CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OR REFORMATION: AN ANALYSIS

Abstract

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, has been a controversial element of criminal law for many years, raising questions about its moral basis, effectiveness, and reconcilability with international human rights norms. Arguments in favour are that it serves as a deterrent to serious crimes and satisfies an urge for vengeance, while those opposed cite its irreversibility, the possibility of wrongful convictions, and internalized systemic biases. The concept of reformation offers an alternative perspective, with a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment and an intention to address the underlying causes of criminality.

This research explores the interaction between reformation and capital punishment, examining worldwide practices, theoretical frameworks like retributivism and utilitarianism, and the evolving meaning of reformative theories in sentencing. It highlights landmark cases in India, where the presumption of reformation was established for criminal offenders. Moreover, the study explores the variability in judicial approaches to reformation and the psychological effects felt by death row prisoners.

Introduction

The arguments around capital punishment, specially in relation of reformation against retribution, is knotty and many- sided. Capital Punishment has very long roots back since ancient times where it was used for punishing various criminals for various crimes like theft, murder or treason. Capital punishment has significantly evolved with time influenced by changing societal values, norms and perspectives about justice and punishment. In India, is legal for the most heinous crimes. The reformation or reformative theory says that the main aim of punishment should be to reintegrate or rehabilitate the offender rather than merely killing them in the name of punishment.  Even, Mahatma Gandhi, insisted on reforming individuals rather than exacting revenge. In contrary to that, the preventive theory justifies for capital punishment classifying it as a means to reduce crime by eliminating dangerous individuals from society permanently. They argue that death penalty serves as a strong discouragement against crimes, results in protecting the potential victims. In India, capital punishment comes under Indian Penal Code and is reserved for ‘rarest of rare’ cases. Article 21 of Indian Constitution, pledge the right to life, raising important ethical questions about state’s power to take the life as a form of punishment. Judicial judgements always have placed more focus on the need to clear standards in sentencing so that whimsical applications of it can be avoided. Globally, Capital Punishment remains a disputable issue. Many nations have totally abolished it stating many moral arguments. The rise of international human rights movement has further tangled the discussion on capital punishment. Some argues that it violates basic human rights principles, while others justifies that if we fail to impose severe punishments for heinous crimes the number of crimes and intensity of crimes will increase.

Capital Punishment: An Overview

Capital Punishment can be defined as the state licensed execution of such individuals who have committed some specific crimes which are considered sufficiently grave to permit such penalty. [1]

Philosophical Arguments: Two prominent philosophical frameworks are employed to advocate the use of death penalty.

Retributivism: According to the retributivism theory, the extent of the punishment ought to be proportional to the crime committed. Supporters argue that by guaranteeing that the penalty is proportional with the severity of crime, executing a murder maintains justice. This perspective says that the lack of such a punishment weakens justice and lays an excessive focus on moral responsibility and social stability.

Utilitarianism:  This theory places the focus on the result of punishment. Advocates believe that by making potential offenders frightened, the execution penalty might discourage or warn other criminals from committing similar offences. If people believe that they would be executed by the crime, it’s very less likely for them to commit that crime.

Supporters of the death penalty argue that it serves several purposes:

Deterrence: Supporters state that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to criminal behaviour by creating fear of dire consequences. They believe that punishing offenders with death is a warning to potential criminals, which will cause crime rates to reduce.[2]

Retribution: The retributive model is of the opinion that justice requires punishment in proportion to the severity of the crime. They argue that capital punishment is a necessary response to the most heinous crimes, meeting the need for justice in society and offering closure to victims’ families.[3]

Public Safety: In eradicating threatening people from society once and for all, capital punishment is viewed as a way of enhancing public safety and protecting citizens from serial criminals.

On the other hand, critics raise a number of important issues:

Moral Issues: Critics argue that capital punishment is inherently immoral, comparing state-sponsored execution to murder. They believe that it devalues human life and represents a failure of the justice system.[4]

Risk of Wrongful Convictions: The irrevocable character of the death penalty sparks concern regarding the risk of executing innocents. Cases of wrongful convictions highlight flaws in judicial systems and the threat of extreme miscarriages of justice.

Disparity in Application: There are concerns that capital punishment unfairly targets minority groups, reflecting systemic prejudices in its application according to socio-economic status or race.

Despite the introduction of the death sentence in the region, crime tends not to decline according to the evidence gathered. The statistics of crime in a region which implements the death sentence is nearly the same as in a region which does not. Also, the existence of condemning innocent people to death in legal systems proves that those legal systems do have shortcomings.

Reformative Theory: An Overview

In contradiction to capital punishment, the reformative theory states that the primary goal of punishment should be reformation or rehabilitation rather than death. Key principles are:

• Rehabilitation:  This method focuses on changing the behaviour of the criminal by understanding and curing the underlying issues such as mental health issues or lack of education.  By showing support and resources the society can help in reforming the criminal.[5]
• Individualisation: Researchers believe that every offender has their own unique circumstances. To understand and address these circumstances no single approach can be used, the approaches needs to be tailored accordingly.
• Community Engagement: For rehabilitation to be successful it needs the contribution of both the criminal and the community organisation. This can form a sense of belonging in the offenders.

Research says that rehabilitation can bring changes in first time offenders. Programs focused on education, training and mental health support has led to the reformation in the offenders. However, the regular offenders may require more harsh methods.[6]

Reformation served several purposes:

Humanistic Approach: The reformist theory holds that all offenders have the potential to change. It is in favour of dealing with offenders as human beings deserving of compassion and rehabilitation chances and not treating them as unreformable.

