This Article is written by Somya Singh, Student of Jaipur National University.
ABSTRACT
Punishments are usually carried out to create deterrence among criminal-minded people and to prevent the commission of the crime. But what happened when these punishments were blown out of proportion or contradicted the basic humanitarian principles? India is following the path of the retributive and reformative theory of punishment, which emphasizes that pain must be inflicted in proportion to the gravity of the crime. The main aim of these punishments must be to reform the criminals and make them realize their mistakes through various processes like rehabilitation and by giving them drills and spreading awareness rather than just making them suffer. But sometimes, these punishments become so cruel, degrading, and inhuman that they reframe the definition and objective of the punishment, one of which is the Death Penalty. Human Rights and the Death Penalty have always contradicted each other. They both are parallel lines that move together but never going to meet at a single point. Their contradiction and relationship were always a bone of contention and a debatable topic. On one side, it is argued that the Death Penalty is a tool for deterrence among criminals as it will set an example, but on the other side, it is contended that the Death Penalty is a grave violation of Human Rights and Dignity. This paper scrutinizes the notion of human dignity, its relationship with the Death Penalty, and the legal and ethical contemplations surrounding the death penalty. It analyses international human rights instruments, judicial pronouncements, and philosophical perceptions to determine whether the death penalty is integrally inconsistent with the principles of dignity and justice.
Keywords: Punishments, deterrence, retributive, reformative, Human Rights, Death Penalty.
INTRODUCTION
With the advent of a modern, sophisticated, and technologically advanced society, crime rates were also increasing rapidly, and on top of that, the gravity, intensity, and way of committing the crimes became heinous and degrading day by day. The news coming from all over the world alarmed the common people and raised questions about the legal system of the country. India does not believe in the revenge theory but in the retributive and reformative theory, which has the ultimate goal to eradicate sin and not the sinner, but sometimes these principles are undermined and underrated, and the focus of punishment changes to eradicating the sinner and not sin. Death Penalty was an integral part of many of the country’s legal system as it is believed that it will work as a deterrence to crime and prevent its future commission, but in the last few years, there has been a growing emphasis on the Human Rights which questioned the Death Penalty as a punishment because the dignity of the human should be respected irrespective of their actions and activities, as they born as a human they are entitled to Human Rights. There must be certain restrictions imposed on the state regarding giving the Death Penalty as a sentence, but sometimes these opinions are overshadowed by the views that if a person committed a heinous and disgusting crime, the only punishment deserved by him is the Death Penalty. So, it was always a debate in which situations the Death Penalty should be given more weightage than Human Rights and when not, and it has been made to answered in this paper.
ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE DEATH PENALTY AS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT
There were always two sides to a coin, one positive and the other negative. Not a single thing that is happening in this universe carries a single notion or a single set of opinions of the people. It always has comprised different opinions and arguments; some will defend it, and others will refute it. Similarly, the topic of Capital Punishment as a form of punishment also carries a different set of arguments and influences. Let’s have a look at it:
CONTENTIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE MOTION:
Justice for Evil Acts:
Some believe the execution of the death penalty is an appropriate response to the most extreme crimes committed, like mass murder and terrorism, stating it respects the dignity of the victims and society.
Legal Limitations:
In democracies with elaborate systems of due process and multiple avenues for appeal, the death penalty can be seen as a measured action, or rational response, rather than an arbitrary one.
Argument of Deterrence:
While it remains heavily contested, some argue that the existence of capital punishment deters people from committing serious crimes, serving the greater societal good, and protecting the dignity of other individuals.
Public Acceptance and National Independence:
In some nations, there is public acceptance of the existence of the death penalty. In such situations, the sovereign representative of the state may implement it as a matter of national criminal policy.
CONTENTIONS AGAINST THE MOTION:
Right to Life:
Life itself is fundamental to human dignity, which is a basic requirement of every individual. While there is severe punishment for any wrongdoing, crimes and barbaric acts will never justify taking someone’s life.
Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Punishment:
The above-mentioned conventions of human rights and many other legal frameworks commit to protecting a human’s social identity and welfare. The death sentence is seen as highly inhumane since it involves going through unmerciful procedures for extended durations of time, which includes, but is not limited to, languishing in pre-execution cells.
Possibility of Error:
Not being capable of alteration is what makes the right to life a penalty and unjustifiable if disregarded. No human being deserves to be subjected to the ultimate annihilation of sanction, which is legally, socially, and morally unacceptable.
Rehabilitation and Redemption Denied:
Our society has shown us that a person can undergo substantial moral and social transformation. Such transformation possibility is what makes the death penalty utterly indefensible.
Discrimination and Arbitrary Use:
Numerous forms of researched literature suggest that the use of a death sentence is highly concentrated within the weaker members of society, further exposing the stripped value of equality and the humanity’s equitable social identity.
CONCLUSION
The compatibility of the death penalty with human dignity is still perhaps the most controversial topic explored in the legal theory, constitutional law, and human rights law. Jurisdictions have varying interpretations of the principle of dignity due to sociocultural and legal factors.
Ø Evolving Standards of Decency
Most contemporary legal systems appear to be moving towards the notion that punishment must respect the dignity of a person, even if they are the most heinous of offenders. International law also seems to follow this trend, as evidenced in numerous UN resolutions and the Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR which advocates for the abolition of death penalty on the grounds that it reduces human beings to their worst deeds, without acknowledging the potential for rehabilitation.
Ø Arbitrary and Discriminatory Application
Inconsistent application of the death penalty based on arbitrary discrimination is a common theme in empirical research as well as judicial analyses like Furman v. Georgia and Mithu v. State of Punjab. This inconsistency introduces a degree of unpredictability that is unfair and, in many cases, dehumanizing and derogatory of the dignity of the convicted.
Ø Stress and Suffering Encountered
Prolonged incarceration on death row (the “death row phenomenon”): The European Court of Human Rights, alongside other courts, have ruled that such practice inflicts mental and psychological suffering, and not only constitutes a violation of fundamental humanity but undermines human dignity entitled to a person. The notion of waiting for years (even decades) up to the point of execution emphasizes in and of itself the process (one might argue) could also be considered cruel.
Ø The Possibility of Error
Fundamental principles of dignity are breached by execution devoid of a prior conviction and death sentence. The claim state holds the capacity – and resides – to execute an individual but later be proved erroneous is, without doubt, incredulously gets one reflecting about sanity of system on which we function.
Ø The Other Side: Dignity of Victims and Society
Supporters of the capital punishment argue that if executed in a justifiable manner, it serves as an effective means of crime prevention and protection of compassion, justice on fundamental high order principles in the name of victim, enforcing the law. The compromise incorporated in Bachan Singh doctrine captures such balance – retaining capital punishment, but only in the rarest of rare instances, so brutal the crime was to commit that placing the perpetrator in prison for life would be an utter injustice.
References
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684.
- Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277.
- Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
- UN Human Rights Committee. (2005). General Comment No. 6: The right to life (Article 6 of the ICCPR).
- International Commission Against the Death Penalty (ICDP). (2022). Death Penalty and the Principle of Human Dignity.
- National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) India.
- Law Commission of India, Report No. 262: The Death Penalty (2015).
- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bone%2520of%2520contention
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
- https://lifeovercoffee.com/why-hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner-can-be-dangerous-theology-2/%3Fsrsltid%3DAfmBOorFSEARJXxwhqIxW7QY_8EAVAIUrcCNfYPIJw4YEPugmBUM4imo
- https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/1-human-dignity
