| Human beings in the course of time have upgraded their social standards in which they reside and where they can claim to be proud residents of a protective society, where they have a prerogative claim to basic civic, political, economic and legal rights. The strongest argument against using capital punishment for retributive purposes is the argument that capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment. Many of the framers of the constitution endorsed capital punishment, as did philosophers from which the constitution draws from. John Locke went as far to say that murder is not intrinsically wrong. "Everyone, as he is bound to preserve himself and not quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind. How can murder not be immoral? Citizens under a social contract, agree not to kill only because others also agree not to kill. It is the function of penal laws to prevent murder by demonstrating to everyone that it is not in their best interest to murder. So how can the constitution are brought into this argument, since it makes no mention of capital punishment? Capital punishment too is justified for the following 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 such examples, thus society may punish the criminal in any way it deems necessary which may include taking away his life so as to set an example for other would-be criminals and is further justified for the reason that the acts which are so vile and destructive for society and dignity of the people Invalidating the right of the perpetrator to membership and even to life, because preciousness of life in a moral community must be so highly honoured that those who do not honour the lives of others make null and void their own right to membership, which is why in a community based on love and ideals when made to face the music of hostility and having to deal with people who have committed brutal acts of terror, violence and murder, face a dilemma by the way of the set of ideals the community propagates; it cannot imbibe the philosophy of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life" but would be forced to act for the safety of the members of the community from further destruction and would have to treat the perpetrators who had shown no respect or life to be restrained, permanently if necessary, so that they could not further endanger other members of the community which would leave a sense of satisfaction and happiness to all with whom the wrong has been done or relatives of the victims and to society as such, if he who breaks the law is not punished then he who obeys it is cheated which can also be rightly corroborated from the utilitarian and retributive perspective of capital punishment. Although India is one of a number of countries around the world which still practices capital punishment, it is rarely used. A 1983 ruling by the country's Supreme Court stated that the death penalty should be imposed only in "the rarest of rare cases". Only particularly gruesome or politically sensitive cases have attracted the penalty. The assassins of India's independence leader, Mahatma Gandhi, and former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi were among those executed in the past 60 years. India retains the death penalty through Article 21 of the Constitution of India which allows the State to deprive any person of the right to life provided that it is done by a procedure established by law. Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) also lists ‘death’ as one of the forms of punishment that may be imposed for an offence. However, such power is not arbitrary, and it must conform to prescribed substantive and procedural safeguards, pass the test of reasonableness, and be subject to judicial review. Furthermore this position is not static and has been constantly subject to change by legislative amendment and judicial interpretation. In a proposed amendment to its penal code, Indian leaders are seeking to implement a change that would end the nation's death penalty even "in the rarest of rare" cases. The amended Indian Penal Code would abolish the death penalty and replace it with a strict life without the possibility of parole measure. Currently, the nation's life sentence statute only requires imprisonment for 14 years. The decision to seek an official end to capital punishment fulfills a pledge made by the chairman of the Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System, Mr. Justice VS Malimath. The proposed amendment was crafted to reflect an "evolving consensus" within the nation. The proposal to abolish the death penalty and add a true life sentence seeks to serve the twin objectives of advancing human rights and preventing such criminals from coming out of prison. The Union Cabinet is expected to review the amended Indian Penal Code before it would likely be placed before Parliament for its approval and passage. |