Therapeutic Justice: This perspective views crime as a manifestation of underlying problems, such as mental illness or socio-economic factors. The goal is to address these root causes by means of rehabilitation programs rather than through punitive measures like capital punishment.[7]

Societal Gains: Prioritizing reformation has the potential to reduce recidivism and ensure reintegration of former offenders within communities. The aim of reformative justice is to transform offenders into productive citizens of society, resulting in benefits to individuals and society at large.

Yet, reformative justice is faced with numerous challenges:

Public Opinion: A majority of the populace views reformative measures as too soft on dangerous criminals, creating apprehension in their ability to protect society against violent offenses.

Implementation Challenges: Effective rehabilitation measures require significant inputs in terms of resources and infrastructure, which are not always adequate in many parts of the country. There is also skepticism concerning the effectiveness of rehabilitation for violent offenders.

Ethical considerations

The essence of capital punishment raises issues on human rights and on the power of the State over life and death. Proponents of this practice wonder how a particular society does not compromise people’s dignity. Reformative approaches strive to maintain persons even when crime has occurred. When revenge is not the goal of justice systems, but rather correction, societies can create an atmosphere that encourages changes without infringing on people’s rights.

Case Studies

Countries with capital punishment:

The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in shaping the legal framework surrounding capital punishment. Landmark judgments have addressed its constitutionality and application:

1. Nirbhaya Case (Vinay Sharma v. Union of India, 2020): The heinous crime of gang rape and killing of a young woman in Delhi was nationwide disapproved and not only that led to mass protests demanding justice and tougher laws to mitigate sexual crimes in the country. Upon the sentencing of four of the accused to death, this was seen as a reflection of the society’s attitude towards the death penalty and violence related crimes in general.[8]
2. Shabnam v. Union of India (2015): Conviction in Shabnam’s case was based on allegations of instigating her family members’ murders. This was remarkable since it was one of those exceptional occasions in India where a lady was convicted to execution; leading to debates of gender and capital punishment.
3.  Surendra Koli v. State of U.P (2011): Known as the Nithari case, Koli was convicted for multiple murders and sexual assaults on children. His gruesome acts led to a death sentence based on aggravating factors such as extreme brutality and public outrage.[9]

Countries with reformative approaches:

1. Mohd. Hanif Qureshi vs. State of Bihar (1958): In this case, the Supreme Court recognized the reformative theory of punishment, stating that the end goal of punishment should be to transform offenders into useful members of society. The court stated that human nature is capable of reform, thereby endorsing rehabilitation as a primary objective of sentencing.
2. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): This broke new ground judgment set forth the principles to be followed when the death penalty is imposed indicating that it should be imposed only in “rarest of rare” cases. The court pointed out the necessity for the judges to take into account the background factors, thus encouraging a more rehabilitative outlook in capital punishment cases.
3. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014):  The Supreme Court went on to say that capital punishment should not be entirely eroded and in fact, where there are prolonged and unreasonable delays in the execution of this sentence, it can be interpreted as a contributing factor for reduction to lifetime imprisonment. The relevance and necessity of swiftness in delivering justice was emphasized here and the strains of prolonged period of waiting on persons who were sentenced were acknowledged.

Conclusion

To sum up the discussion, the aspects of justice and humanity find expression in the preference of one of the two extremes: the death penalty or the reform of offenders. Despite the fact that capital punishment is a controversial practice, with debatable points revolving around deterrence and reparation, it appears that many wholistic crime prevention scholars would advocate the non-punishment approach. In light of current global trends that favour more rehabilitative strategies, it is evidently appreciated that there are benefits to the society in general and the individuals subjected to it in particular, as rehabilitative approaches seem to be more effective. Perhaps, the future of criminal justice will be one in which the aim of rehabilitation supersedes all other aims and regimes in this field are conducive to the successful socialization of former offenders.

 

 References

[1] (Internet encyclopedia of philosophy) <https://iep.utm.edu/death-penalty-capital-punishment/> accessed 22 March 2025

[2] Manvir Kaur, ‘Rationale Behind Death Penalty: A Critical Analysis’ (LinkedIn, 28 October 2022) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rationale-behind-death-penalty-critical-analysis-?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&utm_campaign=share_via accessed 22 March 2025.

[3] Manvir Kaur, ‘Rationale Behind Death Penalty: A Critical Analysis’ (LinkedIn, 28 October 2022) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rationale-behind-death-penalty-critical-analysis-?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&utm_campaign=share_via accessed 22 March 2025.

[4] (Manupatra round up no. 334) <https://www.manupatra.com/roundup/334/articles.html> accessed 22 March 2025

[5] Mahidharnth, Dange A and Deshpande M, ‘Reformative Theory of Punishment’ (Academike, 14 March 2019) <https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/reformative-theory-of-punishment/> accessed 22 March 2025

[6] Mahidharnth, Dange A and Deshpande M, ‘Reformative Theory of Punishment’ (Academike, 14 March 2019) <https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/reformative-theory-of-punishment/> accessed 22 March 2025

[7] (American) <https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&amp=&httpsredir=1&amp=&article=1417&amp=&context=hrbrief> accessed 22 March 2025

[8] Bose A, ‘Landmark Cases on Death Penalty in India’ (iPleaders, 14 January 2022) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/landmark-cases-on-death-penalty-in-india/> accessed 22 March 2025

[9] Bose A, ‘Landmark Cases on Death Penalty in India’ (iPleaders, 14 January 2022) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/landmark-cases-on-death-penalty-in-india/> accessed 22 March 2025