The challenge of reforming the death penalty

There has been an acute and persistent crisis in the fairness of capital punishment in India for several decades, which has been acknowledged in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India by former judges, lawyers, researchers etc. The crisis at its core has been a concern that there is widespread arbitrariness in the sentencing procedures that enforce the death penalty, and a significant concern that during the sentencing phase there is hardly any relevant information about the accused in the courtroom. enters. recent court decision Manoj and others. vs state mp attempts to address this long neglected yet important aspect of the death penalty. this specific effort in Manoj The procedural unfairness in sentencing by the lower courts must be seen with the apparent inconvenience of the Court in the past year.

personal punishment

The constitutionality of the death penalty was upheld in 1980. Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab, which laid great emphasis on ‘individual punishment’ and called upon the courts to consider the ‘offence’ and the circumstances of the accused. However, since Bachan Singh There has been disagreement over which cases warrant the application of the death penalty and the nature of information about the accused relevant to the sentence. Quality legal representation has always been a concern as most of the prisoners are poor. As a result, little effort is made to collect sentencing information, and little is known about the accused at the time of sentencing.

From September 2021, during Justice NV Ramana’s tenure as Chief Justice of India, three benches of the Supreme Court heard arguments in 13 death penalty appeals and delivered judgments in 10 of these cases, resulting in three acquittals in one case. And in the rest, commutation took place. , A common thread in these decisions is a deep and acute concern around procedural fairness on the imposition of the death penalty and the lack of sufficient information about the accused.

A bench headed by Justice UU Lalit (and also comprising Justices Ravindra Bhat, Bela Trivedi and PS Narasimha) has been particularly concerned about the lack of information on the accused. Recognizing the centrality of such information for a fair sentencing process, the Bench passed an order Manoj Calling for reports from probation officers, prison officers and mental health professionals in September 2021. In a recent final judgment, the Supreme Court took significant steps towards realizing the ‘individual sentencing investigation’ envisaged by the court. Bachan Singh 42 years ago.

quenching range

Punishment occurs when an accused is found guilty of a crime. Here the circumstances of the accused are considered. This requires a broad-based investigation because scientific theories no longer view the accused as individuals who, of their own free will, make “bad choices” regardless of their past or present circumstances. Contemporary understanding of criminogenic factors among scholars and researchers focuses on analyzing past social history, behavior and life circumstances of the accused as human behavior is a product of the complex interplay of personal and environmental factors.

Significant efforts have been made by the courts to bring to the fore such information. However, in the decision of the Supreme Court Manoj It is important for two reasons: first, it signals a shift towards an evidence-based investigation that invites expert opinion and reports from a wide range of disciplines. Second, it expands the scope of mitigating factors by calling out reports that bring out pre-crime details such as socio-economic status, education, family background and post-crime details such as inmate’s conduct in prison. Mitigating factors related to a person’s life circumstances may help determine punishment. To understand the relevance of mitigating factors, it is important to relate it to a framework that allows it in the context of the individual’s life choices and moral culpability, which is the essence of a proper sentence.

life history perspective

The life-history approach provides a framework that enables a person’s life circumstances to be seen as interconnected. For example, socio-economic conditions have been recognized as a mitigating factor by the courts in various death penalty cases. What makes it compelling is when it is viewed as intertwined with other factors, that is, looking at how poverty affects an individual’s access to housing, education and health care, which It later influences and shapes their life choices.

The Supreme Court has determined for the first time that information such as early family background that brings to the fore any history of violence or neglect (also called remote factors or experiences) is a relevant mitigating factor. Such negative experiences usually accumulate over time and, therefore, the life-history approach is uniquely suited for such investigation. It provides insight into how early life circumstances shape a person’s character and influence their actions as adults.

While there is an expectation that the lower courts will follow the procedure adopted by the Supreme Court in awarding sentences in death penalty cases, the real challenge will lie with equipping the courts to understand such rich information. The traditional checklist-based approach to submission of mitigation seriously deviates from the requirements of individual punishment that are the most fundamental tenets of the criminal justice system. Further, keeping in view the introduction of non-legal expertise in the courts, the courts will need to equip themselves to appreciate the evidence presented. Questions on conflicting findings in reports and opinions submitted to the court during sentencing will also need to be addressed, taking into account existing evidence standards and judicial dictatorship, which suggest that courts should consider the limitations of the Evidence Act in capital punishment. should not be bound by

decision in Manoj Indeed a more meaningful and informed sentencing is a positive step towards investigation. However, further investigation into the complex questions surrounding sentencing will be indispensable to ensure procedural fairness under the death penalty.

CP Shruti and Shivani Mishra are with Project 39A, National Law University Delhi. As part of providing free legal aid, Project 39A represented the appellants in ‘Manoj v State of Madhya Pradesh’. Views expressed are personal