ABSTRACT
The debate between the death penalty and life imprisonment has been a long-standing issue in legal jurisprudence. While some argue that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to heinous crimes, others contend that life imprisonment is a more humane and equally effective alternative. The administration of justice demands that punishments be proportional to the crimes committed. The death penalty and life imprisonment represent the severest forms of legal retribution. However, their application varies across jurisdictions based on legal, moral, and societal considerations. While capital punishment is viewed as an ultimate form of justice for the gravest offenses, life imprisonment offers an alternative that ensures the offender is permanently removed from society without resorting to execution. Legal scholars and policymakers have long debated the appropriateness of both penalties, considering factors such as deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and the potential for wrongful convictions.
INTRODUCTION
Death penalty and life imprisonment are the form of punishments to which offenders are liable for the heinous crime or illegal criminal act which they have done. The debate surrounding the death penalty and life imprisonment has long been a contentious issue within the legal and moral frameworks of societies around the world. As nations grapple with questions of justice, deterrence, and human rights, the choice between these two forms of punishment often reflects deeper societal values and beliefs about the nature of crime and punishment. Proponents of the death penalty argue that it serves as a necessary deterrent to heinous crimes and provides a sense of closure for victims’ families, while opponents contend that it is an irreversible punishment fraught with the risk of wrongful conviction, systemic bias, and ethical dilemmas. Conversely, life imprisonment is often presented as a more humane alternative that allows for rehabilitation and reflects a commitment to the sanctity of life. This article seeks to explore the complexities of both sentencing options, examining their legal implications, societal impacts, and the philosophical underpinnings that inform ongoing debates in this critical area of criminal justice. Through a comprehensive analysis, we aim to illuminate the challenges and considerations that policymakers, legal practitioners, and society must confront when addressing the ultimate questions of justice and morality in the context of severe criminal offenses.
TO THE POINT
Among the punishments for the crimes, the severest punishment is death sentence. The death sentence is also called ‘capital punishment’. This punishment can be imposed in extreme cases and rare that too in extremely grave crimes. The capital punishment can be imposed on a criminal who commits heinous crime and plan criminal conspiracy. Capital punishment deprives the criminal’s life and existence.
In the ancient times death penalties were imposed for serious offences and also lighter offences, such as breaking of promises, adultery, prostitution, indebtedness etc and they were executed very brutally and cruelly. Not only in ancient times, but also in middle ages, it was thought that the best way of protecting society from serious or dangerous types of offences was that of sentencing offenders to death. There has been a steady decrease in the number of offences for which the penalty is death. Capital punishment, whilst pretending to support reverence for human life does in fact, tend to destroy it. Arguments are made both in favor and against the retention of capital sentences as a form of punishment.
Capital punishment is generally resorted to in serious offences like murder. According to one view it is morally excluded and according to the other a moral necessity. But the central question relates to the efficacy of the death penalty in protesting human life. The law confers on the Judge wide discretionary power in the matter of passing a sentence. However, under Section 303 of the IPC, the Judge has no such discretionary power since Sec. 303 of IPC prescribes capital/death sentence compulsorily in case of a life imprisonment convict, who is found guilty of committing murder, while undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life. Therefore, Section 104 of BNS was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Mithu v. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC 473).
Death sentence is awarded in India in certain exceptional cases such as an attempt to murder, Murder, abetment of suicide, punishment for murder by a life convict and for such heinous crimes.
Life imprisonment, often referred to as a life sentence, is a form of punishment where an individual is incarcerated for the remainder of their natural life. This type of sentencing is typically reserved for serious offenses, such as murder, treason, or certain violent crimes. The implications of life imprisonment are multifaceted, impacting not only the convicted individual but also victims’ families, society at large, and the legal system itself.
Life imprisonment can be imposed with or without the possibility of parole. A sentence with the possibility of parole allows inmates to apply for release after serving a certain portion of their sentence, contingent upon good behavior and rehabilitation efforts. In contrast, a life sentence without parole (LWOP) means that the individual will remain in prison for life, with no opportunity for release.
Life imprisonment serves as a complex and often controversial alternative to the death penalty in criminal justice systems around the world. While it offers a means of ensuring public safety and providing a degree of justice for victims’ families, it also poses significant ethical, legal, and financial challenges. As societies continue to evolve in their understanding of justice and rehabilitation, the conversation surrounding life imprisonment will likely remain a critical area of focus in discussions about crime and punishment.
The State, where the prisoner has been convicted and sentenced, alone has power to remit the sentence. The remission of sentence under the rules framed under Prison Acts or Jail Manuals are mere administrative directions for the administration of jails and prisons, and cannot supersede the statutory provision of the Code.
But in practice, it is not so. In India, it is 14 years and 20 years under Sec. 6 BNS. Section 5 of the BNS empowers the appropriate Government to commute the period of life imprisonment. The imprisonment for life is to be treated as rigorous imprisonment for life. The sentence of imprisonment for life was substituted for transportation for life’ which implied hard labor for the concerned convicts and was considered to be the most dreaded punishment.
