- This topic has 35 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
UI was reading about crimes committed past year .There were so many murders , rapes ,gang rapes and murder and the most common sentence I’m seeing is 10 yrs or 20 yrs and some fine or even rarely life imprisonment but the accused gets out on bail .
So if anyone could please enlighten me as to why there are no death penalty . -
-
UMost heinous crimes are now common so what is rarest of rare ? Genocide ? On the other hand anyone can be locked up without bail on trumped up charges… It’s skewed the wrong way if you ask me …
-
DSir, its the law thats written in that manner.
Rarest is like ajmal kasab. Do you see that every other week?
One girl gave poison to her boyfriend and killed him. Trial court gave death penalty. That was not the right decision and is being discussed everywhere because its not the rarest.
Nirbhaya kind of rape case was one of a kind. Not all rape and murder will be treated as such
-
UYes but i think at-least for rape of minors there should be death penalty my heart breaks to read about so many reported rape cases everyday,one can only imagine the count of unregistered ones
-
UThe judges often tend to consider the background of the offender in serious crimes as well. If the judges feel there is no scope of rehabilitation that can reform the offender, and the crime is so heinous that it shocks the conscience of the court only then the death penalty is given.
Most often, trial courts do award the death penalty but they get overturned at the high court or supreme court.
But I agree with your sentiment of heartbreak seeing the rise of rape cases. Cannot imagine what the victim’s family goes through.
-
-
URg kar rape case was not rare then? It was also on similar or even worse level. I am not condemning you, I am just frustrated that so many criminals get away with such light punishment and the innocents are suffering from false cases or long court proceedings which take years. It is like fighting for justice is a punishment itself. It’s as if the law is forgiving the criminals and punishing the innocent, looks like we have to get Justice with our hands, no point fighting a legal battle against a criminal,just get revenge by yourself and be done with it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
UConfessions under the evidence act in India are very tricky. The courts have to ensure that they were not made due to the influence and coercion of the police officers. There are also certain criteria to be fulfilled for it to be held a valid confession. If not, they will be dismissed.
There was this one case where the murderer confessed to the victim’s own father about how he killed his daughter. But because no actual evidence was discovered based on the confession it was deemed to be invalid 🙃
-
UTheres this case happening in Kerala rn where a guy went to the police station right after a killing spree, killing 6 people (5 from his own family), and confessed to the murders and I’m sure even in this case a death penalty is far from what he’ll be getting
-
UYeah, I saw the case. The police officials are yet to reveal the motive right? I believe he may have confessed only to the killing and not why he did it. Yeah, I think the motive behind the killing which they will discover will play a role in determining if he’ll get a death penalty since he killed even a 13 year old child as well. So saddening
-
-
-
UAa there is no legal basis for this, it’s more of a philosophy question as of now.
But not all confessions are legit. Someone could easily threaten the lives of one’s loved ones and get a fake confession.
So in reference to the original question (why no capital punishment for all henious crimes) is that there is no scope for recourse in case some misstep occurs and someone innocent gets convicted.
This is why there is no provision for capital punishment except for the rarest of rare cases, which are deemed worthy by the court. Then it is the court’s duty to make sure that the person hanged is the actual culprit and not someone innocent.
Also, jail isn’t any consolation either. It’s a hard life and hard still after you get out of jail unless you are well connected beforehand. No job, no one to fall upon, completely out of sync with the world and its ways. Personally, It might feel that death is better (subjective).
-
-
-
-
-
UThe main problem in our country is we follow the reformative system and refrain from giving death penalties unless in rarest of rare cases, all when failing to provide effective rehabilitation, making the victims suffer and fend for themselves.
I still strongly think that if at all we seriously want the crime rate to reduce, proactive rehabilitation and reformation should take place. There are records of the criminals, police do criminal profiling, so we can estimate what kind of circumstances usually lead to such horrendous crimes in our country. Yet, the government doesn’t actively try to ensure that such circumstances are avoided in society.
When the Nirbhaya case came up, there was this huge controversy of how the juvenile who participated in the crime was from the slums with no education and awareness and was addicted to pornography. So we are able to pinpoint that these conditions lead to disastrous results.
