Comparative Study Of Capital Punishment Abolition
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ABOLITION
Capital punishment, also called the death penalty, is the execution of a person by the state as a punishment for certain crimes. Its abolition or restriction varies across countries based on legal, moral, and constitutional grounds.
I. RATIONALE FOR ABOLITION
Human Rights Perspective:
Right to life under constitutions and international law.
Considered inhuman, degrading, and irreversible if wrongly applied.
Judicial Errors:
Miscarriages of justice can lead to irreversible consequences.
Deterrence Debate:
Studies show the death penalty may not significantly deter crime compared to life imprisonment.
International Trend:
Majority of countries have either abolished or restricted it to exceptional crimes like terrorism or war crimes.
II. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA
1. Constitutional Framework
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees Right to Life.
However, death penalty is retained for the “rarest of rare” cases as per judicial interpretation.
Judiciary ensures safeguards before execution.
2. Landmark Indian Cases
a) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Facts: Bachan Singh was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
Issue: Whether death penalty violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
Court’s Observation:
Death penalty is constitutionally valid but should be imposed only in “rarest of rare” cases.
Life imprisonment should be the default.
Impact:
Introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine, a cornerstone of Indian capital punishment jurisprudence.
b) Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
Facts: Machhi Singh was convicted of multiple murders.
Court’s Observation:
Death sentence can be imposed if:
The crime is extremely brutal.
There is a danger to society.
Court emphasized the balance between retribution and deterrence.
Impact:
Clarified criteria for imposing death penalty under “rarest of rare” standard.
c) Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)
Facts: Petitioners faced delayed execution; argued for commutation due to prolonged time on death row.
Court’s Observation:
Excessive delay in execution may violate Article 21.
Psychological trauma of waiting on death row is a factor in commuting sentences.
Impact:
Introduced delay and mental suffering as a consideration in death penalty cases.
d) Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)
Facts: Mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking was challenged.
Court’s Observation:
Struck down mandatory death penalty; emphasized judicial discretion.
Impact:
Death penalty must be case-specific, not automatic.
III. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
1. Legal Framework
Death penalty exists under federal and state laws.
Governed by Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.
Landmark Cases
a) Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Facts: Challenge to arbitrary death sentences.
Court’s Observation:
Death penalty, as applied, was arbitrary and capricious.
Impact:
Temporarily abolished death penalty across the US.
Led to revisions of state statutes to guide sentencing.
b) Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Facts: Revised death penalty law challenged.
Court’s Observation:
Death penalty constitutional if guided discretion and procedural safeguards exist.
Impact:
Reinstated capital punishment in states with structured sentencing guidelines.
c) Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Facts: Execution of intellectually disabled defendant challenged.
Court’s Observation:
Execution of mentally retarded individuals violates Eighth Amendment.
Impact:
Restricted death penalty application to mentally competent individuals.
d) Roper v. Simmons (2005)
Facts: Juvenile sentenced to death.
Court’s Observation:
Execution of offenders under 18 violates Eighth Amendment.
Impact:
Abolished juvenile death penalty in the US.
IV. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
The UK abolished capital punishment for murder in 1965 (Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act).
Reasons included human rights concerns and wrongful convictions.
The European Convention on Human Rights reinforced abolition.
Cases
a) Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. UK (1990)
Facts: Death penalty challenged under European human rights norms.
Court’s Observation:
Inhuman and degrading treatment is prohibited.
Impact:
Strengthened international trend against capital punishment.
V. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
| Aspect | India | USA | UK | Other Trends |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Article 21, Rarest of Rare | Eighth Amendment | Human Rights & Acts | ICCPR, UN trends |
| Scope | Murder, Terrorism | Varies by state | Abolished | Mostly abolished globally |
| Exceptions | Rarest of Rare | Juvenile, Intellectually disabled exempt | None | Military or exceptional crimes |
| Judicial Trends | Mitigating factors important | Procedural safeguards mandatory | Abolition | Humanitarian trend globally |
| Key Cases | Bachan Singh, Shatrughan Chauhan | Furman, Gregg, Atkins, Roper | Fox v. UK | Worldwide cases enforcing abolition norms |
VI. OBSERVATIONS
India: Retains capital punishment but restricts it to rare cases with judicial discretion.
USA: Death penalty exists but is highly regulated; abolished for juveniles and intellectually disabled.
UK & Europe: Complete abolition; aligned with human rights norms.
Global Trend: Shift toward abolition or restriction, considering irreversibility, human rights, and arbitrariness.
VII. CONCLUSION
Capital punishment is a controversial and declining form of punishment globally. The judicial trend emphasizes:
Restriction to extreme cases (India)
Prohibition for vulnerable groups (USA)
Complete abolition (UK, Europe)
This comparative study shows the balance between justice, deterrence, and human rights, shaping the global movement toward abolition.
RELATED Blog
comments