Capital Punishment and 262th law commission report

Capital Punishment: A Constitutional, Comparative, and Penological Analysis with Special Reference to India

1. Introduction

1.1 Focus and Scope

This report undertakes a critical examination of the constitutionality and penological justification of capital punishment. While adopting a global perspective, the primary focus rests on the Indian legal landscape. It delves into the interpretation of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), analyzes landmark Supreme Court judgments that have shaped India’s death penalty jurisprudence, and evaluates the significant recommendations of the 262nd Report of the Law Commission of India.

1.2 Central Questions

1. The analysis herein seeks to address several central questions: Is the imposition of the death penalty compatible with modern constitutional guarantees, particularly the fundamental right to life and the evolving standards of human dignity?

2. Does capital punishment serve legitimate and demonstrable penological objectives, such as deterrence or retribution, more effectively than alternative sanctions like life imprisonment?

3. How does India’s complex position on capital punishment, constitutionally permissible yet judicially restricted, compare with international norms and practices?

2. Constitutional Framework of Capital Punishment in India

2.1 Article 21: The Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21, declares that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. the text itself acknowledges that the right to life is not absolute; deprivation is constitutionally permissible provided it adheres to a “procedure established by law”.1

Crucially, the interpretation of this phrase has evolved significantly. Following the landmark decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has held that the “procedure established by law” cannot be merely any procedure, but must be one that is “fair, just, and reasonable” and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive.¹

Hence, The debate surrounding the death penalty under Article 21 shifted from whether life can be taken by law, to whether the specific legal procedures governing the imposition and execution of the death sentence meet this high standard of fairness, justice, and reasonableness. The entire edifice of death penalty jurisprudence in India rests on the scrutiny of this procedure, examining aspects like sentencing discretion, the consideration of mitigating factors, the risk of error, and delays in execution.¹

2.2 Landmark Judgments: Laying the Foundation

Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973)

In one of the earliest challenges post-Constitution, a five-judge bench in Jagmohan Singh upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty.1 The Court rejected arguments that capital punishment violated Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedoms), and 21 (Life and Liberty).1 It was contended that the pre-1973 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) did not provide any legislative standards or guidelines for when judges should impose death versus life imprisonment, rendering the discretion arbitrary.1 The Court disagreed, holding that the choice between sentences was made in accordance with the procedure established by law, which involved judicial discretion exercised based on the specific facts, circumstances, and nature of the crime presented during the trial.1 The impossibility of laying down rigid standards for sentencing was acknowledged, with judicial discretion on well-recognized principles deemed the safest safeguard.5 It is pertinent to note that this judgment predated the significant 1973 amendment to the CrPC, which introduced Section 354(3), mandating “special reasons” for imposing the death penalty.5

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): The Cornerstone

The constitutionality of the death penalty was revisited by another five-judge bench in Bachan Singh, this time in the context of the amended CrPC, particularly Section 354(3).1 The petitioner argued that the death penalty violated the fundamental right to life under Article 21 and should only be used in dire circumstances, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion and stringent interpretation.7 The State, conversely, argued for its deterrent effect and constitutional validity, citing the brutal nature of Bachan Singh’s offenses as “special reasons”.7

By a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which provides death as a punishment for murder, and Section 354(3) of the CrPC.¹ The Court reiterated that the right to life under Article 21 is not absolute and can be deprived through a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.⁴ It also held that the fundamental rights under Article 19(1) are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions.¹ The Court explicitly rejected the argument that Section 302 IPC and Section 354(3) CrPC were unconstitutional.⁷

Central to the Bachan Singh judgment was the formulation of the “rarest of rare” doctrine.² This principle was designed to severely restrict the application of the death penalty, establishing that “life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is the exception”.⁴ The Court mandated that the death penalty should only be imposed when the alternative option of life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed” or demonstrably insufficient given the specific circumstances of the case.² It requires a finding that the crime belongs to the “rarest of rare” category where the extreme penalty is necessitated.⁷

Crucially, the Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive assessment of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.² This assessment must consider not only the circumstances of the crime (e.g., brutality, motive, magnitude) but also the circumstances of the criminal (e.g., age, potential for reform, mental state, socio-economic background).² The judgment provided illustrative lists of such factors, emphasizing the need for a ‘balance sheet’ approach where the court weighs the totality of these factors before reaching a decision.² The death sentence is only to be imposed if the aggravating circumstances significantly outweigh the mitigating ones, leaving no other option.²

The judgment also underscored the importance of procedural safeguards, particularly Section 354(3) CrPC, which requires judges to record “special reasons” justifying the imposition of the death penalty ¹, and the provision for a pre-sentencing hearing under Section 235(2) CrPC, allowing the accused to present evidence specifically on the question of sentence, focusing on mitigation.²

Justice P.N. Bhagwati delivered a powerful dissenting opinion, arguing that the death penalty was inherently unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 21, and was also undesirable from various social and ethical perspectives.¹

2.3 Post-Bachan Singh Jurisprudence and Challenges

Following Bachan Singh, the judiciary grappled with applying the “rarest of rare” doctrine. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the Court attempted to provide further guidance by outlining specific categories of cases that might warrant the death penalty, focusing on the manner of commission, motive, anti-social nature, magnitude of the crime, and personality of the victim.⁴ However, later benches observed that Machhi Singh might have inadvertently broadened the scope of the death penalty beyond the restrictive intent of Bachan Singh.⁴

A significant development occurred in Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983), where the Supreme Court struck down Section 303 of the IPC.¹ This provision mandated the death penalty for murder committed by a person already serving a life sentence. The Court held it unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 21, precisely because it removed judicial discretion – a cornerstone of the Bachan Singh framework – and prevented individualized sentencing based on the specific circumstances of the crime and the criminal.¹

Despite these efforts, a major criticism persists: the problem of arbitrariness in the application of the death penalty.² The very phrase “rarest of rare” lacks objective definition, leaving significant room for subjective interpretation by judges.² Similarly, concepts like “special reasons” and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors, particularly subjective ones like “potential for reform,” have proven difficult to apply consistently.² This leads to situations where similar cases result in different sentences (life imprisonment vs. death) depending on the specific bench hearing the case, raising serious concerns about equality before the law (Article 14) and the fairness of the procedure (Article 21).⁷ This inconsistency and “judge-centric” application ¹¹ represent a fundamental challenge to the constitutional validity of the death penalty as administered in practice.