Knowing this, what do we do with that knowledge? Nothing. The government has to take steps and measures to ensure that future perpetrators are not created rather than humanising them after they commit the crimes.
-
-
Unot a educated opinion:
a lot of ministers have rape case filed against them . what if a govt takes it as a chance to clear the opposition?.
you have seen shops/ busses being burned just for being jailed. now if a local rowdy/ minister son is hanged, do u think nothing will happen?.
India is very bloody . social unrest is easy to start.
laws will be thrown out, once heads start rolling.
-
-
UThere is no proof that increasing capital punishments reduces crimes in any way. There’s a reason why the majority of the first world civilized countries have abolished the death penalty in its entirety.
-
UI feel the families deserve justice ,whats the point of the accused gets to live while the victim didn’t.
-
UThe justice system considers each decision from the perspective of victimology as well. As the theory India follows is reformative theory, which believes that reformation is the way to a developed society.
Answering your point of what’s the point of the accused living when the victim doesn’t, it is strongly argued that the loss of one life doesn’t equate to the loss of another. That is, if the victim dies, the death of the offender does not bring back the victim nor does it permanently offer solace to the family of the victim.
And the most important point is, the circumstances of the offender which influenced him or her to commit the crime. Say a person who grew up in an abused house in a slum with no access to education or any social awareness commits a heinous assault and a murder, then what he needs is rehabilitation and killing him instead doesn’t solve anything.
But it’s a tragedy that in India, the families of the victim are not provided any help psychologically to overcome their grief nor is rehabilitation properly given.
-
-
-
-
-
HThere are many reasons for this.
1. Historical reason – Our legal system & courts originates from the British era. Back then the rule was death penalty and letting a convict live was the exception. As a result a lot of innocent people were put to death and overall there were too many unjust deaths. Due to this criminal procedure code has been changed multiple times and finally we were left in a situation where death was permissible (with safeguards like confirmation by High Court) but there was no real yardstick of when to give death penalty. Courts were very arbitrary in giving death penalty. Also, in older times catching the actual criminal was very difficult and it was a very common thing for an innocent to be framed for someone else’s crimes.
2. Rarest of rare rule – In such circumstances constitutional validity of death penalty came to be challenged in Bacchan Singh case. Here the Courts held that death penalty was valid but noted that there was no uniformity in awarding the death penalty and went on to say that only in rarest of rare cases death penalty should be given. Courts must consider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the crime. More rules have been added since then in a long list of cases making it very difficult to actually award death penalty.
3. Theory of punishment – Courts believe and follow the line of reasoning that reformation must be the end goal of punishment and not retribution.
Frankly speaking the current system when it was developed was the requirement of the time, but now with passage of time it is no longer suitable for the needs of present day. However, courts are bound by what was done by their predecessors and it is very unlikely that anything changes from the Court’s side. Government will have to step in through legislation if they want to get rid of the rarest of rare rule.
-
WI believe the death penalty should not exist for any crime. It violates the most fundamental human right—the right to life.
More importantly, no justice system is flawless. If even one innocent person is executed, that’s an irreversible mistake. Given the inherent flaws in legal systems, how can we ever guarantee that wrongful executions won’t happen
-
-
-
UIn India, you cannot have serious death penalties even for grave crimes.
First of all, the country is not well equipped to handle or enquire the cases with 100% accuracy. Anyone can be falsely convicted in this country.
You people remember Hyderabad police encounter for rape and murder of a doctor? Do you people know what is going on in that case? All of Indians are stupid and emotional.
If you people feel it is true, you need them dead and facts never mattered. A lot of prejudice. A lot of assumptions. In a country where people are emotional idiots, this is not possible.
Because you are talking about serious punishments. We simply cannot cross this question like a cakewalk.
-
Ui am against death penalty as our normal laws are so skewed and people hardly get justice, imagine if death penalty was the norm. So many innocent people would receive death penalty because of our faulty justice system. And not to mention that the rick would not recieve death penalty because they can get food legal representation and the poor will suffer
-
