Sentencing In Rape Cases – A Comparison Of Judicial Response In India And The US
- IJLLR Journal
- 2 hours ago
- 1 min read
Siddharth Abhishek, National Law University Odisha
Gracy Tanwar, National Law University Odisha
INTRODUCTION:
Rape is commonly accepted as one of the most grievous breaches of human honour and personal autonomy. In addition to the immediate physical assault, it can leave profound psychological harm to the survivor, which can influence their entire social and emotional spectrum. The impact of rape perpetrates further than the individual survivor, as it creates and reaffirms gendered hierarchies, continues systemic oppression, and narrows trust in the criminal justice system. Thus, rape sentencing is scrutinised through the lens of the public and judiciary more than other criminal proceedings, as it reveals societal systems response to sexual violence. The challenge that legal systems face consists of attempting to balance deterrence, punishment, proportionality, and protection for the rights of persons victimised.
India and the United States provide two different approaches to striking such a balance. India, following the expectations of law developed under colonialism, has enacted a statute driven model which has evolved through amendments driven by the outcry from society, particularly when significant rape cases, such as the 2012 Nirbhaya case occurred (Brada, 2019; Menon, 2023). In India, statutory provisions such as the presence of mandatory minimums and the possibility of the death penalty for certain extreme types of rape, give effect to a legislated philosophy steeped in deterrence. In contrast, the United States is a federal system and therefore allows for significant divergence in state level rape law, emphasising constitutional limitations and proportionality along with guidelines rather than the mandatory harshness of enacted statutes. The United States faces its own systematic inequities, including racial biases and socio-economic pressures, which can influence sentences.