The framework established in Bachan Singh, intended to constitutionally salvage the death penalty by minimizing arbitrariness through strict guidelines, appears to have fallen short in achieving consistent and principled application. The inherent subjectivity in determining “rarest of rare” cases and balancing complex human factors allows for significant variation in outcomes. This gap between the doctrine’s intent – ensuring death sentences are exceptional and non-arbitrary – and its practical application, marked by inconsistency, forms a critical basis for the argument that the current system fails to meet the rigorous standards of Articles 14 and 21. This failure was a central finding of the 262nd Law Commission Report.¹²

Other related issues that have come before the courts include the impact of excessive delay in executing a death sentence, which has been held to potentially violate Article 21 ³, and the constitutionality of the method of execution (hanging by rope was upheld as fair, just, and reasonable under Article 21 in Deena v. Union of India).¹ Furthermore, certain categories of individuals, such as juveniles (under the Juvenile Justice Act), pregnant women, and persons with severe mental illness, are legally protected from the death penalty.¹⁰

3. The 262nd Law Commission Report (2015): A Move Towards Abolition?

3.1 Context and Mandate

In 2015, the Law Commission of India, then chaired by Justice A.P. Shah, submitted its 262nd Report titled “The Death Penalty”.12 This comprehensive review was undertaken following references from the Supreme Court in cases like Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. Maharashtra (2009) and Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. Maharashtra (2013), which urged an up-to-date and informed discussion on the issue.12 The report marked a significant departure from the Commission’s 35th Report (1967), which had recommended the retention of capital punishment, deeming the time unripe for abolition.11 The 262nd Report explicitly recognized the drastically changed social, economic, and cultural contexts, the influence of international law developments (like the ICCPR), and, critically, the 35 years of experience with the Bachan Singh framework and its application.12

3.2 Key Findings and Arguments for Abolition

After extensive study, consultations, and deliberation 12, the Commission presented several compelling arguments for moving towards abolition:

• Lack of Penological Justification: The report concluded that the death penalty does not fulfill the penological goal of deterrence any more effectively than the alternative of life imprisonment.¹² It noted that life imprisonment in India often translates to very long periods of incarceration (30-60 years in serious cases), challenging the notion that death is the only adequate incapacitator or deterrent.¹² It asserted that the death penalty fails to achieve any constitutionally valid penological goals.¹³
• Arbitrariness and Inconsistency: Echoing judicial concerns, the Commission found the application of the Bachan Singh “rarest of rare” standard to be “extremely uneven,” inconsistent, and “judge-centric”.¹¹ This uncertainty and arbitrariness, it argued, clearly violate the constitutional guarantees of due process (Article 21) and equality (Article 14). The report stated emphatically that “there exists no principled method to remove such arbitrariness from capital sentencing”.¹²
• Irreversibility and Systemic Fallibility: The report stressed the irrevocable nature of the death penalty.¹² Coupled with the acknowledged systemic problems within the Indian criminal justice system – including inadequate resources, outdated investigation techniques, overburdened police, ineffective prosecution, and poor legal aid – the risk of executing an innocent person becomes unacceptably high.¹² This fallibility makes the ultimate punishment particularly perilous.¹³
• Focus on Restorative Justice: The Commission argued that the intense focus on capital punishment often diverts attention and resources from other crucial aspects of justice, such as effective victim compensation, witness protection programs, comprehensive police reforms, crime prevention strategies, and the rehabilitative potential of the justice system.¹² It recommended the establishment of robust schemes for victim compensation and witness protection.¹³
• Global Trend and Evolving Standards: The report highlighted the strong international trend towards abolition, with 140 countries being abolitionist in law or practice at the time.¹² This global shift, the Commission suggested, reflects evolving standards of human dignity and decency that increasingly view the death penalty as incompatible with fundamental human rights.¹¹ Retaining it aligns India with a dwindling minority of nations.¹²
• Failure of Mercy Powers: The exercise of clemency powers by the President (Article 72) and Governors (Article 161), intended as a final safeguard against injustice, was found to be flawed, with instances of procedural gaps and illegalities undermining its effectiveness.¹²
• Death Row Phenomenon: The report acknowledged the severe psychological toll (“extreme agony, anxiety, and debilitating fear amounting to near-torture”) imposed on prisoners by prolonged delays during trials, appeals, and clemency petitions, compounded by harsh prison conditions often including solitary confinement.¹²

3.3 The Recommendation: Abolition with Exceptions

Based on these findings, the Law Commission’s principal recommendation was the abolition of the death penalty for all offenses except terrorism-related offenses and the offense of waging war against the government.11 The Commission expressed its trust that the report would foster a more rational and principled debate leading towards complete abolition, hoping the “movement towards absolute abolition will be swift and irreversible”.12

3.4 Analysis of the Terrorism/Waging War Exception

The report’s justification for retaining the death penalty specifically for terrorism and waging war was explicitly linked to “concerns raised by the law makers” regarding national security.11 The Commission acknowledged a “sharp division among law-makers” on this point.11

However, the Commission itself stated clearly that it found “no valid penological justification for treating terrorism differently from other crimes”.¹² It even recognized the potential counter-productivity of such an exception, noting arguments that executing terrorists could create martyrs and inspire followers rather than deter them.¹¹

This exception reveals a significant tension within the report. Having built a strong case for abolition rooted in constitutional principles (failure to meet Article 14 and 21 standards due to arbitrariness), penological failure (lack of deterrence), and fundamental human rights, the report then carves out an exception based not on these principles, but on perceived political expediency and national security concerns voiced by legislators.¹¹ Critics argue that if the death penalty system is inherently arbitrary and prone to error, these flaws do not disappear – and may even be exacerbated – in terrorism cases, which often involve heightened emotions and sometimes extraordinary legal procedures.¹¹ The exception appears less a product of the Commission’s rigorous legal and ethical analysis and more a pragmatic compromise aimed at making the primary recommendation of abolition for ordinary crimes politically feasible.¹¹ This potentially undermines the report’s overall principled stance by suggesting that fundamental rights and constitutional safeguards can be subordinated to national security claims without sufficient independent justification.