Rigorous Imprisonment: In the case of rigorous imprisonment the offender is put to hard labor such as grinding corn, digging earth, drawing water, cutting fire-wood, mowing grass etc. The maximum imprisonment that can be awarded for an offence is twenty years (Sec. 6 of the BNS). The lowest term actually named for a given offence is twenty-four hours (Sec. 355 of the BNS).
The sentence of imprisonment for life is provided in about 50 offences under BNS such as waging war, conspiracy or criminal conspiracy, abatement, perjury, murder, culpable homicide, kidnapping, rape or gang rape, grievous hurt and many more heinous crimes.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
The discourse surrounding capital punishment and life imprisonment is laden with legal terminology that shapes judicial decisions and legislative policies. Some critical legal doctrines and terms include:
Mens Rea – The mental state or intent of the accused, which plays a crucial role in determining the severity of punishment.
Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances – Factors that either reduce or enhance the gravity of the offense and influence sentencing.
Proportionality Principle – The concept that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime committed.
Due Process – A fundamental principle ensuring fair treatment of individuals in legal proceedings.
Clemency – A discretionary power exercised by the executive to commute a death sentence.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Deterrence
Proponents of the death penalty argue that it serves as a strong deterrent against grave offenses like murder and terrorism. However, empirical studies have yielded mixed results. The absence of a definitive correlation between capital punishment and crime rates has led many countries to abolish it in favor of life imprisonment.
Retribution vs. Rehabilitation
Capital punishment is often justified under the retributive theory of justice, which holds that punishment must fit the crime. Life imprisonment, on the other hand, aligns with rehabilitative justice, allowing the possibility of reformation and redemption.
Risk of Miscarriage of Justice
Wrongful convictions pose a significant challenge to the legitimacy of the death penalty. Several documented cases of posthumous exonerations have reinforced arguments against capital punishment. Life imprisonment offers the advantage of reversibility in the event of new evidence.
Human Rights Considerations
International human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, advocate for the abolition of the death penalty, citing it as a violation of the right to life. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled against capital punishment, pushing many countries toward life imprisonment as an alternative.
CASE LAWS
In Jagmohan Singh v. State of UP, [1973 CrLJ 370], the plea of ‘the Right to life’ guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution was taken to save the accused from the Capital punishment but it was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Court held that capital punishment cannot be regarded as unreasonable ‘per-se’ or not in the public interest. Hence it cannot be said to violate the provisions of Art 19 of the Constitution.
In Rameshwar and another v. State of Up, [1973 CrLJ 940], the Court supported the retaining of the death penalty particularly in those cases where the prohibition of grave conduct like murder is required. In this case the Supreme Court did not hesitate to punish an old man with death.
In Bishan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court held that having regard to peculiar facts and circumstances of case, if the case cannot be termed as rarest of rare cases; death sentence imposed on the accused may be commuted to imprisonment for life.
In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, the accused killed his ailing wife as he could not provide money for the operation. He also killed his two children as they would be neglected after their mother. It was held that imprisonment for life was justified and not capital punishment because crime was committed out of poverty and was not actuated by any lust, vengeance or gain.
CONCLUSION
The debate over the death penalty versus life imprisonment is complex, involving legal, ethical, and policy considerations. While capital punishment remains in practice in some jurisdictions, the global trend leans toward its abolition in favor of life imprisonment. Judicial scrutiny, constitutional safeguards, and evolving societal values continue to shape the discourse on these punitive measures. The death penalty carries the irrevocable risk of wrongful execution, making it an irreversible and often flawed form of justice. In contrast, life imprisonment offers a more humane approach, allowing for reformation while still ensuring public safety.
Moreover, the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent remains debatable, whereas life imprisonment provides a concrete and justifiable method of penalizing serious crimes without violating fundamental human rights. The legal landscape continues to evolve, with increasing emphasis on rehabilitative justice and the protection of due process. In the years to come, more jurisdictions may move toward alternative sentencing methods that prioritize fairness, proportionality, and the possibility of redemption, thereby promoting a justice system that is both ethical and effective.
FAQ’s
Q: Is the death penalty more effective than life imprisonment in deterring crime?
A: Empirical studies have not conclusively proven that capital punishment serves as a stronger deterrent than life imprisonment.
Q: Can a life sentence be commuted to a lesser term?
A: Yes, depending on the jurisdiction, a life sentence may be commuted through parole, clemency, or judicial review.
Q: What is the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine?
A: This principle, established in Indian jurisprudence, mandates that the death penalty should only be imposed in cases where the crime is exceptionally heinous and shocks societal conscience.
Q: Are there alternatives to life imprisonment and the death penalty?
A.Some jurisdictions consider extended fixed-term sentences, rehabilitation programs, and restorative justice approaches as alternatives.
Q: What are the main arguments against the death penalty?
A.Key arguments include the risk of wrongful execution, human rights violations, lack of deterrence, and moral objections to state-sanctioned killing.
This article is written by Sofiya Habeeba student of BA.LLB 3rd year at Sultan ul Uloom college of law.
