This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1) ADMINISTRATION OF JUISTICE:The most essential functions of the state are primarily two: war and administratation of justice. If a state is not capable of performing either or both of these functions, it cannot be called state. According to salmonad, the administration of justice implies the maintenance of right within a political community by means of the physical force of the state. It is a modern and civilized substitute for the primitive practice of private vengeance and violent self-help. Salmond point out that if the force of the state is not used in all cases to secure obedience, it does not mean that the control of the state has disappeared. It merely indicated the final triumph supremacy of the control of the state.. Hobbes says that without a common power to keep them all in awe, it is not possible for individuals to live in society. Without it, injustice unchecked and triumphant and the life of the people is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. And the condition observed by the Hobbs in his era is not different as compare to today’s scenario. Salmond points out that men do not have one reason in them and each is moved by his own interests and passions. The only alternative is one power over men. Man is by nature a fighting animal and force is the ultimaratio of all mankind. Without a common power to keep them all in awe, it is impossible for men to cohere in any but the most primitive form of society. Without it civilization is unattainable. However orderly a society may be , the element of fore is always present and operative. It is suggested that force as an instrument for the coercion of mankind is merely a temporary and provisional incident
in the development of a perfect civilization. To a large extent already, the element of force has become merely latent and for the most part it is sufficient for the state to declare the rights and duties of its subjects. Social sanction is an efficient instrument only if it is associated with and supplemented by the concentrated and irresistible force of the community. Force is necessary to coerce the recalcitrant minority and prevent them from gaining an unfair advantage over the law abiding majority in a state. The conclusion is that the administration of justice with the sanction of physical force of the state is unavoidable and admits of no substitute.1 The origin and growth of administration of justice is identical with origin and growth of man. The social nature of man demands that he must live in society. While living so, man must have experienced a conflict of interest and that created the necessity for providing for the administration of justice. The second stage in the history of administration of justice started with the rise of political states. However, those states were not strong enough to regulate crime and inflict punishment on the criminals. The law of private vengeance and violent self-help continued to prevail,. The state merely regulated private vengeance and violent self-help. The state also prescribed rules for the regulation of private vengeance. The state enforced the concept or a tooth for tooth, an eye for an eye. 2) PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:The purpose of criminal justice is to punish the wrongdoer,, he is punished by the state. The question arises, what is the purpose of punishment or in other words, what is an end of criminal justice. From very ancient times, a number of theories have been givn concerning
V. D. Mahajan Jurisprudence and legal theory Fifth Edition Eastern Company 128-129.
the purpose of punishment. Those theories may be broadly divided into two classes. The view of one class of theories is that the end of criminal justice is to protect and add to the welfare of the state and society. The view of the other class of theories is that the purpose of punishment is retribution. The offender must be made to suffer for the wrong committed by him. 3) Meaning and definition of punishment:We can call punishment as an instrument to achieve the goal of administration of justice. In other words punishment is method for punishing the wrongdoer for his wrong. Punishing the offenders is a primary function of all civil states. The drama of wrong doing and its retribution has indeed been an unending fascination for human mind. Punishment can be used as a method of reducing the incidence of criminals behaviour either by deterring the potential offenders of by incapacitating and preventing them from repeating the offence or by reforming them into law-abiding citizens. Punishment involves pain or suffering produced by design and justified by some value that the sufferer is assumed to have violated. Jerome Hall has described punishment in the following terms: First, punishment is inflicting pain. Second, it is coercive. Third, it is inflicted in the name of the state, i. e., it is authorized. Fourth, it presupposes rules, their violation and a formal determination of that expressed in a judgment. Fifth, it is inflicted upon an offender who caused, committed harm. Sixth, the extent or type of punishment is in some defended way related to causing commission of the harm, and aggravated or
