Capital Punishment In India And The Case For Abolition
- IJLLR Journal
- May 14
- 2 min read
Amritha Nandini PJ, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
CHAPTER - I
INTRODUCTION
“ There is a certain right by which we may deprive a man of life, but none by which we may deprive him of death; this is mere cruelty.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human (1878))
India’s engagement with Capital Punishment exists preceding its pre-independence period, with judicial precedents historically mandating the execution by various methods of torture as the prescribed methods of execution. Etymologically, the term capital punishment is derived from the Latin word ‘capitalis’ meaning ‘of the head’, referring to the mode of execution during ancient times as a prescribed form of punishment. The debate following the legitimacy and application of capital punishment has persisted over an extended period of time and has continuously provoked substantial legal discourse over the years.
From a philosophical standpoint, the works of Immanuel Kant’s deontological framework poses that certain acts, notably the method of deliberately taking the life of a human are according to the philosopher intrinsically immoral irrespective of the outcomes that they may produce. Notwithstanding the ethical position the theoretical justification most frequently invoked in the imposition of death sentence is the deterrence theory of punishment. This theory seeks not only to incapacitate the offender permanently, but also preclude him from doing any crime in the future. The utilitarian theorist Jeremy Bentham, in his arguments widely supported the deterrence theory, grounding his theory on the principles of hedonism asserting that an individual would be effectively persuaded from not engaging in criminal behaviour, if the punishments were of severe nature and administered promptly. According to the theorist, this shall generate a sense of apprehension in individuals thereby restraining individuals from perpetrating criminal acts. But how effective is this method of capital punishment? From ancient times to the present day execution have taken place in different distorted manners for various crimes, has this ever-stopped prospective offenders from committing crime even after being aware of the consequences? Or is it that despite the known threat of severe consequences the perpetrators override all rational thinking to commit the crime regardless. If so, what remains the point of having capital punishment other than to appease the public?
