Capital Punishment vs Life Impisonment

SPECIAL PROJECT SUBMITTED TO:

Mrs. Priyanka Dhar

(Faculty of Indian Penal Code)

PROJECT SUBMITTED BY:

Ashutosh Biswas

Semester V, Section A

ROLL NO. 33

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 10.05.2019

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Declaration…………………………………………………………………………………..3
 Certificate……………………………………………………………………………………4
 Acknowledgement…………………………………………….……………………………..5
 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….……6
 Objective……………………………………………………..………………………………7
 Capital Punishment…………………………………………………………………………..8
 Capital Crime…………………………………………………………………………………9
 Death Penalty and Human Rights………...……………………………………….…………10
 Life Imprisonment…………………………………………………………………..……….12
 Term as Per Statutes …………………………………………………………………………14
 Life Imprisonment or Death Penalty…………………………………...…………………….17
 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...…………18
 Bibliography/Webliography…………………………………………………….…..….……19

2
 DECLARATION

I, Ashutosh Biswas, having researched on the project work titled as “ Capital Punishment vs.
Life Impisonment” as a student hereby declare that this Research Project has been prepared for
academic purposes only, and has been prepared by myself under the supervision of Mrs.
Priyanka Dhar, faculty of Indian Penal Code.

I also declare that this Research Paper or any part thereof has not been or is not being submitted
elsewhere for the award of any degree or Diploma. This report is the intellectual property of the
University on the part of the student research work, and the same, or any part thereof, may not be
used in any manner whatsoever in writing.

3
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Ashutosh Biswas, Roll Number- 33, student of Semester- IV B.A-
LL.B.(Hons.), Hidayatullah National Law University, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh), has researched
on the project work titled “Capital Punishment vs. Life Impisonment”, in partial fulfillment of the
subject of Indian Penal Code.

Place: New Raipur Mrs. Priyanka Dhar

Date: 10.05.2019 (Faculty: Indian Penal Code)

Hidayatullah National Law University, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and gratefulness to my teacher
Mrs. Priyanka Dhar, for giving me a project topic such as this and for having faith in me so as to
present my report in the best possible way. Ma’am, thank you for providing me with an opportunity
to learn and grow.

I also extend my gratitude to the staff and administration of Hidayatullah National Law
University, for providing the infrastructural facilities in the form of our library and IT Lab, which
were a source of great help for the completion of this project.

Last but not the least, a heartfelt thanks to my seniors and friends who helped me out even
in the oddest of hours.

Thanking you all sincerely.

Ashutosh Biswas

Sem V

Section – A

Roll No - 33

5
 Introduction
“I am a human being and nothing pertaining to human is alien to me” -Karl Marx
The death penalty has been, and continues to remain, a contentious issue in the field of criminal
law and sentencing. Its supporters cite it as a vital tool in combating crime especially stressing on
its value as a deterrent, its utility as a retributive tool and the inadequacy of life imprisonment for
punishing somebody who has extinguished another life. Its opponents critique it as an anomaly
from medieval times, cruel and barbaric in practice. Other frequently levelled criticisms include
the arbitrary manner of its imposition, the inherent irony in the State emulating the murderer‟s
actions and the impossibility to make amends should proof of innocence be found later on.
These concerns have been the primary reason behind the recent abolitionist trend in the world.
The European Union has taken the lead in this field having abolished it totally.
More than half of the worlds population however still lives in countries that retain the death
penalty.5 A major criticism levelled against the death penalty is the amount of discretion vested in
the judges during sentencing.6 It is argued that the judges personal beliefs, and not the writ of the
law, that decides who shall live or not. Capital punishment offers a form of direct democracy that
is scarcely found in any other sphere of public policy. Judges drawn from the ranks of the commons
make the decision to take or spare the life of a convict on

death row, thus directly translating their personal beliefs into public policy.9 Such beliefs may
take the form of arbitrariness in the best and outright bias in the worst.10 This project aims to
examine the veracity of this claim. It shall look at how markers like a person‟s class, race and
mental health affect his chances of being put to death. The term disadvantaged has been therefore
given wide latitude. While not exclusively India-centric, this project also includes a study of a
recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India that for the first time considered an accused
person‟s socio-economic status as a mitigating factor during a death sentence hearing.