mitigated by reference to the personally of the offender, his motive and temptation.2 The deliberate infliction of harm upon somebody, or the withdrawal of some good from them, by an authority, in response to their being supposed to have committed some offence. Sometimes punishment may be inflicted upon an animal, or ritualistically upon an inanimate thing. The philosophical problem with punishment is that since it involves the infliction of some kind of harm, or deprivation of some kind of good, it transgresses normal ethical boundaries, and therefore requires specific ethical justification. The major elements in such a justification have been felt to be: (i) retribution: if a person has inflicted some harm on another, then justice requires retribution (see also justice, retributive); (ii) reparation: if a person has harmed another, then he owes a duty of reparation to the victim, which his punishment provides; (iii) reformation: the harm inflicted teaches the criminal to behave better in the future; (iv) deterrence: knowledge of the penalties deters potential offenders; (v) prevention: an offender who is deprived of opportunity (e.g. by being imprisoned) cannot repeat the offence. Features (iii) and (iv) are often conjoined with (v), in an indirect utilitarian approach, in which it is argued that a society with an institution of punishment in place will enjoy better conditions of life than any without it. A thought more popular among judges than philosophers is that punishment simply expresses society's revulsion at some kind of behaviour, and needs no other defence. The difficulty is that judges are often revolted by too many things, such as long hair, youth, and poverty.3
Jerome Hall The Aims of criminal law, 1958. http://www.answers.com/topic/punishment?cat=biz-finsds4
4) CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:Capital punishment, also called the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. Historically, the execution of criminals and political opponents was used by nearly all societies—both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent. Among countries around the world, almost all European and many Pacific Area states (including Australia, New Zealand and Timor Leste), and Canada have abolished capital punishment. In Latin America, most states have completely abolished the use of capital punishment, while some countries, however, like Brazil, allow for capital punishment only in exceptional situations, such as treason committed during wartime. The United States, Guatemala, most of the Caribbean and the majority of democracies in Asia (e.g. Japan and India) and Africa (e.g. Botswana and Zambia) retain it. In most places that practice capital punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as punishment for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious renunciation of one's crimes such as apostasy In many (the formal countries religion). retentionist
(countries that use the death penalty), drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are also punished by the death penalty. In militaries around the world courts-martial have imposed death sentences for offenses such as cowardice, desertion, insubordination, and mutiny. Capital punishment is a very contentious issue in some cultures. Supporters of capital punishment argue that it deters crime, prevents recidivism, and is an
appropriate form of punishment for the crime of murder. Opponents of capital punishment argue that it does not deter criminals more than life imprisonment, violates human rights, leads to executions of some who are wrongfully convicted, and discriminates against minorities and the poor.4 The latest country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes was Rwanda in mid 2007, until the government of Gabon announced on September 14, 2007 that it, too, will no longer apply capital punishment. 5) HISTORY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:The use of formal execution extends at least to the beginning of recorded history. Most historical records as well as various primitive tribal practices indicate that the death penalty was a part of their justice system. Communal punishment for wrongdoing generally included shunning, compensation banishment by and the wrongdoer, corporal punishment, a small execution. However, within
community, crimes were rare and murder was almost always a crime of passion. Moreover, most would hesitate to inflict death on a member of the community. For this reason, execution and even banishment were extremely rare. Usually, compensation and shunning were enough as a form of justice However; these are not effective responses to crimes committed by outsiders. Consequently, even small crimes committed by outsiders were considered to be an assault on the community and were severely punished. The methods varied from beating and enslavement to executions. However, the response to crime committed by neighbouring tribes or communities included formal apology, compensation or blood feuds.
