It is well settled principle that capital punishment should be awarded in "rarest of rare case", and it is justified.
Article 21 guarantees Right to Life except the procedure established by law.

There are some situations when the crime committed is so grave that it becomes necessary to award this.

The crime committed by Ajmal Kasab, or in Macchi Singh's case. or a mass rape case is a very grave offence.

And it has been said by Supreme Court that Capital Punishment cannot be abolished and should be awarded in some cases.

When accused have some basic human rights, then they should keep in mind the human rights of those persons, who become victim of their offence.

Indeed it is awarded in "rarest of rare cases", but how often? Mostly every crime after its execution appears to be of the same nature yet if it is the second time of the crime it is no more rare. How many executions have been made so far in proportion to the death sentences awarded? If I am not mistaken it would be somewhere around 2-3%.

Talking of Art. 21, Right to Life has a very wide scope and exception of 'procedure established by law' may seem justified with some of them but not all. Even if it is to be still awarded, and as you mentioned in rarest of cases, don't you think it will become a highly paid business to kill someone big and as it not rarest of rare crime therefore serve the life sentence and its all over.

Yeah right, on moral ground Kasab, Macchi Singh, Gang rapists etc. deserves death sentence but once again take a look at our process of law, you commit a crime today, first judgement comes in say 2 years, although Kasab's case was an exception to be reckon as the fastest trial of such intensity, but every day is not Sunday, and next comes in another few years, then to the apex court and last but not the least mercy petition for which we have very genuine example of Afzal guru. So what I mean is after all these things it is around 15 to 20 twenty years later when something concrete happens. What would you call it other than mockery of Capital Punishment?

Lastly on your human rights point, we don't follow barbarian law that says, an eye for an eye and blood for the blood, so one punishment may serve the interests of both offense and human rights.

My Dear Friend, when you are talking about the delay in the judicial process , then it is not only in the case of capital punishment, but in every criminal case. Because, it has to be proved very strictly. And it is the court to decide what crimes are rare and they have done their business very good. Recently, they have included Fake Encounter in this category and said it to be a brutal killing.

And talking about contract killing! yes they have been considered by the court to be a grave crime and there are elements which are to be fulfilled to categorize these offences. There might be a possibility the crime seems to be a murder is not a murder, but a culpable homicide.


Mockery is not in relation to the capital system alone. It is in every area of law from civil to criminal. But, you cannot just invalidate each and every law just because it take time to decide it. There can be various factors behind this.


Capital Punishment is there in the legal system to ensure that no one becomes so evil that he would commit such a grave crime which would endanger the whole society. And, by abolishing it, you are defeating the very purpose for which they have created.

Delay is present in most of the judicial judgments ranging from contract, family issues, divorce, property issue to murder, rape etc. But, it doesnt mean we should abolish each and every law because of the delay in the procedure. Delay should be rectified
and which government is trying to do.


Also, for the latest info. Supreme Court has categorized Honour Killings under this category. Scope of rare crimes is increasing day by day, contrary to your opinion saying that there is no rare crime.



:)

Delay in judicial process of every criminal offense doesn't have the same effect as it has in case of death penalty. No questions on Judge's credibility on deciding upon such matter yet death sentence is not the only punishment justified. Penalizing death sentence to an offender comparatively has more effect on his family than him.
May be mockery is not just in case of it yet it has more damaging effect than others. For once consider the risk involved in death penalties.
Purpose of a punishment varies as per your perspective, but indeed it is never to punish for your sins rather to make you realize your mistake and make you better person at the same time act as deterrent for subsequent crimes.
Scopes may be increasing but that is no solution rather it should be limited to avoid being a mockery all the time and serve the purpose they are there for.

Purpose of punishment doesn't depend on someone's perspective, but it is the law of the land.

Terming Capital Punishment mockery means terming one of the established law mockery. Courts are smart enough to look into this issue I think.

There exist some grave crimes whose punishment should be capital punishment.

Delay in judicial process delays the verdict, so effect would same when we are considering delay. It is after the decision has been taken, capital punishment comes into picture i.e. when delay is ended. Until then, accused is an innocent person only who may or may not get death sentence.

And it is a well settled principle that life imprisonment is a general punishment and death sentence is an exception, which is justified.

Law of land can't be set out without any perspective. Deducing your statement may lead to a common purpose for all kinds of punishment.

Once again no questions on the credibility of the court but again it may grant variable punishments following the existing laws of the land. So abolishing the capital punishment trend could be easily substituted by some other forms of punishment. There I'm sure court can play a good role by taking the initiative.

Effect may sound the same in figures but in reality almost everything is different similarly as it was observed in Gilhotra's case. Well let see it this way, once awarded capital punishment by trial court ratified by HC, and then filing an appeal in HC makes a man innocent till he is once again awarded death penalty, sound strange to me.

If it is an exception, it should be used as an exception. As a matter of fact awarding it in more than thousands of cases and executing only in few doesn't make it an exception.

Law of Land is made after taking account all the factors which affects the society. The purpose of having law is to maintain the peace of the society, and Capital Punishment is one of its parts.

Again saying, court is smart enough on this matter and it has been doing its job extremely well.


It is the duty of the court to maintain the check all these things. If capital punishment would be abolished, then a criminal might commit the crime and would spend his life in jail with all the facilities.

Exceptions are always there and it has been the view of the supreme court that a judge should be very careful while awarding death sentence. So, Judges do not give death sentence arbitrarily, but after checking the gravity of the crime, which cannot be replaced by any other punishment.


Had it been possible to replace it, then court would have done it!

Being an Indian I too believe capital punishment should not be abolished, but for the motion, let's not play conservative for once rather act liberal or say wise and take an example of those nations who inspite of abolishing death penalty are developed and less at crime rates.
Why stuck to the rules framed in 19th century, when things are way too different here in 21st. As matter of fact, the British regime who framed this law for us was once of the belief that a man should be whipped till death as a mode of capital punishment, how humane was that?
Judiciary is not the only organ involved for deciding upon such issues, but legislature,executive, pressure groups, political parties, public opinion etc., all of them have significant role to play.