LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

smith sharma (lecturer)     04 August 2008

Death punishment


    pls tell me one thing that at present death punishment is essential for criminals or not.


miss smith sharma{Advocate}


 14 Replies

sangram (service)     04 August 2008

There may be different views of judges on that, but in my opinion death penalty shall be awarded according to depth of crime.

Guest (n/a)     04 August 2008

dear miss sharma,

A death penalty is the most crude form of punishment known to man. Punishing a man to death certainly brings about  retribution and a spine-chilling deterrent but it also kills with it, the chance and hope of reformation. I feel the biggest challenge to a civilized society today is to reform and not to resort back to the theory of retribution. Moreover, death penalties have time and again failed to project themselves as an effective deterrent. So, why kill ? the effective alternative surely lies in reforming a criminal and helping him to get back to the mainstream of society, thereby leaving no losers.


Amarta Ghose (Advocate).


Rama chary Rachakonda (Secunderabad/Highcourt practice watsapp no.9989324294 )     04 August 2008

yes. I fully agree with Mr. Amarta Ghose.The criminal must penalise by giving service work in the hospital to lookafter  the critical illed patients.

Prakash Yedhula (Lawyer)     04 August 2008

Public opinion

Support for the death penalty varies widely. Both in abolitionist and retentionist democracies, the government's stance often has wide public support and receives little attention by politicians or the media. In some abolitionist countries, the majority of the public supports or has supported the death penalty. Abolition was often adopted due to political change, such as when countries shifted from authoritarianism to democracy, or when it became an entry condition for the European Union. The United States is a notable exception: some states have had bans on capital punishment for decades (the earliest is Michigan, where it was abolished in 1846), while others actively use it today. The death penalty there remains a contentious issue which is hotly debated. Elsewhere, however, it is rare for the death penalty to be abolished as a result of an active public discussion of its merits.In abolitionist countries, debate is sometimes revived by particularly brutal murders, though few countries have brought it back after abolishing it. However, a spike in serious, violent crimes, such as murders or terrorist attacks, has prompted some countries (such as Sri Lanka and Jamaica) to effectively end the moratorium on the death penalty. In retentionist countries, the debate is sometimes revived when a miscarriage of justice has occurred, though this tends to cause legislative efforts to improve the judicial process rather than to abolish the death penalty.

A Gallup International poll from 2000 claimed that "Worldwide support was expressed in favour of the death penalty, with just more than half (52%) indicating that they were in favour of this form of punishment." A number of other polls and studies have been done in recent years with various results.

In the U.S., surveys have long shown a majority in favor of capital punishment. An ABC News survey in July 2006 found 65 percent in favour of capital punishment, consistent with other polling since 2000.About half the American public says the death penalty is not imposed frequently enough and 60 percent believe it is applied fairly, according to a Gallup poll from May 2006.[Yet surveys also show the public is more divided when asked to choose between the death penalty and life without parole, or when dealing with juvenile offenders. Roughly six in 10 tell Gallup they do not believe capital punishment deters murder and majorities believe at least one innocent person has been executed in the past five years

Prakash Yedhula (Lawyer)     04 August 2008

Most Executions carried out in 2007

Country      Number

China     470+ (other sources est. 6,000+)1

Iran     317+

Saudi Arabia     143+

Pakistan     135+

USA     42

Iraq     33+

podicheti.srinivas (advocate/legal consultant)     05 August 2008

information placed by our learned brother is of immense value,thank you, 

H. S. Thukral (Lawyer)     05 August 2008

Indian Law on the subject  is the result of many debates and Public opinion. Life imprisonment is General Rule and death sentence in rarest of rare cases.  In some cases reformist theory does not hold good like for the terrorists, serial killers, child rapist/murderers.  Such criminals are senseless and beyond reformation. Like a cancerous growth they are to be surgically removed from the society.  Since the death sentence exists in law books there are grave concerns about arbitrariness and discrimination in the processes that may lead innocent people being sentenced to death; an irrevocability . These are not only concerns, there are many cases where Supreme Court acquited persons sentenced to death by trial courts and sentences being confirmed by High Courts. There should be some amendments in law to guard such errors. An automatic appeal to Supreme Court from the decision of High Court and hearing before a large bench can reduce chances of injustice.