A blood feud or vendetta occurs when arbitration between families or tribes fails or an arbitration system is non-existent. This form of justice was common before the emergence of an arbitration system based on state or organized religion. It may result from crime, land disputes or a code of honour. "Acts of retaliation underscore the ability of the social collective to defend it and demonstrate to enemies (as well as potential allies) that injury to property, rights, or the person will not go unpunished." However, in practice, it is often difficult to distinguish between a war of vendetta and one of conquest. For most of recorded history, capital punishments were often cruel and inhuman. Severe historical penalties include breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, scaphism, or neck lacing. Elaborations of tribal arbitration of feuds included peace settlements often done in a religious context and compensation system. Compensation was based on the principle of substitution which might include material (e.g. cattle, slave) compensation, exchange of brides or grooms, or payment of the blood debt. Settlement rules could allow for animal blood to replace human blood, or transfers of property or blood money or in some case an offer of a person for execution. The person offered for execution did not have to be an original perpetrator of the crime because the system was based on tribes, not individuals. Blood feuds could be regulated at meetings, such as the Viking things. Systems deriving from blood feuds may survive alongside more advanced legal systems or be given recognition by courts (e.g. trial by combat). One of the more modern refinements of the blood feud is the duel.
In certain parts of the world, nations in the form of ancient republics, monarchies or tribal oligarchies emerged. These nations were often united by common linguistic, religious or family ties. Moreover, expansion of these nations often occurred by conquest of neighbouring tribes or nations. Consequently, various classes of royalty, nobility, various commoners and slave emerged. Accordingly, the systems of tribal arbitration were submerged into a more unified system of justice which formalised the relation between the different "classes" rather than "tribes". The earliest and most famous example is Code of Hammurabi which set the different punishment and compensation according to the different class/group of victims and perpetrators. The Torah (Jewish Law), also known as the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Christian Old Testament), lays down the death penalty for murder, kidnapping, magic, violation of the Sabbath, blasphemy, and a wide range of sexual crimes, although evidence suggests that actual executions were rare. A further example comes from Ancient Greece, where the Athenian legal system was first written down by Draco in about 621 BC: the death penalty was applied for a particularly wide range of crimes. The word draconian derives from Draco's laws. Similarly, in medieval and early modern Europe, before the
development of modern prison systems, the death penalty was also used as a generalized form of punishment. For example, in 1700s Britain, there were 222 crimes which were punishable by death, including crimes such as cutting down a tree or stealing an animal. Thanks to the notorious Bloody Code, life in 18th century (and early 19th century) Britain was a hazardous place. For example, Michael Hammond and his sister, Ann, whose ages were given as 7 and 11, were reportedly hanged at King's Lynn on Wednesday, the 28th of
September 1708 for theft. The local press did not, however, consider the executions of two children newsworthy. Although many are executed in China each year in the modern age, there was a time in Tang Dynasty China when the death penalty was actually abolished altogether. This was in the year 747, enacted by Emperor Taizong of Tang (r. 712-756), who before was the only person in China with the authority to sentence criminals to execution. Even then capital punishment was relatively infrequent, with only 24 executions in the year 730 and 58 executions in the year 736. Two hundred years later there was a form of execution called Ling Chi, slow slicing, or death by/of a thousand cuts, used in China from roughly 900 CE to its abolition in 1905. Despite its wide use, calls for reform were not unknown. The 12th Century Sephardic legal scholar, Moses Maimonides, wrote, "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death." He argued that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely "according to the judge's caprice." His concern was maintaining popular respect for law, and he saw errors of commission as much more threatening than errors of omission. The last several centuries have seen the emergence of modern nationstates. Almost fundamental to the concept of nation state is the idea of citizenship. This caused justice to be increasingly associated with equality and universality, which in Europe saw an emergence of the concept of natural rights. Another important aspect is that emergence of standing police forces and permanent penitential institutions. The death penalty becomes an increasingly unnecessary deterrent in
