With a mock debate on Capital Punishment, the Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum conducted its last “Virtual Canteen” event recently.
Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, Advocate Shweta Kapoor, and Advocate Kritika Gupta debated for the motion, while Advocate Kirti Singh, Dr. Anup Surendranath, and Advocate Anubha Rastogi presented views against the motion. The session was moderated by Advocate Saumya Tandon and Prachi Dutta.
“Justice has to be for the person that has committed the crime; justice cannot be in a future perspective looking at what another man may do,” said Senior Advocate Luthra and set the ball rolling. “Justice cannot, in today’s day and age, think that criminal law is reformative,” said Luthra while commenting on the failure of Tihar Jail and juvenile justice homes’ in reforming individuals.
“Mercy for an accused should be balanced with mercy for the victim,” Luthra argued strongly, referencing the horrific 2012 Delhi Rape Case.
Associating the death penalty with various theories of criminology, she added, “The theory of deterrence is highly misplaced, highly illogical, and therefore I come back to a theory of retributive justice.”
“Mercy for an accused should be balanced with mercy for the victim,” Luthra argued strongly, referencing the horrific 2012 Delhi Rape Case.
Advocate Kritika Gupta pitted the extremes against each other. She cited Singapore and Japan, which are known to be trigger happy, as having incredibly low crime rates, whereas Venezuela and South Africa, which do not practice capital punishment to have significantly high rates of crime.
Gupta insisted, however, that the argument that we must hang offenders because we cannot afford to keep them in jails is crude and tone-deaf. Advocate Shweta Kapoor, speaking for the motion, pointed out that the criminal justice system has evolved to be more punitive in nature for a reason.
She even pointed out that the recent election in South Africa saw citizens campaigning for the reinstatement of capital punishment.
Gupta insisted, however, that the argument that we must hang offenders because we cannot afford to keep them in jails is crude and tone-deaf.
Advocate Shweta Kapoor, speaking for the motion, pointed out that the criminal justice system has evolved to be more punitive in nature for a reason. She observed that some individuals were beyond reform.
She cited the horrific Ranga-Billa case wherein two children were kidnapped for ransom and mercilessly killed once the kidnappers learned that their father was a naval officer. One of the children was allegedly raped before she was killed.
Prof. Surendranath strongly countered this claim. He cited the research conducted by his organisation, Project 39A at NLU-Delhi, which found that 75% of those on death row in India are from poor backgrounds. In fact, 42% of death row prisoners belonging to SC and ST categories.
“There are several studies in the US, Europe, and Singapore, of people who have raped, and murdered victims at whim. These are the people who we want to deter through the death penalty,” said Kapoor.
She remarked, “These people (death row convicts) come from a mixed bag of society.”
Prof. Surendranath strongly countered this claim. He cited the research conducted by his organisation, Project 39A at NLU-Delhi, which found that 75% of those on death row in India are from poor backgrounds. In fact, 42% of death row prisoners belonging to SC and ST categories. He pointed out how bad legal representation is there for those who are eventually sent to death row.
Advocate Kriti Singh opposed the death penalty on moral grounds and as an ineffective deterrent. She argued that the death penalty cannot be awarded in a truly fair and standardised manner.
“ Death row inmates are kept in barracks that always have a view of the gallows, their lights are switched on for the entirety of the night, they are not allowed to meet others, they are denied all sorts of opportunity, and it is that daily anticipation of death, of not knowing if you will live or die, that is the true suffering of the death penalty.”
He urged that wanting to take someone’s life as a system also means that we must invest in reformative resources.
Advocate Kriti Singh opposed the death penalty on moral grounds and as an ineffective deterrent. She argued that the death penalty cannot be awarded in a truly fair and standardised manner. Moreover, the cruel and cold finality of the death penalty makes it qualitatively different from all other forms of punishment.
“The death penalty serves no purpose which cannot be served by a life sentence and commits the additional moral wrong of allowing the state to take a life,” she observed.
“When an offence occurs, it is the state that has failed twice because it has permitted a person to become a victim and also failed to prevent the accused from committing the offence,” said Rastogi.
Advocate Rastogi staunchly countered the claim that citizens look up to the state to right the wrongs committed against them.
“When an offence occurs, it is the state that has failed twice because it has permitted a person to become a victim and also failed to prevent the accused from committing the offence,” said Rastogi.
Rastogi identified the role played by public outrage in escalating the extent of punishment imposed on wrongdoers, censuring the state’s habit of taking sides and setting out to avenge the victim.
Closing the debate, Advocate on Record Sunieta Ojha said, “the death penalty stays on in the statute as a necessary evil and the judicial dictum of rarest of rare case will perhaps be our guide in the next couple of years until the debate is concluded.”
(Niharika Ravi is a law student at NMIMS, Navi Mumbai and an intern with The Leaflet.)