6
 Objectives

 To study about Capital Crimes.

 To study about the Statutes and Provisions regarding punishment.
 To study about the advantages and disadvantages of punishments.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This is a descriptive & analytical research paper. My research paper is largely based on the critical
review of secondary and electronic sources of information. References used as guided by the
faculty of Crimnology and Penology, Mr. Sandeep Suman were of great use in completing this
project.

7
 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Capital punishment is the death penalty given by the government of a country, to people who
have committed hideous crimes like homicide, rape, etc. Death penalty has been a way of
punishing people since ages. Although there are some countries that have abolished death
penalty from their law, there are still many which still practice the act of killing a person for
crime. Death penalty is prevalent in the US, Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Some of the
ways of executing criminals are hanging, shooting, electrocution and giving lethal injections.

Capital punishment is the practice of executing someone as punishment for a specific crime after
a proper legal trial. It can only be used by a state, so when non-state organisations speak of
having 'executed' a person they have actually committed a murder. It is usually only used as a
punishment for particularly serious types of murder, but in some countries treason, types of
fraud, adultery and rape are capital crimes. The phrase 'capital punishment' comes from the Latin
word for the head. A 'corporal' punishment, such as flogging, takes its name from the Latin word
for the body.

Capital punishment is used in many countries around the world. According to Amnesty
International as at May 2012, 141 countries have abolished the death penalty either in law on in
practice

People have different opinions on the issue of death penalty given to a convict. While some think
that death penalty is necessary for those who have committed a terrible crime, there are others
who consider it as an immoral act that goes against the values of humanity.
Every day, people are executed by the state as punishment for a variety of crimes – sometimes
for acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries it can be for who you sleep with, in
others it is reserved for acts of terror and murder.

Some countries execute people who were under 18 years old when the crime was committed,
others use the death penalty against people who suffer mental problems. Before people die they

8
are often imprisoned for years on “death row”. Not knowing when their time is up, or whether
they will see their families one last time.

The death penalty is cruel, inhuman and degrading. Amnesty opposes the death penalty at all
times - regardless of who is accused, the crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

In the last several centuries, with the emergence of modern nation states, justice came to be
increasingly associated with the concept of natural and legal rights. The period saw an increase
in standing police forces and permanent penitential institutions. Rational choice theory, a
utilitarian approach to criminology which justifies punishment as a form of deterrence as
opposed to retribution, can be traced back to Cesare Beccaria, whose influential treatise On
Crimes and Punishments (1764) was the first detailed analysis of capital punishment to demand
the abolition of the death penalty. Jeremy Bentham, regarded as the founder of modern
utilitarianism, also called for the abolition of the death penalty.Beccaria, and later Charles
Dickens and Karl Marx noted the incidence of increased violent criminality at the times and
places of executions. Official recognition of this phenomenon led to executions being carried out
inside prisons, away from public view.

Capital crime

 Crimes against humanity

Crimes against humanity such as genocide are usually punished by the death penalty in countries
retaining it. Death sentences for such crimes were handed down and carried out during the
Nuremberg Trials in 1946 and the Tokyo Trials in 1948, but the current International Criminal
Court does not use capital punishment. The maximum penalty available to the International
Criminal Court is life imprisonment.

 Murder
Intentional homicide is punishable by death in most countries retaining capital punishment, but
generally provided it involves an aggravating factor required by statute or judicial precedents.

9
 Drug trafficking
Main article: Capital punishment for drug trafficking
A sign at the Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport warns arriving travelers that drug trafficking
is a capital crime in the Republic of China.