prevention of minor crimes such as theft. Additionally, in countries like Britain, law enforcement officials became alarmed when juries tended to acquit non-violent felons rather than risk a conviction that could result in execution the 20th century was one of the bloodiest of the human history. Massive killing occurred as the resolution of war between nation-states. A large part of execution was summary execution of enemy combatants. Also, modern military organizations employed capital punishment as a means of maintaining military discipline. In the past, cowardice, absence without leave, desertion, insubordination, looting, shirking under enemy fire and disobeying orders were often crimes punishable by death. One method of execution since firearms came into common use has almost invariably been firing squad. Moreover, various authoritarian states—for example those with fascist or communist governments—employed the death penalty as a potent means of political oppression. Partly as a response to such excessive punishment, civil organizations have started to place increasing emphasis on the concept of human rights and abolition of the death penalty. 6) CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN UNITED STATES:Capital Punishment in the United States is officially sanctioned by 38 of the 50 states, as well as by the federal government and the military. The overwhelming majority of executions are performed by the states; the federal government maintains the legal power to use capital punishment but does so relatively infrequently. Each state practicing capital punishment has different laws with huge diversities regarding its methods and crimes which qualify; no state may execute someone for a crime committed before the age of 18. The state of Texas has performed more executions than any other states since the resumption
of the death penalty in 1976; prior to that date, Virginia had led the nation. Capital punishment is a controversial issue in the U.S. with many prominent organizations and individuals participating in the debate. Arguments for and against it are based on moral, practical, religious, and emotional grounds. Advocates of the death penalty argue that it deters crime, improves the community by making sure that convicted criminals do not find their way out onto the streets to offend again, and is cheaper than keeping convicted criminals in high security prison for the rest of their natural lives. Some opponents of the death penalty claim that "capital punishment cheapens human life and puts government on the same low moral level as criminals who have taken life." Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 there have been 1098 executions in the United States (as of September 24, 2007). There were 53 executions in 2006. 67% of capital convictions are eventually overturned, mainly on procedural grounds of incompetent legal counsel, police or prosecutors who suppressed evidence and judges who gave jurors the wrong instructions. Seven percent of those whose sentences were overturned between 1973 and 1995 have been acquitted. Ten percent were retried and re-sentenced to death. 7) CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA Capital punishment is legal in India although rarely used. Between 1975 and 1991, about 40 people were executed, though there was a period between 1995 and 2004 when there were no executions. Antideath penalty activists dispute those figures, claiming much higher numbers on Death Row and actual executions. In August 2004, a 41-year-old former security man, Dhananjoy Chatterjee, was executed for raping and killing a 14-year-old schoolgirl
in Calcutta. This was the country's first execution since 1995 and the first execution in West Bengal since 1993 when Kartik Sil and Sukumar Burman were hanged. In 2005, about a dozen people were on the country's Death Row. Many levels of appeals are available through different courts and India allows state governors and the president to grant clemency. The death penalty is to be used in the "rarest of rare" cases according to the Supreme Court of India, although the meaning of this phrase is not clearly defined. Capital punishment can be imposed for murder, instigating a child's suicide, treason, acts of terrorism, or a second conviction for drug trafficking. The death penalty is usually carried out by hanging. After a 1983 challenge to this method, the Supreme Court ruled that hanging did not involve torture, barbarity, humiliation or degradation. It was reported in 2006 that the number of mercy petitions pending with President Abdul Kalam from convicts on death row stands at 20, including 12 were submitted when K. R. Narayanan was the president. In May 2004, Kalam referred several of these petitions to the home ministry for a possible review. The legal department of the ministry reiterated the advice given to him by the previous government that those cases did not deserve the president’s mercy A major controversy exists as to whether or not to execute Mohammad Afzal, a Kashmiri militant who attacked the Indian parliament building.