3.5 Dissenting Opinions and Critiques

The report was not unanimous. Some members, including Part-Time Member Prof (Dr) Yogesh Tyagi and Ex-Officio Members Justice (retd.) Ms Usha Mehra, Mr PK Malhotra (Law Secretary), and Dr. Sanjay Singh (Legislative Secretary), did not sign the final report and submitted separate notes expressing their dissent or reservations.12 While their specific arguments are detailed in the report’s annexures, retentionist arguments typically emphasize the deterrent effect (especially for heinous crimes), the necessity of retribution to satisfy societal conscience, and the principle of legislative supremacy in prescribing punishments.16

External critiques of the report, beyond the terrorism exception, included its failure to definitively declare the death penalty as inherently violative of the right to life and human dignity under the Indian Constitution, unlike the stance taken in some other jurisdictions and by international bodies.¹¹ Furthermore, the report was criticized for not recommending immediate measures, such as a moratorium on executions, to safeguard the rights of those on death row while Parliament considered its recommendations.¹¹ Despite these critiques, the report is widely regarded as a landmark document, significantly shifting the official discourse in India towards abolition.¹¹

4. Capital Punishment in Comparative Perspective

Examining the legal status and debates surrounding capital punishment in other jurisdictions provides valuable context for understanding India’s position and the global dynamics of this issue.

4.1 United States: A Retentionist Democracy with Constitutional Constraints

The United States stands out as a prominent Western democracy that retains capital punishment at both the federal level and in 27 states, although several states have official moratoriums or have not carried out executions in many years.20 The primary constitutional challenges arise under the Eighth Amendment, prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishments,” and the Fourteenth Amendment, guaranteeing “due process of law”.21

The modern era of US death penalty jurisprudence began with ***Furman v. Georgia (1972)***. In a fragmented 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court effectively invalidated all existing death penalty statutes across the country.²⁰ The majority could not agree on a single rationale, but the core finding was that the death penalty, as then administered with largely unguided jury discretion, resulted in arbitrary and capricious sentencing, often discriminating against minorities and the poor, thus violating the Eighth Amendment.²¹ Justices Brennan and Marshall argued the death penalty was per se unconstitutional ²³, but the controlling opinions focused on the arbitrariness of application rather than the punishment itself.²¹ This led to a temporary nationwide moratorium on executions.²⁰

States responded by rewriting their death penalty laws to address the Court’s concerns about arbitrariness. Some states tried mandatory death sentences for certain crimes, but this was struck down in Woodson v. North Carolina (1976) as violating the need for individualized sentencing.²¹ More successfully, states like Georgia, Florida, and Texas introduced systems of “guided discretion”.²¹

These revised statutes came before the Court in Gregg v. Georgia (1976) and companion cases.²¹ The Court upheld these new statutes, finding they provided sufficient guidance to juries and judges, thereby reducing the risk of arbitrary imposition found unconstitutional in Furman.²¹ Key procedural reforms approved in Gregg included:

1. Bifurcated Trials: Separate phases for determining guilt and imposing the sentence.²¹
2. Guided Discretion: Requiring juries/judges to find specific statutory aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt before considering death, and to weigh them against mitigating circumstances.²¹
3. Automatic Appellate Review: Including proportionality review in some states to compare sentences and ensure consistency.²¹

Crucially, the Gregg Court also held that the death penalty itself was not inherently cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, citing its potential functions of retribution and deterrence and the fact that numerous state legislatures had reenacted it post-Furman as evidence of contemporary standards of decency.²¹

Since Gregg, the Supreme Court has further refined the application of the death penalty. It has restricted its use for crimes not involving homicide, such as the rape of an adult woman (Coker v. Georgia, 1977) ²² and the rape of a child where the victim survives (Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008) ²², based on principles of proportionality. It has also barred the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002) and those who were juveniles (under 18) at the time of their crime (Roper v. Simmons, 2005). Other cases have dealt with procedural requirements, such as the necessity of jury findings for aggravating factors (Ring v. Arizona, 2002) ²² and the constitutionality of imposing death when aggravating and mitigating factors are equally weighted (Kansas v. Marsh, 2006).²²

The US approach, heavily shaped by the Furman and Gregg decisions, demonstrates a primary focus on procedural mechanisms designed to ensure fairness and minimize arbitrariness within the capital punishment system. While the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment” is the textual anchor, the legal battles often revolve around how the death penalty is administered – the adequacy of sentencing guidelines, the role of juries, the consideration of mitigating evidence – rather than a fundamental challenge to the state’s right to execute based on the inherent right to life, which characterizes the European abolitionist movement.²⁸ This emphasis on process reflects an attempt to reconcile the death penalty with constitutional requirements of due process and non-arbitrariness, rather than outright abolition based on substantive rights claims.

