Constitutional Validity Of Death Penalty In Modern Criminal Jurisprudence
I. Constitutional Validity of Death Penalty
The death penalty, or capital punishment, is one of the most debated topics in modern criminal law, particularly regarding its compatibility with constitutional and human rights principles.
1. Constitutional Principles Involved
Right to Life
Most constitutions protect the fundamental right to life (e.g., Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 14th Amendment in the U.S.).
Courts often balance the right to life against the state’s power to impose capital punishment for the gravest crimes.
Prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Constitutions may prohibit inhumane or degrading punishment (e.g., the Eighth Amendment in the U.S., Article 21 in India).
Death penalty is scrutinized under this standard to ensure it is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or disproportionate.
Equality Before Law
The penalty must not be applied discriminatorily based on race, caste, religion, economic status, or gender.
Due Process
Fair trial, legal representation, and proportionality of punishment are central to constitutional scrutiny.
2. Modern Jurisprudential Trends
Restrictive Use: Courts now often restrict the death penalty to the “rarest of rare” cases, ensuring proportionality.
Judicial Safeguards: Exhaustive appellate and review procedures are emphasized before execution.
Human Rights Perspective: International human rights norms (e.g., ICCPR) influence constitutional courts to limit arbitrary executions.
Abolition Trends: Several countries have abolished capital punishment for ordinary crimes, retaining it only for terrorism or wartime offenses.
II. Detailed Case Law — More Than Five Cases
Case 1: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (India, 1980)
Facts
The Supreme Court of India examined the constitutionality of Section 302 IPC (death for murder) after legislative amendments.
Judicial Findings
Death penalty is constitutional but should be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases.
The Court emphasized proportionality, considering circumstances of the crime and the criminal.
Principle Established
The death penalty is not per se unconstitutional, but its imposition must be exceptional and justified.
Case 2: Furman v. Georgia (USA, 1972)
Facts
Furman challenged the arbitrary imposition of the death penalty in Georgia.
Judicial Findings
U.S. Supreme Court struck down death penalty statutes due to arbitrary and capricious application, violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Principle Established
Arbitrary imposition renders the death penalty unconstitutional; procedural safeguards are essential.
Case 3: Gregg v. Georgia (USA, 1976)
Facts
After Furman, Georgia revised its death penalty statutes with guided discretion for juries.
Judicial Findings
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty with safeguards for proportionality and discretion.
Principle Established
Death penalty is constitutional if applied carefully, with procedural safeguards, and not mandatory for all murders.
Case 4: Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (India, 1983)
Facts
Convicted murderers challenged the imposition of death penalty in multiple murder cases.
Judicial Findings
Supreme Court reaffirmed “rarest of rare” doctrine from Bachan Singh.
Circumstances like brutal or heinous murders justify capital punishment.
Principle Established
Severity, manner, and impact of the crime are critical in deciding death sentences.
Case 5: Soering v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 1989)
Facts
Soering, an extradited person, faced death penalty in the U.S. for murder.
He claimed extradition violated Article 3 of ECHR (prohibition of inhuman punishment).
Judicial Findings
ECHR held extradition could violate human rights if there was a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, considering death row conditions.
Principle Established
Human rights obligations influence the constitutional validity of the death penalty, particularly under conditions of execution or detention.
Case 6: Perry v. Louisiana (USA, 2010)
Facts
Defendant challenged death penalty based on mental capacity and proportionality.
Judicial Findings
Supreme Court emphasized the need for individualized sentencing, considering mental capacity and mitigating circumstances.
Principle Established
Death penalty cannot be applied mechanically; individual assessment is mandatory.
Case 7: Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)
Facts
Death row prisoners challenged long delays in execution as violating Article 21 (right to life).
Judicial Findings
Supreme Court held that unreasonable delay in execution may render death penalty inhuman, allowing commutation to life imprisonment.
Principle Established
Delay in carrying out executions is a relevant factor in constitutional review of death penalty.
III. Doctrinal Principles from Modern Jurisprudence
“Rarest of Rare” Doctrine (India)
Death penalty is valid only for crimes of extreme gravity.
Proportionality and Individualization
Courts must assess circumstances of crime, criminal, and mitigating factors.
Procedural Safeguards
Fair trial, appeals, review, and mercy petitions are essential to constitutionality.
Human Rights Perspective
Conditions of detention, delays, and arbitrariness are constitutionally relevant.
Global Trends
Abolitionist and restrictive trends influence constitutional interpretation in modern criminal jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
comments