Some countries provide the death penalty for drug trafficking, mostly in Asia. Among countries
who regularly execute drug offenders are China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Singapore.
Other offences
Other crimes that are punishable by death include treason, crimes against the state (most countries
with the death penalty), rape (China, Iran, Saudi Arabia), economic crimes (China), adultery,
sodomy, religious offences such as apostasy (many Islamic countries), blasphemy (Saudi Arabia,
Iran, Pakistan) and forms of aggravated robbery (Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Zambia).

Capital punishment is controversial. Death penalty opponents regard the death penalty as
inhumane and criticize it for its irreversibility. They assert also that capital punishment lacks
deterrent effect, discriminates against minorities and the poor, and that it encourages a "culture of
violence". There are many organizations worldwide, such as Amnesty International, and country-
specific, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), that have abolition of the death
penalty as a fundamental purpose.

Advocates of the death penalty argue that it deters crime, is a good tool for police and prosecutors
(in plea bargaining for example), makes sure that convicted criminals do not offend again, and is
a just penalty for atrocious crimes.

10
 Death penalty and Human rights

The debate about the death penalty does not usually employ the terminology of human rights.
Nevertheless, the use of the death penalty intersects with international law and is challenged by it.
Hence, international law and an analysis based on human rights are useful means to address the
death penalty issue. The reasons why countries have abolished the death penalty in increasing
numbers vary. For some nations, it was a broader understanding of human rights (Spain abandoned
the last vestiges of the death penalty in 1995 stating that “…the death penalty has no place in the
general penal system of an advanced, civilised society…” Similarly, Switzerland abolished death
penalty because it constituted “a flagrant violation of the right to life and dignity.”
Abolitionists believe capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights, because the right
to life is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the
condemned a psychological torture. Human rights activists oppose the death penalty, calling it
"cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment". Amnesty International considers it to be "the ultimate
irreversible denial of Human Rights".
Defining the death penalty as a human rights issue is a critical first step, but one resist by countries
that aggressively use the death penalty. When the United Nations General Assembly considered a
resolution in 1994 to restrict the death penalty and encourage moratorium on executions, Singapore
asserted that “capital punishment is not a human rights issue”. In the end, 74 countries abstained
from voting on the resolution and it failed.

However, for an increasing number of countries the death penalty is a critical human rights issue.
In 1997, the U.N High Commission for Human Rights approved a resolution stating that the
“abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and to the
progressive development of human rights. This resolution was strengthened in subsequent
resolutions by a call for a restriction of offences for which the death penalty can be imposed and
for a moratorium on all executions, leading eventually to abolition.

11
 Life Imprisonment

This sentence implies that the convicted person has to spend the rest of his life in jail, and
depending on the rules of the country or state, he may or may not be eligible for parole. Which
means that there are basically two types of life sentences in the United States - determinate and
indeterminate. In a determinate life sentence, the convicted is sentenced to spend the rest of his
life in prison without the possibility of parole, and in an indeterminate life sentence the convicted
is given less stringent sentences, like 20 years to life, or 30 years to life, etc., wherein after serving
a certain amount of time in jail, he can be let out on parole or granted a reprieve or then his sentence
is cut short to the number of years he has served in prison already, assuming that he has served the
minimum amount.

In the case of convicts who are below 18 years of age / juveniles, there is a possibility of sentencing
even these young people to life imprisonment without any chance of them being let out in the
future as well. This is a really strict practice, and many countries have banned it, but it is still
present in a few countries including the United States. A person sentenced to life imprisonment
has to serve a minimum period of anywhere between 15 to 30 years in the U.S. to be declared
eligible for parole (does not apply in all cases), and he could be pardoned or granted amnesty by
either the president or the governor of state.