4.2 Europe: A Continent Moving Towards Complete Abolition

Europe stands in stark contrast to the United States, having established itself as a de facto death penalty-free zone since 1997.28 This achievement is largely credited to the efforts of the Council of Europe (CoE), a regional human rights organization comprising 46 member states.28 While the original European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), opened for signature in 1950, permitted the death penalty under specific circumstances (Article 2 § 1) 28, a strong consensus emerged over subsequent decades viewing capital punishment as incompatible with fundamental human rights in a civilized society.28

This consensus was formalized through legally binding protocols to the ECHR:

• Protocol No. 6 (1983): This protocol mandates the abolition of the death penalty in peacetime.²⁸ It allows states to retain it only for acts committed “in time of war or of imminent threat of war”.²⁸ As of today, all 46 CoE member states have ratified Protocol No. 6.²⁸
• Protocol No. 13 (2002): Representing the “final step,” this protocol requires the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, including wartime.²⁸ Significantly, no derogations or reservations are permitted under Protocol No. 13.²⁸ It has been ratified by 45 of the 46 CoE member states (Armenia being the latest in 2024), with Azerbaijan having signed but not yet ratified, though it abolished the death penalty domestically in 1998.²⁹

The European Union (EU) further reinforces this regional norm. Abolition of the death penalty (specifically, ratification of Protocol No. 6) is a prerequisite for any country seeking EU membership.³¹ Furthermore, the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights explicitly prohibits the death penalty (Article 2) and forbids extradition to countries where a person faces a serious risk of execution.²⁹ The EU actively promotes global abolition through its diplomatic efforts and specific guidelines against the death penalty.³¹

The underlying rationale for European abolitionism is firmly rooted in fundamental human rights principles: the inherent right to life and the absolute prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.²⁸ Capital punishment is viewed as a violation of these core values, irrespective of the crime committed.

4.3 Other Jurisdictions (Focus on Asia)

The situation in Asia presents a far more diverse and complex picture than the consolidated abolitionist stance in Europe.

• China: Remains the world’s most prolific executioner.³⁶ Although precise figures are treated as a state secret, estimates suggest thousands of executions occur annually.³⁶ The death penalty is applied to a wide range of offenses, extending beyond violent crimes to include drug trafficking and economic crimes.³⁶ Significant concerns persist regarding the lack of transparency, fairness of trials (including potential use of torture-tainted evidence), limited access to legal counsel, and the use of capital punishment as a tool for political repression, particularly against ethnic minorities like Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region.³⁶
• Japan: Stands as one of the few developed democracies, alongside the US, that actively retains and uses the death penalty.³⁸ Executions are carried out, albeit infrequently and often after long periods on death row.³⁸ Human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have raised serious concerns about Japan’s criminal justice system, particularly the practice known as “hostage justice” involving prolonged pre-trial detention and interrogations without counsel, which can lead to forced confessions.³⁷ The secrecy surrounding execution dates and the psychological toll on inmates are also criticized.³⁷ Recent high-profile exonerations of individuals who spent decades on death row underscore the risk of executing the innocent.³⁶
• Other Asian Nations: The region displays a wide spectrum of approaches. Singapore actively uses the death penalty, notably for drug offenses, drawing international criticism.³⁶ South Korea, while retaining the death penalty in law, has maintained a moratorium on executions since 1997, making it abolitionist in practice.⁴² Vietnam is also believed to use the death penalty extensively, but data is limited due to state secrecy.³⁶ Conversely, some nations have taken steps towards reform; for instance, Malaysia abolished the mandatory death penalty for several offenses in 2023 and initiated reviews of existing death sentences, leading to numerous commutations.³⁶

This regional diversity underscores the absence of a unified Asian consensus comparable to Europe’s. While Europe has established strong regional legal instruments and norms favoring abolition based on human rights, practices in Asia vary dramatically, influenced by distinct cultural, political, and legal contexts. There is no single trajectory, with high-execution states coexisting alongside retentionist democracies facing scrutiny, nations observing long-term moratoriums, and others actively reforming their laws.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Capital Punishment Status (Select Jurisdictions)

Jurisdiction	Status	Key Legal Basis / Issues	Recent Trends / Notes
India	Retentionist	Constitution Art 21; Bachan Singh (“rarest of rare”); LCR 262 recommends partial abolition	Constitutionally valid but restricted; ongoing debate on arbitrariness; LCR 262 exception for terrorism. 7
USA	Retentionist (Federal & 27 States)	8th Amendment (Cruel/Unusual); 14th Amend. (Due Process); Furman, Gregg cases	Procedural focus; restrictions on scope (juveniles, intellectual disability); state-level variations; cost debates. 20
Europe (CoE)	Abolitionist (De jure)	ECHR Protocols 6 & 13; EU Charter Art 2	Complete abolition in all circumstances is the norm; prerequisite for EU membership. 28
China	Retentionist	Domestic Law; State Secret	World’s leading executioner; used for wide range of crimes; lack of transparency/due process concerns. 36
Japan	Retentionist	Domestic Law	Active use; “hostage justice” concerns; secrecy around executions; exonerations raise innocence concerns. 38
Malaysia	Retentionist (Reforming)	Domestic Law	Abolished mandatory death penalty (2023); ongoing sentence reviews and commutations. 36
South Korea	Abolitionist (Practice)	Domestic Law (retained)	Moratorium on executions since 1997; supported UN moratorium resolution. 42

5. Penological Perspectives on Capital Punishment

5.1 Introduction to Penological Theories

Penology, the study of punishment, seeks to understand and justify the imposition of sanctions by the state on those who violate the law.43 Various theories have been developed to provide a rationale for punishment, broadly divisible into two categories:

1. Retributivism: A backward-looking approach focused on punishing past wrongdoing because it is deserved.⁴⁶
2. Utilitarianism/Consequentialism: Forward-looking approaches that justify punishment based on its perceived future benefits, primarily crime prevention.⁴⁶ Key utilitarian goals include deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.

Examining capital punishment through these theoretical lenses reveals the justifications offered by its proponents and the critiques leveled by its opponents.