8) INTERNATIONAL USE OF DEATH PENALTY:-
For millennia, the death penalty has been used around the world as a means of preventing and punishing crime. Some anthropologists attest to finding prehistoric cave drawings which depict executions. Legal references to capital punishment can be traced back to 1750 B.C. with the Code of Hammurabi. Both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are replete with references to the use of death as the penalty for various crimes. Perhaps one of the most notorious executions by a state of a perceived criminal was the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Subhash Gupta, Deputy Secretary of the Indian Red Cross Society, speculated that "here is practically no country in the world where the death penalty has never existed." Even though the arguable historical trend has been towards the abolition of capital punishment, ninety-three nations and territories still use it as a punishment for ordinary crimes with some degree of regularity. Although the methods of execution, the crimes subject to the punishment, and the rationales supporting its use differ substantially, the governments, and perhaps even the citizens, of each of these nations have concluded that the death penalty is a legitimate method of criminal punishment. Despite the many differences, one common factor is that most executions performed by the state, under the designation of capital punishment, are not carried out in secret In fact, executions often are announced in advance, reported by the press after they have occurred, and in many cases, witnessed. Fifteen countries have abolished the use of the death penalty for ordinary crimes, yet retain it for exceptional crimes, such as crimes under military law or crimes committed under exceptional circumstances such as during wartime Antonio Marchesi noted that many countries reach total abolition in two stages, where the first stage is abolition for ordinary crimes. On the side of total abolition, fifty-six countries have
abolished entirely the use of the death penalty for any crime by repealing all laws that had authorized such punishment. An additional thirty countries and territories are considered to be de facto abolitionist since they have not executed anyone for over ten years, although they still have laws providing for the death penalty for ordinary crimes. Although most of the latter groups of countries have not executed anyone in the last twenty years, they should not yet be viewed collectively as truly abolitionist in spirit. So long as the death penalty is still technically legal, the governments may attempt to activate it. For example, in late 1993 the Philippine Congress passed legislation reinstating the death penalty for thirteen heinous crimes. While there had not been an execution in the Philippines since 1976, death sentences were still imposed until late 1986. In 1986, the Constitution of the Philippines was redrafted and the death penalty was abolished for all crimes except those which were considered to be heinous. In April 1987, President Corazon Aquino announced that she would commute all of the existing death sentences to life imprisonment. But after this notable trend towards abolition, the Philippines is expected to resume executions at any time. This case study illustrates that one must be careful not to generalize about de facto abolitionist countries and must consider the particular history of both the legality and the application of the death penalty in each country when assessing the status of capital punishment in that country. Many countries have limited application of the death penalty to only those convicted of murder. According to Amnesty International, twenty-five of the sixty-three nations known to have executed criminals from the middle of 1985 to the middle of 1988 executed only convicted murderers. The United States falls into this category.
However, a majority of the retentionist nations continue to execute people for offenses not resulting in the loss of life or even involving violence. For example, Amnesty International reports that during the last decade prisoners have been executed for adultery (Iran, Saudi Arabia), prostitution (Iran), running a brothel and showing pornographic films (China), taking bribes (USSR), embezzlement (China, Ghana, Somalia) . . . economic corruption (Iraq) . . . kidnapping (China, Malaysia), rape (China, Egypt, South Africa, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates), robbery or armed robbery (China, Ghana, Iran, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Taiwan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Zaire, Zambia) and drug-trafficking (China, Iran, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Syria, Thailand). While this data may surprise most Americans, recent American debate over the death penalty has raised questions of whether the death penalty should be extended to crimes other than murder. International experience with the use of capital punishment for other crimes can serve as a source of information for the justification and effect of applying the death penalty to crimes other than murder. 9) IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT NECESSARY?Perhaps the most common defenses of capital punishment are on utilitarian grounds. For utilitarians, punishment in general is justified only insofar as it creates a greater balance of happiness vs. unhappiness. From the utilitarian perspective, then, capital punishment is justified if it (1) prevents the criminal from repeating his crime; or (2) deters crime by discouraging would-be offenders. For, both of these contribute to a greater balance of happiness in society. There are several immediate problems with this line of reasoning.
First, the burden of proof is on the defender of capital punishment to show that the same effects could not be accomplished with less severe punishment, such as life imprisonment. This is especially pertinent since the goal of utilitarianism is to reduce as much unhappiness as possible and this entails imposing the least severe of two possible punishments when everything else is equal. Italian political theorist Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) argues this point in On Crimes and Punishment (1764), one of the first systematic critiques of capital punishment from the utilitarian point of view. According to Beccaria, capital punishment is not necessary to deter, and long term imprisonment is a more powerful deterrent since execution is transient.