Indian Penal Code provides for six types of punishments for offences therein. Life imprisonment
(also known as a life sentence or life incarceration) is a sentence of imprisonment for a serious
crime under which the convicted person is to remain in jail for the rest of his or her life. Life
imprisonment, as distinct punishment for certain grave offences under the Indian Penal Code was
authorized by law w.e.f.1st January 1956 when the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 1955 came into force. It was earlier known as transportation for life. There are in all fifty-one
sections in the Indian Penal Code which provide punishment with imprisonment for life. There is
always a debate as to the exact duration of imprisonment of life. This article purports to analyse
the law in India relating to life imprisonment through study of various statutes and case- laws
prevalent in India.

12
Life imprisonment (also known as a life sentence, lifelong incarceration, or life incarceration) is
any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted persons are to remain in prison
for the rest of their lives or until paroled. Crimes for which a person could receive this sentence
include murder, attempted murder, severe child abuse, rape, espionage, high treason, drug dealing,
human trafficking, severe cases of fraud, aggravated criminal damage in English law, and
aggravated cases of arson, burglary, or robbery which result in death or grievous bodily harm and
in certain cases genocide, crimes against humanity, or certain war crimes.

Life imprisonment can, in certain cases, also be imposed for traffic offenses causing death, as a
maximum term. Some U.S. states and Canada allow judges to impose life imprisonment for such
offenses.

Life imprisonment, particularly life without the possibility of release, is contributing to the
overuse of imprisonment,a phenomenon underpinned by the belief that prisons represent the
panacea to problems of crime and social control. Life-sentenced prisoners should be entitled to
the same rights as other categories of prisoners and these should comply with the United Nations
(UN) human rights standards including the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners. Their treatment and care in prison should be determined by individual needs rather
than the type of sentence they are serving. All prisoners should have the right to parole, and
release from prison should be determined by the risk they present to society rather than
politically driven factors.

TERM AS PER STATUTORY LAW :-

Various statutes in India dealing with criminal law have laid down provisions relating to life
imprisonment. Some of the important provisions are as follows:

Indian Penal Code,1860

Section 55: Commutation of sentence of imprisonment for life

13
In every case in which sentence of [imprisonment] for life shall have been passed, [the
appropriate Government] may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for
imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Section 55, I.P.C. provides that when sentence of imprisonment for life has been passed, the
appropriate Government may without the consent of the prisoner commute the punishment for
imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years. This section
empowers the appropriate Government to commute the sentence of imprisonment of life.
Exercise of such right is at the discretion of the appropriate government. This section does not
lay down that life imprisonment shall be an imprisonment for fourteen years and a prisoner is not
to be automatically released after expiry of fourteen years of imprisonment. It is for the
appropriate Government to commute the sentence and for this purpose Rules have been framed
by the State Government.

Section 57 - Fractions of terms of punishment

In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, [imprisonment] for life shall be reckoned as

equivalent to [imprisonment] for twenty years.

Section 57 of I.P.C. provides that in calculating fractions of terms of imprisonment,

imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years. Section 57
does not say that imprisonment for life shall be deemed to be transportation for 20 years. For all
purposes, imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be treated as imprisonment for whole of the
remaining period of the convicted person's natural life.

Code of Criminal Procedure :-

Section 432 - Power to suspend or remit sentences.

(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate
Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions that the person

14
sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the
punishment to which he has been sentenced.

Section 433 - Power to commute sentence.

The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person-sentenced commute -
A sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
A sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or
for fine;
A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person
might have been sentenced, or sentenced, or for fine;
A sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine.

15
 Argumentative Life Imprisonment vs Death Penalty

Crimes are becoming more and more rampant in our country. A lot of prisoners are being sent to
jail everyday. Punishment for those who commit major crimes like murder and such could be life
imprisonment or death penalty. Although criminals are a menace to the society, the process by
which they are penalized are still important and as such, life sentence is more applicable because-
1) They are also human beings and they have the right to self-correction through rehabilitation.
2) With the corrupt and unfair justice system that we have, death penalty is abused.
3) Death sentence is irreversible.

