Abstract

India is seeing an alarming rise in the crime rate. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) estimated that there were 445.9 recorded crimes for every 100,000 persons in India. With 112.7 crimes committed per 100,000 inhabitants, Uttar Pradesh had the highest crime rate in all of India, according to Kerela. Every community has its own methods for dealing with and controlling crime, but the first thing that people associate with any crime is punishment. For this reason, punishment should always be severe, regardless of the community, instilling in people the fear that even a small crime could have serious repercussions.

History has demonstrated that without penalties, savage crimes could not be controlled. Therefore, it appears hard to envision a world without punishment because a crime that goes unpunished opens the door for further crimes. Parents must have reprimanded us all when we were kids for not finishing our schoolwork or playing outside for hours. But will that work if someone kills their friend? Is reprimanding sufficient in such a case? The short answer is no; we already know that there are penalties based on the seriousness of the offense. Which conceptions of punishment exist, and how do they evolve? I will go into great length on the many philosophies of punishment in relation to the death penalty in this essay.

Introduction

The capital Punishment or Death Penalty and its effects on a criminal's life and, in the most extreme circumstances, their fundamental rights have been the subject of constant discussion over the past few decades. Determining the main issue surrounding the death penalty is a major challenge encountered by most governments. Thus, even though a criminal who has committed a particularly serious crime may have their human rights violated, given the historical background of many states worldwide, imposing the death penalty on such a person is the most fitting punishment for committing a heinous or barbaric crime.

Therefore, a major area of interest for most criminologists and legal scholars is the relationship between crime and the sanction or punishment meted out by a court of law to an offender. Consequently, no universal theory exists that a state's court of law can use to decide whether a sentence is suitable or commensurate with the offense that a particular person has committed.

Theories of Punishment

Various theories exist regarding punishment, and in the case of the capital punishment, these beliefs are frequently examined in order to provide justification for its application. Some important theories about capital punishment are as follows:

1. Deterrent Theory of Punishment- The definition of deterrence is to issuade or keep someone from doing something; it's akin to erecting a wall or other obstruction to stop them. The idea of harsh punishment in the past was to discourage the offender from committing the same crime by punishing them severely. One of the primary goals of deterrence is to instill fear in people by punishing the offender severely so that they are discouraged from repeating similar crimes in the future.

The Italian philosopher Cesare Beccaria is credited with being one of the first to advocate for the deterrence idea of punishment. Rather than severe and cruel punishment, he was in favor of proportionate retribution. According to the creator of this idea, Jeremy Bentham, punishment should be enforced quickly, definitely, and severely in order to discourage crime because of his hedonistic image of man. Although he acknowledges that punishment is bad, he claims that if the badness of the penalty outweighs the badness of the offense, the punishment will be ineffective since he will have bought protection from one evil at the expense of another.

Case Laws :

Bachan Singh v State of Punjab [1]

The Supreme Court of India maintained the validity of the death penalty in the Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab decision, but it also established the notion of the "rarest of rare" situations as a standard for determining whether it is appropriate to apply the death penalty. Bachan Singh's life sentence was mitigated by the court.

According to the court, the death penalty should only be applied in the most extreme circumstances, when a life sentence would be "unquestionably inadequate" and there would be no other suitable punishment. The court further stated that the imposition of the death penalty should wait to happen until all pertinent elements have been taken into account, such as the type of crime committed, the offender's circumstances, and the impact on society.

Tukaram v State of Maharashtra [2]

This event, which involved two police officers raping a girl inside the police station who was between the ages of 14 and 16, was also known as custodial rape. Although laws against rape and other laws protecting women altered throughout time, society's mindset remained unchanged and focused exclusively on physical harm or bodily injury, as demonstrated in this case. In addition to causing physical harm, rape is a horrible crime that can lead to serious mental health problems like depression, insomnia, flashbacks, and many more. This case primarily demonstrated that an act will not be regarded as rape or assault if there is no physical harm.

The case was regarded as a significant turning point in the history of women's protection, even if rape and assault cases continued to rise annually after that. One step toward stopping such horrible crimes is to improve women's security and the way society views women for their well-being in the state. To penalize these violators, stricter laws ought to be enacted.

2. Retributive Theory of Punishment- The well-known proverb "Tit for Tat" serves as the foundation for this argument. This theory's primary goal is to equalize the suffering that the victim of the offender's actions has to experience. Simply put, since the goal of punishment is to bring peace and harmony back into society, it can be claimed that all forms of punishment are somewhat retributive. Compared to previous hypotheses, this one is more severe.

This notion of punishment is not very favorable due to humanitarian reasons because it disproportionately harms the accused. Thus, the most crucial issue to take into account while determining the appropriate punishment is striking a balance between the offense's aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Case Laws:

Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors [3]

In the well-known Nirbhaya gang rape case in India, the court's attempt to strike a balance between justice and retribution was a reflection of the retributive conception of punishment. In retaliation for the horrible act and as a gesture of solidarity with the families of the victims, the killers received death sentences. The court's decision to impose the death penalty was interpreted as an indication of how seriously society took the crime.

The death sentence and its effectiveness have been the subject of a broader discussion. Some claim that the death penalty is an act of retaliation, while others maintain that it is incompatible with the concepts of rehabilitation and human rights.

Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab V. State of Maharashtra[4]

The application of the retributive notion of retribution in the Ajmal case is noteworthy. Kasab was given the death penalty in this case because the court deemed the crime's severity to be extreme given the scope of the terrorist attack and the number of innocent people lost. This punishment was appropriate given the horrific nature of Kasab's acts. The court believes that the highest severe penalty allowed by law should be applied to the terrorist act.

3. Reformative Theory of Punishment - A significant shift in the way criminological research is thought about has been brought about by advancements in the field of criminal science. Therefore, under the reformative theory of today, different legal researchers hold that examining the complete social and economic context together with other relevant variables that may ultimately lead to criminals committing horrible or barbarous acts is important. Supporters of this view contend that a criminal should not be examined in the absence of his circumstances because, although he has committed a crime, he is still a human being, and it is crucial to investigate the circumstances that led him to harm another person.

Critics of this notion claim that if people committing heinous crimes are committed to prisons for the sake of reformation, then prisons will no longer serve as a means of punishment but will instead function as rehabilitation facilities where the offender can undergo rehabilitation and ultimately become a new person. Critics claim that from this point forward, the fundamental purpose of imprisoning someone will be rendered meaningless since prison will become a comfortable and familiar environment for every one of the criminal populations.

4. Incapacitation Theory of Punishment- The term "incapacitation" refers to either temporarily or permanently removing an offender from society in order to prevent them from perpetrating the same crime. By rendering convicts unable of committing crimes again, it seeks to deter future perpetrators. The death penalty makes guarantee that a person can never again cause harm to society.

It is crucial to realize that, unlike certain Western legal systems, the Indian legal system does not utilize the phrase "incapacitation theory" directly. This approach has typically taken the form of punishment, which is thought to be the most effective kind of discipline. It is only available to those who have received life sentences in jail.

Legal Principles :

Preventive Detention Laws - Several laws exist in India that permit the preventative detention of people. One such law is the National Security Act (NSA), which is widely recognised for allowing authorities to hold some people for an extended period without granting them a trial.

Life Imprisonment - Life in jail in India refers to a sentence that lasts the entirety of the offender's natural life. Since it is thought that offenders do not represent a threat to society, parole is a type of incapacitation.

Repeat offender cases - Indian courts occasionally consider an offender's history of committing similar crimes and whether the offender has reacted well to rehabilitation attempts when determining sentence; if not, the courts may impose a longer sentence in an effort to render the offender incapable of committing future crimes and safeguard society.

5. Rehabilitation Theory of Punishment: As the name implies, this idea places a strong emphasis on the potential of offenders changing their ways. In contrast, the death penalty is attacked for eliminating all chance of rehabilitation since it removes the offender from society forever.

Although this theory—that recidivism may be decreased with thorough rehabilitation—was heavily contested in the 1970s in the United States. Unlike punitive measures like incarceration, this idea supports therapeutic interventions that consider aspects including motivations, background, and psychological needs.

To determine how effective the rehabilitation programs are, ongoing evaluations should be conducted. Critics contend that not all offenders, particularly those who have committed significant crimes, benefit from rehabilitation programs.

6. Preventive Theory of Punishment:  According to the preventive Theory, the goal of the criminal's punishment is not to exact revenge for the offence, but to deter future crimes. Because the primary goal of this theory is to safeguard society from criminals, it is widely accepted that the offender will be imprisoned and punished in order to eliminate any potential threat posed by his continued presence in the community. By applying the preventive principle in different ways, the state is able to prevent the criminal from doing the same crime twice or committing it again by punishing him with a life sentence. A life sentence without the possibility of release effectively deters a criminal from committing a similar or even more severe crime in the future.

Nonetheless, some critics of the theory contend that it is insufficiently effective in stopping similar crimes from being committed in the future because, when a criminal is imprisoned, he suffers the unfavourable consequence of becoming an even worse offender due to being housed with other criminals who are already as bad as him. Nonetheless, certain studies have also demonstrated that the primary goal of imprisoning an offender is to keep him from committing crimes against society in the future. This is accomplished by simply removing the offender from society. Eventually rendering the criminal and crime impossible.

Conclusion

The major goal of punishing the person who is accused of committing a crime is to bring law and order back to society. The interests of the guilty as well as the party that feels wronged must be considered while determining punishment. It is important to remember that the severity of the penalty should be exactly correlated with the offence the offender committed. Punishment must be meted out while keeping in mind the necessity to stop crime from occurring in society at an alarming pace. Regarding the ideas covered in this article, the criminal justice system uses them as jurisprudential guidelines to determine appropriate sanctions based on the nature of the offence.

To sum up, diverse theories of punishment present unique viewpoints regarding the intention behind punishing wrongdoers. No one theory could be applied or mindlessly obeyed, but it should be done in accordance with the gravity of the crime, societal norms, and the legal systems on a priority basis. In reality, a lot of criminal justice systems integrate the theories to provide a fair and impartial method of sentencing.

Reference: 

1. Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, AIR (1980) SC 898
2. Tukaram v State of Maharashtra, AIR (1979) SC 185
3. Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors, (2017) 6 SCC 1
4. Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab V. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1

.    .    .