- This topic has 18 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
RI’m against death penalty too on various grounds but I don’t see how it would be unconstitutional when there is explict-implicit allowance of death penalty.
“No one shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law” this seems to implicitly allow death penalty if it’s established by law. And moreover there is an appealte Jurisdiction of supreme court for death penalty in the union judiciary chapter of the constitution.
In light of these facts , why would it be unconstitutional ? I don’t believe that death penalty will be abolished by the parliaments any time soon but there’s many blogs about how it can be unconstitutional so courts to them seem like the only hope for that
-
-
GI start by saying,
The death penalty is a type of legal murder.
Which finds an exception to punishment in general principles of IPC.(Now BNS.)Death penalty is given in rarest of rare cases only.
Ref:Bachan Singh vs State of punjab.Who has an authority to kill a person?
Answer is: No one.what happens if a person is given death penalty and punished with it and later he is found not guilty?
India is one of the poorer countries in the world. Not all can afford legal expenses.
And what happens if poor innocent people are dragged into this false criminal cases and convicted?And our criminal justice system works on the principle:
Let hundred culprits escape, but no innocent should be punished..Let the deadly criminals be languished in Jails for a lifetime…
Their life is lost in Jails, even if they’re not shot dead.
There is always another side of the coin to debate about this as to why the death sentence is correct.
Hope I was able to persuade with my .. -
GI start by saying,
The death penalty is a type of legal murder.
Which finds an exception to punishment in general principles of IPC.(Now BNS.)Death penalty is given in rarest of rare cases only.
Ref:Bachan Singh vs State of punjab.Who has an authority to kill a person?
Answer is: No one.what happens if a person is given death penalty and punished with it and later he is found not guilty?
India is one of the poorer countries in the world. Not all can afford legal expenses.
And what happens if poor innocent people are dragged into this false criminal cases and convicted?And our criminal justice system works on the principle:
Let hundred culprits escape, but no innocent should be punished..Let the deadly criminals be languished in Jails for a lifetime…
Their life is lost in Jails, even if they’re not shot dead.
There is always another side of the coin to debate about this as to why the death sentence is correct.
Hope I was able to persuade with my ..-
RBut how does this make it unconstitutional though. I get the reasoning and is also why I don’t believe in death penalty. I’d be far more supportive of death penalty if there was little to no change of reform and chance of rehabilitation of victim’s loved ones in case of murder.
But I don’t get how it could be unconstitutional if there is implicit allowance of it. What legal ratio could be used to support such a claim ?
-
-
-
RI am all in for death penalty – but not in our judicial system.
Countless people are convicted despite being not guilty
And countless people are roaming around even after killing innocent people with fancy cars.
-
-
-
-
-
HI don’t think any lawyer would seriously argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional. While there may be valid debates around its morality, deterrent value, and effectiveness, its constitutionality has been settled by the Supreme Court.
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty. One of the arguments raised in the case was that although Article 21 permits deprivation of life in accordance with ‘procedure established by law’, the imposition of the death penalty also results in the loss of other fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19. It was contended that since death terminates all rights, including those under Article 19, the penalty should be considered unconstitutional. However, the Court rejected this argument and affirmed that the death penalty, if imposed in accordance with ‘procedure established by law’, does not violate the Constitution.
But the Court also observed that there was a lack of uniformity in the application of the death penalty by various courts. Judges were often inconsistent—arbitrarily awarding or denying the death sentence. To address this, the Court laid down guidelines and introduced the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, which has since become the standard for imposing the death penalty in India.
-
-
-
CJust Google “Man acquitted after 20 years” and you’ll understand why.
Another point I’d like to add is:
The legal system is biased against men and against the poor.Just like the rapists of Nirbhaya deserved the death penalty, the rapists of Bilkis Bano and the murders of her child also deserved the same fate too.
But they were given life in prison with Gujarat’s BJP govt. even remitting their sentences (later overturned by SC). Even a BJP MLA commented that they were *sanskari brahmins*.In 2019, a woman who convicted and serving life for murdered her own children received a suspended sentence (Google “High Court Grants Divorce to Man Whose Wife Was Convicted for 2010 Murder of Their Two Children”)
There are probably many more such cases where the influential and women are spared.
-
SLaw Commission of India, Report 35 & 262 & Project 39A – Death Penalty.
It’s a good read, one should give it a try.
-
RI follow their work. And I’ve heard some calls for a constitutional bench on this issue but is this even legally valid to do so ?
-
-
-