5.2 Retribution

The retributive theory posits that punishment is justified because the offender deserves it as a consequence of their wrongful act.43 It operates on the principle of “just deserts,” aiming to restore a moral balance disrupted by the crime.49 Central to retributivism is the concept of proportionality: the severity of the punishment should correspond to the gravity of the offense.45 While historically linked to the idea of lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”) 47, modern retributivism focuses more on moral culpability and ensuring the punishment reflects the seriousness of the harm inflicted.

In the context of capital punishment, retributivists argue that for the most heinous crimes, particularly aggravated murder, death is the only punishment that is truly proportionate.⁴⁹ It is seen as affirming the supreme value of the victim’s life and expressing society’s profound condemnation of the act.⁵ By imposing a deserved punishment, the state satisfies the societal need for justice and removes the impetus for private vengeance.⁴³ It is argued that this is not about revenge, but about justice and holding offenders accountable for their choices.⁵⁴

However, retributivism faces several criticisms. Establishing a precise scale of proportional punishments for diverse crimes is inherently difficult.⁴⁵ Critics question whether it adequately considers the complex factors that may contribute to criminal behavior, potentially over-rationalizing offending.⁴⁵ Furthermore, some argue that focusing solely on deserved punishment neglects the underlying causes of crime and the potential for offender rehabilitation.⁴⁵ A purely retributive approach might also conflict with evolving standards of human dignity and the prohibition against cruel punishments.⁴⁷

5.3 Deterrence

Deterrence theory justifies punishment based on its presumed ability to prevent future crime by instilling fear in potential offenders.43 It operates on two levels 43:

• Specific Deterrence: Aims to discourage the individual punished offender from committing further crimes through the unpleasantness of the sanction.
• General Deterrence: Aims to dissuade the public at large from engaging in criminal behavior by making an example of those who are caught and punished.

Capital punishment relies almost exclusively on the argument of general deterrence.⁵² Proponents contend that because death is the most feared outcome, the threat of execution serves as the most potent deterrent against capital crimes like murder.⁷ This argument often appeals to common sense and assumes that potential offenders engage in a rational cost-benefit analysis before acting.⁵² The potential to save even a few innocent lives through deterrence is seen as outweighing the life of the convicted murderer.⁵⁴

Despite its intuitive appeal, the deterrent effect of the death penalty is highly contested and lacks robust empirical support. Decades of research, including sophisticated statistical analyses comparing jurisdictions with and without the death penalty, and examining homicide rates before and after changes in death penalty laws or execution frequency, have failed to produce conclusive evidence that capital punishment deters murder significantly more effectively than long-term imprisonment.¹² Many studies find no significant deterrent effect, while some even suggest a potential “brutalization effect,” where state-sanctioned killing might desensitize society to violence and increase homicide rates.⁵⁴ Methodological challenges and conflicting results plague the research landscape.⁵⁴

Furthermore, the underlying assumption of rational calculation is questionable. Many capital crimes are committed impulsively, “in the heat of passion,” under the influence of substances, or by individuals with severe mental or emotional disturbances, where the potential consequences are not carefully weighed.⁵⁴ Those who plan crimes often expect to evade capture altogether.⁵⁷ The lack of consistent, credible empirical evidence supporting a unique deterrent effect represents a significant weakness in the utilitarian justification for capital punishment. This forces proponents to rely more heavily on other rationales, like retribution or incapacitation, as the deterrence argument remains largely speculative rather than empirically grounded.

5.4 Incapacitation

Incapacitation aims to prevent future crime by physically restraining the offender or removing their ability to harm society.43 Common methods include imprisonment, house arrest, or electronic monitoring.44

Execution represents the most absolute and permanent form of incapacitation.⁴³ Supporters argue that it is the only way to guarantee that convicted murderers, particularly those deemed incorrigibly dangerous or repeat offenders, can never kill again, thus ensuring public safety.⁵² The logic is straightforward: an executed person poses no future threat.⁵⁶

However, the incapacitation argument for the death penalty also faces strong critiques. Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP) achieves the same goal of permanently removing dangerous offenders from society, thereby ensuring public safety without resorting to execution.⁵⁶ Moreover, given the relative infrequency with which the death penalty is actually carried out in many jurisdictions that retain it (like India and the US compared to potential capacity), its overall contribution to incapacitating dangerous offenders is minimal compared to the large numbers serving life sentences.⁵⁶ To be a truly effective incapacitation strategy on a societal level, execution rates would arguably need to be far higher, raising further ethical concerns.⁵⁶ Additionally, incapacitation based on predictions of future dangerousness is problematic, as such predictions are notoriously unreliable, leading to the risk of executing individuals who might not have reoffended.⁴⁵ It essentially punishes individuals for crimes they have not yet committed.⁴⁵

5.5 Reformation / Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation focuses on preventing future crime by changing the offender’s behavior, attitudes, and skills through treatment, education, vocational training, or counseling.43 The goal is to enable the offender’s successful reintegration into society as a law-abiding citizen.55

Capital punishment is fundamentally incompatible with the goal of rehabilitation.⁵³ Execution permanently forecloses any possibility of the offender changing, expressing remorse, making amends, or contributing positively to society, even within prison walls. If reformation is considered a valid and desirable objective of the criminal justice system, then the death penalty directly contradicts this aim by denying the potential for human redemption and change.⁴⁸

Table 2: Penological Theories and Capital Punishment

Theory	Core Principle	Application to Capital Punishment (Proponent View)	Critiques / Relevance to Abolitionist View	Snippet References
Retribution	Punishment deserved for past wrong; proportionality	Death is the only proportionate penalty for heinous murder; restores moral balance	Difficulty in scaling proportionality; ignores crime causes; potential for vengeance; may conflict with human dignity.	43
Deterrence	Punishment prevents future crime through fear	Ultimate fear of death deters potential murderers (General Deterrence)	Lack of conclusive empirical evidence; questionable rational calculation assumption; potential brutalization effect; life imprisonment also deters.	12
Incapacitation	Preventing future crime by removing offender	Execution permanently guarantees offender cannot reoffend; protects society	Life Without Parole achieves same goal; infrequent application limits impact; punishes for potential future acts; prediction difficulties.	43
Rehabilitation	Preventing future crime by reforming offender	Not applicable	Fundamentally incompatible; denies possibility of change and redemption; contradicts rehabilitative goals of justice system.	43

6. Arguments Against Capital Punishment

A wide range of arguments are marshaled against the retention and use of the death penalty, rooted in human rights principles, concerns about the fallibility of justice systems, questions of efficacy, and moral objections.