The retributive notion of punishment in general is that (a) as a foundational matter of justice, criminals deserve punishment, and (b) punishment should be equal to the harm done. In determining what counts as "punishment equal to harm," theorists further distinguish between two types of retributive punishment. First, lex talionis retribution involves punishment in kind and is commonly expressed in the expression "an eye for an eye." Second, lex salica retribution involves punishment through compensation, and the harm inflicted can be repaired by payment or atonement. Historically, capital punishment is most often associated lex talionis retribution. One of the earliest written statements of capital punishment from the lex talionis or "eye for an eye" perspective is from the 18th century BCE Babylonian Law of Hammurabi: Immanual Kant offered an alternative retributive justification of capital punishment which is not rooted in vengeance. Instead, for Kant,
capital punishment is based on the idea that every person is a valuable and worthy of respect because of their ability to make rational and free choices. The murder, too, is worthy of respect; we, thus, show him respect by treating him the same way he declares that people are to be treated. Accordingly, we execute the murderer. A key problem with Kant's justification of capital punishment is that it tells us what to do with only ideally rational killers, although many killers are not rational.
Some standard arguments for capital punishment do not fall neatly into either the retributive or utilitarian categories. For example, John Locke's famous defense of capital punishment has both a retributive and utilitarian component. Locke argued that a person forfeits his rights when committing even minor crimes. Once rights are forfeited, Locke justifies punishment for two reasons: (1) from the retributive side, criminals deserve punishment, and, (2) from the utilitarian side, punishment is needed to protect our society by deterring crime through example. Thus, society may punish the criminal any way it deems necessary so to set an example for other would-be criminals. This includes taking away his life. Under the influence of Locke's theory of the forfeiture of rights, English law had some 200 capital offenses by 1800. Critics of Locke argue that there are alternatives to his assumption that criminals forfeit their right to life. It may be, instead, that criminals forfeit other rights (such as freedom to travel), yet the right to life is simply not forfeitable. Beccaria, for example, argued that people did not sacrifice their rights to life when entering into the social contract. Another defense of capital punishment is based on an analogy that capital punishment is to the political body just as self-defense is to the
individual. The reasoning is that, in dangerous circumstances, the individual is justified in protecting himself by self-defense with deadly force. Since society (or the political body) is like a large person, society, too, is justified in using deadly force through capital punishment. However, for this analogy to be a successful, it must parallel the accepted principle that self-defense with deadly force is justified only when there is no alternative open to us (such as fleeing). This means we must see whether any alternative to capital punishment is open (such as long term imprisonment). Further, the self-defense with deadly force is grounded in the moral right of selfpreservation. However, only people, properly speaking, have moral rights; abstract entities and institutions such as governing bodies do not. Consequently, the analogy between capital punishment and selfdefense fails it a basic level. J. J. Maclean of Canada defends the right of the state to award capital punishment for murder. According to him, if the state has the right and duty to defend the community against outside aggression such as in time of war and within the country, for instance, I case of treason etc. and that to the extent of taking the life of the aggressors and guilty parties, if the citizen wants to protect his own life by killing whoever attacks without any reason, the state can do the same when a criminal attacks and endangers the life of the community by deciding to eliminate summarily another human being. Capital punishment must be retained to prove the sanctity of that most precious thing which is the gift of life. If embodies the revulsion and horror that we feel for the greatest of crimes. As a deterrent, death penalty is playing its part for which there is no substitute. `
10) CONCLUSION AND OPINION:-
Capital punishment is therefore necessary but there are opponents who think that it is barbaric. Hugo Adam Bedau, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, says this about capital punishment “the death penalty is uncivilized in theory and has no place in a civilized society." This is true but we do not live in a civilized society if we did there would be no crime thus the death penalty would be out of date. But in this uncivilized society that we live in I say let the punishment fit the crime, an eye for an eye. Bedau also said that “Criminals no doubt deserve to be punished, and punished with severity appropriate to their culpability and the harm they have caused to the innocent." This I strongly agree with and feel that Bedau is beginning to see the need for capital punishment. In conclusion, murder is a crime that involves taking the life of another human, and that act needs to be punished justly--not with a shortened sentence in an overly luxurious prison, but in an effective manner that gives society the message that it is living in a just world. Moreover, the death penalty is not racially biased; it's just that more minorities are being executed than Caucasians, because more minorities are committing more crimes. If capital punishment is taken away, we will not have an effective justice system and crimes against innocent citizens will continue. This is why capital punishment is necessary and needed in America.
