crimes whose punishment should be capital punishment.
Delay in judicial process delays the verdict, so effect would same when we are considering delay. It is after the decision has been taken, capital punishment comes into picture i.e. when delay is ended. Until then, accused is an innocent person only who may or may not get death sentence.
And it is a well settled principle that life imprisonment is a general punishment and death sentence is an exception, which is justified.
Once again no questions on the credibility of the court but again it may grant variable punishments following the existing laws of the land. So abolishing the capital punishment trend could be easily substituted by some other forms of punishment. There I'm sure court can play a good role by taking the initiative.
Effect may sound the same in figures but in reality almost everything is different similarly as it was observed in Gilhotra's case. Well let see it this way, once awarded capital punishment by trial court ratified by HC, and then filing an appeal in HC makes a man innocent till he is once again awarded death penalty, sound strange to me.
If it is an exception, it should be used as an exception. As a matter of fact awarding it in more than thousands of cases and executing only in few doesn't make it an exception.
Again saying, court is smart enough on this matter and it has been doing its job extremely well.
It is the duty of the court to maintain the check all these things. If capital punishment would be abolished, then a criminal might commit the crime and would spend his life in jail with all the facilities.
Exceptions are always there and it has been the view of the supreme court that a judge should be very careful while awarding death sentence. So, Judges do not give death sentence arbitrarily, but after checking the gravity of the crime, which cannot be replaced by any other punishment.
Had it been possible to replace it, then court would have done it!
Why stuck to the rules framed in 19th century, when things are way too different here in 21st. As matter of fact, the British regime who framed this law for us was once of the belief that a man should be whipped till death as a mode of capital punishment, how humane was that?
Judiciary is not the only organ involved for deciding upon such issues, but legislature,executive, pressure groups, political parties, public opinion etc., all of them have significant role to play.