6.1 Violation of Fundamental Human Rights

This is often the primary argument for abolition, particularly in international discourse.

• Right to Life: Abolitionists assert that the death penalty constitutes the ultimate violation of the inherent right to life, recognized as the most fundamental human right in instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, Article 3) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 6).¹⁴ The state, they argue, should not possess the power to extinguish human life, regardless of the crime committed.⁵⁹
• Freedom from Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: It is argued that capital punishment, in its entirety, constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (CIDT), prohibited under UDHR Article 5 and ICCPR Article 7.³⁴ This encompasses not only the method of execution itself but also the psychological torment of living under a death sentence for prolonged periods (the “death row phenomenon”) and the conditions of confinement often involving isolation.¹²

6.2 The Irreversible Risk of Executing the Innocent

Perhaps the most potent practical argument against the death penalty is its finality in the face of human fallibility.58 Once an execution is carried out, any subsequent discovery of innocence or wrongful conviction cannot be rectified.58 The documented exonerations of death row inmates across various jurisdictions (over 195 in the US since 1976 58, recent cases in Japan 38) provide stark evidence that judicial systems, despite safeguards, are capable of making fatal errors.12 The risk of executing an innocent person, however small, is considered by many to be an unacceptable price to pay for retaining capital punishment.58

6.3 Arbitrariness, Discrimination, and Systemic Flaws

Critics argue that the death penalty is often applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, violating principles of equal protection and due process.59

• Inconsistent Application: Whether a defendant receives a death sentence often seems contingent on factors unrelated to the crime’s severity, such as the geographical location of the trial, the quality of legal representation (especially for indigent defendants), the race of the victim and/or defendant, and the subjective inclinations of prosecutors and judges.⁷ This randomness undermines the principle of equal justice under law.⁵⁹
• Discrimination: Studies in various jurisdictions, particularly the US, have indicated that the death penalty is disproportionately imposed on individuals from marginalized groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, and those who are economically disadvantaged or lack education.²² There is also evidence suggesting that crimes involving white victims are more likely to result in a death sentence than those involving victims of color.⁵⁹
• Flawed Systems: The death penalty operates within criminal justice systems that are often beset by systemic problems, such as inadequate funding for legal aid, poor quality police investigations, potential for coerced confessions or prosecutorial misconduct, and limited access to forensic testing or appellate review.¹² These flaws magnify the risk of wrongful convictions and unjust death sentences.¹²

6.4 Lack of Proven Deterrent Effect

As discussed under penological theories, a major argument against capital punishment is the absence of credible evidence demonstrating that it deters homicide more effectively than long-term imprisonment.12 Abolitionists point to studies showing similar or even lower murder rates in abolitionist jurisdictions compared to retentionist ones. They argue that factors like certainty and swiftness of punishment (which are often lacking in death penalty cases due to lengthy appeals) are more critical for deterrence than severity alone, and that many murders are not committed by rational actors weighing consequences.(54)

6.5 Moral and Ethical Objections

Beyond legal and practical arguments, strong moral objections are raised.

• Sanctity of Life / State Killing: Many argue that all human life has inherent value and that the state should not deliberately take a life, regardless of the crime committed.⁵⁹ They contend that state-sanctioned killing is morally wrong, lowers society to the level of the murderer, and sends a contradictory message about the value of life.⁵⁹
• Focus on Violence: Executions are seen as a spectacle of official violence that perpetuates a cycle of violence rather than promoting reason and restorative solutions to social problems.⁵⁹

7. Arguments For Capital Punishment

Proponents of capital punishment advance several arguments grounded primarily in retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation, as well as societal values.

7.1 Retribution and Justice for Victims (“Just Deserts”)

This remains a central justification for many supporters.

• Proportionality: The argument asserts that for the ultimate crime of murder, particularly when committed with aggravating factors, the only truly proportionate punishment is death.⁴⁹ It is argued that any lesser sentence fails to adequately reflect the severity of the crime and inherently devalues the life of the victim.⁵⁴
• Moral Balance and Justice: Capital punishment is seen as necessary to restore the moral equilibrium disrupted by the heinous act.⁴⁹ It provides a sense of justice, finality, and perhaps closure for the families of victims and satisfies society’s legitimate demand that offenders receive their deserved punishment.⁴³ Proponents emphasize that this is not base vengeance but a principled requirement of justice.⁵⁴

7.2 Deterrence

While empirical evidence is contested, the deterrence argument persists.

• Potential Effect: Supporters argue that even without conclusive statistical proof, common sense dictates that the fear of death, being the ultimate human fear, is likely to deter at least some potential murderers who might not be deterred by the prospect of life imprisonment.⁷ The possibility of saving even a few innocent lives through this deterrent effect is deemed sufficient justification.⁵⁴
• Severity: The argument posits that the most severe penalty logically provides the greatest deterrent.⁵⁴

7.3 Incapacitation

This argument focuses on preventing future harm.