It is really desirable in the context of the Indian society. Because the contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out the criminal productivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing
inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of the law, and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It does not mean that death penalty is the need of each and every crime. But before imposing such harse punishment precaution should be taken so as to avoid the miscarriage of justice. In today’s world terrorism as well as the growing activities of the In anti-social society element the requires such of punishment. Indian increasing rate
terrorism is a serious threat to the ‘Sovereignty and Integrity of India’, so from this angle also the provision of death penalty should not be eliminated from our law books. The annals of the Indian history show that certain Eras were called the Golden Age because people enjoyed a secure and peaceful life, as punishment was very severe even for small crime in those days. According to the abolitionist the most of the person condemned to the death penalty are the poorest of the poor and those who cannot afford the good lawyer. In my opinion
proper attention should be given in this direction and good lawyers should be given to those needy people who are no capable of having this opportunity. If we see the death penalty from human rights perspective, and say that it should not be given to an accused. Don’t you think that we are not justified in considering the right of victim? Because he is also a human being having the right to life. In such situation we are punishing a person who has taken an innocent person’s life, but what about the victim who did not commit any crime and lost his life. What about his family? So in my opinion if we talk about human right definitely we should not forget the right of the victim also. I would like to conclude my paper saying that the time is not yet ripen to abolish the death sentence. It should be there for the most serious and heinous crime.
BIBLIOGRAPHY TEXT BOOKS
1. The Death Penalty – A World Wide Perspective Roger Hood 2. Criminal Law and Criminology K.D. Gaur 3. Criminal Justice 2004, Eastern Book Company. BY: - Dr. K. I. Vibhute First Edition,
4. Criminology and Penology Punishment BY: - N. V. Paranjape 12th Edition, Central law publications. 5. Criminology By: - Ram Ahuja Reprinted 2005 , Rawat publication ,jaipur New Delhi 6. V. D. Mahajan Jurispudence and legal theory Fifth Edition Eastern
JOURNALS 5. Journal- Stanford Law Review Dec.2005 – Ethics and Empirics of Capital Punishment 6. International Review of Law and Economics, March 1993the Demand
8. Journal of the Indian Legal thoughts ,Volume 2 2004 , School of Indian Legal thought , Mahatma Gandhi University , Kottayam. WEBLIOGRAPHY
1. http://www.answers.com/topic/punishment?cat=biz-finsds4 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
1) ADMINISTRATION OF JUISTICE 2) PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 3) MEANING AND DEFINITION OF PUNISHMENT 4) CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 5) HISTORY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 6) CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN UNITED STATES
7) CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA
8) INTERNATIONAL USE OF DEATH PENALTY
9) IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT NECESSARY? 10) CONCLUSION AND OPINION
SYMBIOSIS SOCIETY’S LAW SCHOOL, PUNE
SUBJECT: - CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY.
SEMINAR TOPIC:- IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT NECESSARY?
GUIDED BY: - PROF. CHOPRA SIR
PRESENTED BY KALE DILIPKUMAR LL.M. IIIrd SEMISTER. ROLL NO. 42.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.