Debates continue whether the death sentence lowers crime rate or not and opinions in favour and against come with illustrations and statiscal evidence but the fact remains that Indian Law makers are inclined to put death in law books for some more crimes where the present deterrent has been found inadequate.     



Rajan Salvi (Lawyer)     05 August 2008

The criteria for award of death punishment needs to be reviewed. is it the person who dies or is dead one of the criteria? Death sentences are awrded to killers of Indira Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi, Rajeev Gandhi even though a single death was involved. on the contrary the death sentences is not awarded to persons killing many members of a family also. I personally feel that it is not who is killed is important but the reasons why the accused acted in this way. what was his motive? was it for personal gain? what were the influences which were responsible for him to arrive at such a conclusion that there was no way out than estinguishing a life. Man is a product of his premises and in such case can he be fully blamed and done away with if the premises goaded him to such extreme steps? ETERNAL QUESTIONS? NO ANSWER TO THIS.

Shree. ( Advocate.)     07 August 2008

Dear  Friend,


  I believe castration to be a suitable enough punishment. Death-Punishment can't stop anything.Lot of people have got death-punishment for committing murder but is murder has been stopped? Its better to treat psychologically the rapist and try to grow a sort of penitence in the rapist's mind for the sin work he has done.


Vikram Chandra (Advocate)     07 August 2008

Dear All,

I do agree with our brother Rajan Salvi the intentions behind the murders should be looked into and then the punishment should be awarded accordingly. Ofcourse, the law is best at its place, but its applications varies as today's system involved now has forgotten the basics of law and the system implementing authorities are being influenced with various factors like corruption, muscle power, regionalism, casteism and such other negative factors which are giving shelters to henious crimes and criminals are being borne and the cycle repeats. For instance if 'x' is influential and is a serious criminal, if he successfully manages the system involved in punishing him then he his case will be closed, thus his criminal activities will not be stopped and in this type of case a perfect punishment of death is required to be imposed on him along with all the connivers who supported such criminal. But, the system should see that likewise the innocent should not be punished unnecessarily. Thus, the conclusive part is that if the implementing authorities and the system is not effected by various negative factors as discussed supra, then the punishment of death can be awarded when the situation demands no mercy.


Rajan Salvi (Lawyer)     14 August 2008

 To go further in this discussion i would like to add that in todays world much emphasis is laid on money  and position in society. Why does man require money? If the answer is for power then we Advocates enjoy that even in the absence of money. The power of the " WORD' [ translated - knowledge ] is more than money whcih is nothing but paper. If a man learns to get along without it [ or without much of it] I personally feel he has attained happiness. An inherent hatred towards injustice, corruption . exploitation, unjust behaviour. undeserved rewards will take our country a long way. I know this is not the forum to state all this , but I could not help but pen this stronge feeiings. Unless and until we submit written notes of arguments and prefer an appeal if all the points which are raised are not addressed . these points will remain forever unchallenged and unaddressed. Oral arguments are not always addressed to in the judgments by the Hon'ble Judges. . The practice of submitting concise written notes of arguments a week before final hearing should be encouraged .[ atleast in matters of grave importanceIn this way the Ld Judge will have to answer the issues raised.



K.C.Suresh (Advocate)     14 August 2008

Dear friends,

Total abolition is not good to the nature of indian society. For the RAREST OF THE RAREST it can be awarded. Our judicia history reveled awarding of POSTHUMOUS PARDEN to executed soul after a finding that he was innocent . The system requires a grave judicuial application of mind.  There are some cases where in we feel no wrong in the awarding of the death penalty. Such desicision should not be perverted or mentally ill balanced.



Dear Friends,


  • There are two divisions of criminal law. They are 1. Criminology and 2. Penology. As we know Criminology studies about the crimes and criminals and Penology studies about punishment. According to theories of punishment, it is widely suggested that reformative theory is best one. Therefore the punishment may be such a kind to reform the offender and not to snatch his life legally.

  • Depriving one's life legally is totally against the concept of human rights and international covenants.

  • According to deterrant theory of punishment, it is belived that one will not do crime after seeing the pains of punishment. If it is accepted as true, there should not be any criminal at present. But in reality? Even after number of capital punishments are given, did the crimes which pave the way for capital punishment stop? No.

  • To day we are living in a modern world with dynamic thoughts including valuing human rights. In most of the countries, capital punishment is abolished. Therefore life imprisonment is suffice to a rarest of rare culprit to think about his actus reus and get reform himself.



Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register