 First, criminals are also like us; they too are human beings who have the right to self-correction
through rehabilitation. Sometimes these criminals kill, steal and the like because of their
environment. An example is poor people. These people may have reasons why they commit
crimes. They have nothing to eat or no money to spend. So what do they do? They steal from
people just so they can live a normal life. Another instance is when they are paid to do
something illegal. The poor have no other choice because they think that this is he only way to
have a normal life. There is still room for change. On my trip to Palawan, we went to
Iwahig.Iwahig is where different prisoners from Manila, Cebu and other places are kept. What
is interesting about this prison is that criminals are not behind bars. They are free to wander
around Iwahig. There are three classifications: brown, blue and orange. These classifications
show how much longer the prisoner will stay in Iwahig. Brown and Blue inmates are free to
roam around. They even sell products to tourists to make money. On their shirts, minimum and
medium is written respectively. This means that they have less than five years to stay in Iwahig.
Based from how I interacted with these inmates, I can see that they have changed for the better.
Even though they are about to get out of prison, some inmates just lived there and brought their
families to Iwahig. There are houses made for them. They are too scared of what the people
might do to them when they learn that they are already out of prison. Some might seek for
revenge. These people are human beings too. They know how to feel and love. They, too, fear
the people around them. These people can still change if given a life sentence but a death
penalty is something you cannot correct anymore.

16
 Second is that the justice system in our country is corrupt and unfair; thus, death penalty is
abused. I have heard some stories from people that our justice system is not very fair. Why? It
is because people who have money can easily file a case and get done with it while for the poor
cannot afford to make "under the table"agreements that is why our justice system is corrupt
and unfair. We all know about the plunder case of Erap. He abused his power before as the
President of our country. He was accused by Chavit Singson of taking jueteng money and
tobacco tax kickbacks. His trial in the senate was a mess since the trial was aborted for no good
reason at all, ("Only God Can Get Rid of Erap Now", 2007) This only proves that we have an
unfair and corrupt justice system in our country.

 Last is that death penalty is irreversible. We cannot be assured that death sentence will be given
to deserving criminals because of our current judicial inefficiencies. A mistake is death penalty
is something that you cannot take back. Our current judicial system has been abusive of death
penalty. They do not choose life imprisonment. In life imprisonment, you can still see that
there is a change in man. Life imprisonment somehow helps the prisoner. Death penalty cannot.
A criminal also has a family. He is influenced by those around him. When he see that he is still
loved by his family because they visit him frequently, there is still chance for him to change.
A death penalty is irreversible. Once you get a life from another person, it cannot be brought
back.

17
 Conclusion and Suggestions

There is one very evident conclusion that can be reached through a study of the death penalty v
Life Imprisonment; it being that the current system of its administration is far from satisfactory.
As detailed earlier, arbitrariness and bias pervade every stage of trial in capital cases. Two
solutions therefore present themselves. Either we abolish the death penalty or its alternative, life
imprisonment.
Life imprisonment is more advisable than death penalty. Another life cannot be wasted because of
another life or wrong doing. Who knows, maybe this person will change the future, right? Death
penalty is a risky one. It is something that cannot be undone. It should be taken seriously and
should not be abused. There is still a room for change in a person. We cannot be certain of death
penalty as a solution to a crime that has been committed. Life is an important gift given by God.
We should learn how to take care of it. Death is not the only solution to the problem because in
the end, it is our loss and not only their family's loss because they too are human beings. We all
know what it feels like to lose someone.

I think that the death penalty would be worse because you don't get that chance to live your life
anymore. You just die, whereas if you got the life sentence, you could live the rest of your life,
even if it is behind bars, at least you are alive and you get food to eat, a place to sleep, and a
place to think and reflect on your past. Even though life sentence can haunt you because of your
past, the death penalty ends your life right then and there. You cannot see any people that you
love or who loves you. If you get the death penalty and you get the chair, it might not kill you
right away so you have to suffer a great amount of pain before you die, you basically fry. The
death penalty in my opinion is worse than life in prison.

18
 Webliography/Bibliography

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics
 http://www.careerride.com
 http://www.goodreads.com

19