• Permanent Prevention: Execution offers the only absolute guarantee that a convicted murderer will never kill again.⁵⁶ This permanently protects society from individuals proven capable of the most extreme violence.⁵⁶

7.4 Reflecting Societal Outrage and Values

Capital punishment is sometimes defended for its symbolic function.

• Societal Condemnation: It serves as the ultimate expression of society’s condemnation and revulsion towards the most egregious crimes, reinforcing shared moral values and respect for the law.⁵
• Public Will: Although a controversial basis for rights-affecting policies, some proponents argue that retaining the death penalty reflects the will of the majority or the “collective conscience” of society, which demands the ultimate penalty for certain crimes.⁵

8. Synthesis and Conclusion

The constitutionality, morality, and efficacy of capital punishment remain subjects of intense and complex debate globally and within India. This report has navigated the intricate legal landscape, comparative practices, penological justifications, and ethical arguments surrounding this ultimate penalty.

In India, the constitutional framework permits the death penalty, but only when imposed through a “procedure established by law” that is fair, just, and reasonable, as mandated by Article 21. The Supreme Court, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, upheld its constitutionality while attempting to severely restrict its application through the “rarest of rare” doctrine and the mandatory weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.⁴ However, the subsequent decades have revealed a persistent challenge: the practical application of this framework often appears inconsistent and arbitrary, plagued by subjectivity in interpreting “rarest of rare” and balancing complex factors.⁷ This gap between the constitutional standard set in Bachan Singh and the reality of its administration raises profound concerns under Articles 14 and 21, fueling the argument that the system, as it operates, fails to meet constitutional muster. The 262nd Law Commission Report echoed these concerns, concluding that arbitrariness is endemic and recommending abolition for all crimes except terrorism-related offenses and waging war – an exception seemingly driven more by political pragmatism than the report’s own legal reasoning.¹¹

Comparatively, India’s position contrasts sharply with the consolidated abolitionist stance in Europe, where capital punishment is rejected primarily on fundamental human rights grounds, codified in binding regional treaties.²⁸ It also differs from the United States, where the death penalty persists but is heavily regulated by procedural safeguards stemming from Eighth Amendment jurisprudence focused on preventing arbitrariness, rather than a primary focus on the substantive right to life.²¹ Asia presents a diverse picture, ranging from high-execution states like China to retentionist democracies like Japan facing due process critiques, and nations undertaking reforms.³⁶ India sits within this spectrum, constitutionally retentionist but with significant judicial and institutional pressure towards restriction or abolition.

From a penological perspective, the justifications for capital punishment appear increasingly tenuous. The argument for deterrence lacks convincing empirical support, failing to demonstrate a unique deterrent effect compared to life imprisonment.¹² While execution offers absolute incapacitation, life imprisonment without parole serves the same purpose of societal protection.⁵⁶ Rehabilitation is fundamentally incompatible with the death penalty.⁵³ Consequently, retribution or “just deserts” remains the most coherent, though ethically debated, justification offered by proponents – the belief that for certain heinous crimes, death is the only morally proportionate punishment.⁴⁹

Ultimately, the debate over capital punishment involves balancing deeply held, often conflicting, values: the demand for retribution and societal protection against the inherent dignity of human life, the prohibition of cruel punishment, and the ever-present risk of irreversible error in fallible human justice systems. While India’s Constitution currently permits the death penalty under stringent conditions, the documented challenges in its fair and consistent application, coupled with the lack of compelling penological justification beyond retribution and the strong global trend towards abolition, lend significant weight to the arguments for its cessation. The future of capital punishment in India likely hinges on the continued evolution of judicial interpretation, societal values regarding punishment and human rights, and the political will to confront the difficult questions raised by the Law Commission and the ongoing administration of the ultimate penalty. The international context, strongly favoring abolition, will undoubtedly continue to influence this trajectory.

Works cited

1. Constitutionality of Death Penalty – Indian National Bar Association, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.indianbarassociation.org/constitutionality-of-death-penalty/
2. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) : case analysis – iPleaders, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysing-the-judgment-of-bachan-singh-v-state-of-punjab-1980/
3. Critical Analysis On Capital Punishment And Violation Of Human Rights (By – Puneetha Choudhary), accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.ijlra.com/paper-details.php?isuurl=critical-analysis-on-capital-punishment-and-violation-of-human-rights-by-puneetha-choudhary-
4. Court in Review: Death Penalty, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/court-in-review-the-death-penalty/
5. Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 1980 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/307021/
6. Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 1980 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1235094/
7. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab – The Amikus Qriae, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://theamikusqriae.com/bachan-singh-v-state-of-punjab/
8. Bachan Singh – Digital Supreme Court Reports, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=ODgwNg==
9. “THE DOCTRINE OF RAREST OF RARE”: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS – Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/THE-DOCTRINE-OF-RAREST-OF-RARE-A-CRITICAL-ANALYSIS.pdf
10. Capital punishment in India – Wikipedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_India
11. Law Commission of India Recommends Abolition of the Death …, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/law-commission-of-india-recommends-abolition-of-the-death-penalty-a-historic-first-step/
12. Report No. 262 On “The Death Penalty” – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35654105/
13. Law Commission Report on Death Penalty – SCC Online, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2015/09/01/262-law-commission-report-on-death-penalty/
14. Human Rights | Death Penalty Information Center, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/policy/human-rights
15. a critique on 262nd report of the law commission of india, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://ijlljs.in/article/a-critique-on-262nd-report-of-the-law-commission-of-india
16. negotiating constitutionalism and democracy: the 262nd report of the law commission of india – Socio Legal Review, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.sociolegalreview.com/_files/ugd/d56aa6_1bdc772b1a5242d985fba7ac73131001.pdf?index=true
17. Negotiating Constitutionalism and Democracy: The 262nd Report of the Law Commission of India on Death Penalty, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://repository.nls.ac.in/slr/vol12/iss1/4/
18. NEGOTIATING CONSTITUTIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY: THE 262ND REPORT OF THE LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA ON DEATH PENALTY – Manupatra, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/A23C371C-CD67-44A9-B2BC-B62BF71CDE5A.pdf
19. Report No. 262. The Death Penalty – WCADP, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://worldcoalition.org/document/report-no-262-the-death-penalty/
20. Capital punishment in the United States – Wikipedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States
21. Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/background/history-of-the-death-penalty/constitutionality-of-the-death-penalty-in-america
22. death penalty | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/death_penalty
23. Amdt8.4.9.4 Gregg v. Georgia and Limits on Death Penalty – Constitution Annotated, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt8-3-9-4/ALDE_00000970/
24. Furman v. Georgia (1972) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/furman_v_georgia_(1972)
25. Furman v. Georgia | 408 U.S. 238 (1972) – Justia – Supreme Court, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/238/
26. Furman v. Georgia | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/furman-v-georgia
27. Georgia – Death Penalty Information Center, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/state-by-state/georgia
28. Abolition of the death penalty, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/b/a/94246.pdf
29. Capital punishment in Europe – Wikipedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Europe
30. Abolition of the Death Penalty in Europe, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.coe.int/en/web/abolition-death-penalty/abolition-of-death-penalty-in-europe
31. International texts on the death penalty – Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/human-rights/abolition-of-the-death-penalty/international-texts-on-the-death/
32. Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances – Explanatory Report – [2002] COETSER 2 (3 May 2002) – World Legal Information Institute (WorldLII), accessed on April 19, 2025, http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/COETSER/2002/2.html
33. EU GUIDELINES ON THE DEATH PENALTY – EEAS, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/08_hr_guidelines_death_penalty_en.pdf
34. PROTOCOL No. 13 TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, CONCERNING THE ABOLITION OF THE D – The Council of Europe, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://70.coe.int/pdf/library_collection_p13_ets187e_eng.pdf
35. Entry into force of Armenia’s ratification of the European Protocol for abolition in all circumstances – WCADP, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://worldcoalition.org/2024/03/22/entry-into-force-of-armenias-ratification-of-the-european-protocol-for-abolition-in-all-circumstances/
36. Amnesty International Global Report (2024): Lowest Number of Countries Carried Out Highest Number of Recorded Executions in a Decade | Death Penalty Information Center, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/amnesty-international-global-report-2024-lowest-number-of-countries-carried-out-highest-number-of-recorded-executions-in-a-decade
37. Death Penalty – Amnesty International, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/
38. Global: Executions soar to highest number in almost a decade – Amnesty International, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/05/global-executions-soar-highest-number-in-decade/
39. Human rights in China – Amnesty International, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/east-asia/china/report-china/
40. Japan: Death Penalty Acquittal Shows Need for Legal Reform – Human Rights Watch, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/01/16/japan-death-penalty-acquittal-shows-need-legal-reform
41. Human rights in Japan – Amnesty International, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/east-asia/japan/
42. Joint Letter: South Korea’s Abolition of the Death Penalty | Human Rights Watch, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/27/joint-letter-south-koreas-abolition-death-penalty
43. 1.5 The Purposes of Punishment | Criminal Law – Lumen Learning, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/
44. 1.5: The Purposes of Punishment – Social Sci LibreTexts, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Under_Construction/Purgatory/JPP_207_Substantive_Criminal_Law/01%3A_Introduction_to_Criminal_Law/1.05%3A_The_Purposes_of_Punishment
45. Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice Module 7 Key Issues: 2- Justifying punishment in the community, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-7/key-issues/2–justifying-punishment-in-the-community.html
46. 2 Justifying Punishment – Sage Publishing, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/16067_03_Cavadino_02.pdf
47. Theories of punishment – Articles – Manupatra, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Theories-of-punishment
48. Punishment | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/punishment
49. Why Do We Punish? Deterrence and Just Deserts as Motives for Punishment, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://jeremy-brown-vpk4.squarespace.com/s/8-Why-do-we-punish-Deterrence-and-just-deserts-as-motives-for-punishment-2002.pdf
50. Capital Punishment | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/death-penalty-capital-punishment/
51. Justification of Sentencing Decisions: Development of a Ratio-Based Measure Tested on Child Neglect Cases – PMC, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8796961/
52. Punishment – Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Retribution – Britannica, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/punishment/General-deterrence
53. Module 8: Capital Punishment – DCL: Vice, Crime, and American Law, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://web.uncg.edu/dcl/courses/viceCrime/m8/default.asp
54. Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/resources/high-school/about-the-death-penalty/arguments-for-and-against-the-death-penalty
55. Module 7: Punishment—Retribution, Rehabilitation, and Deterrence, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://web.uncg.edu/dcl/courses/vicecrime/pdf/m7.pdf
56. Capital Punishment | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-223?p=emailACioBV.bvKpTQ&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-223
57. Death Penalty | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Capital Punishment, Prison, Felony, & Life in Prison | Britannica, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/procon/death-penalty-debate
58. Why we’re working to end the death penalty – Amnesty International, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org.uk/end-death-penalty
59. The Case Against the Death Penalty, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/Bedau%20–%20The%20Case%20Against%20the%20Death%20Penalty.mht
60. The Case Against the Death Penalty | American Civil Liberties Union, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.aclu.org/documents/case-against-death-penalty
61. INCAPACITATION THEORY, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://marisluste.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/incapacitation-theory.pdf
62. Punishment – Rehabilitation, Deterrence, Retribution | Britannica, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/punishment/Rehabilitation
63. Human Rights and the Death Penalty | American Civil Liberties Union, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.aclu.org/issues/human-rights/human-rights-and-death-penalty
64. HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE DEATH PENALTy, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/Res/death_penalty_fact_sheet_u_s_2.pdf
65. The Price of Justice: Interest-Convergence, Cost, and the Anti-Death Penalty Movement, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=nulr