Similarity Report ID: oid:26066:460005693

PAPER NAME

0517100145

WORD COUNT CHARACTER COUNT

4680 Words 27331 Characters

PAGE COUNT FILE SIZE

12 Pages 635.4KB

SUBMISSION DATE REPORT DATE

May 17, 2025 5:06 PM UTC May 17, 2025 5:08 PM UTC

21% Overall Similarity

The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.
13% Internet database 6% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
20% Submitted Works database

Summary
ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
POLICIES.
Submitted by – Tejaswini Panda
Class Roll No.- 119
Exam Roll No.- 8510121113
Paper No.- 04

Abstract
2
The death penalty is still one of the most morally debated elements of criminal justice
systems around the globe. Its usage poses serious ethical challenges, particularly in the
1
areas of the right to life, the possibility of judicial mistakes, and its disproportionate effect
on marginalized populations, even if it is permitted by law in India and a number of other
nations. In the implementation of capital punishment legislation, this article examines the
ethical obligations of different legal actors, including legislators, judges, prosecutors, and
defense attorneys. The paper uses a doctrinal and analytical strategy to investigate the
33
philosophical arguments for and against the death penalty, covering utilitarian, retributive,
42
and rights-based perspectives. Additionally, it examines the Indian judiciary's use of the
"rarest of rare" concept, inconsistencies in sentencing, and worries about procedural
fairness. The essay contends that the moral execution of the death penalty is beset with
difficulties that call into question its ongoing legitimacy in a democratic, rights-based
society by interacting with Indian case law, Law Commission reports, and international
human rights norms. The study ultimately argues that a reconsideration of capital
punishment laws is necessary, whether through strict ethical reforms or a shift toward
complete abolition.
Introduction
There has long been discussion on death sentence, often known as the capital punishment,
from a moral, legal, and philosophical standpoint. Although many states see it as the best
way to administer justice and discourage the worst offences, the irreversible deprivation of
life is also the most extreme use of governental authority. Subject judicial discretion and
2 10
procedural protections, the death penalty is still lawfully permissible in India under Article
21 of th Constitution. Although the Supreme Court has tried to restrict its usage by
1
establishing the "rarest of rare" doctrine in Bachan Singh v. Stat of Punjab (1980), its
application has been characterized by ambiguities, arbitrary interpretations, and
occasionally sociopolitical influences.
1
This essay aims to move beyond the death penalty's legality and instead examine the moral
obligations associated with its application. The emphasis is on how the legal system,
which includes the legislature, the courts, th prosecution, and the defence, must carry out
its responsibilities in a way that upholds justice, fairnes, and human dignity, in adition to
2
whether the death penalty is warranted. The death penalty's morality is coming under more
 2
and more examination in light of the worldwide human rights debate and new abolitionist
jurisprudence.
The moral justifications for punishment, the dangers of judicial error and arbitrariness, and
the structural inequalities that the poor and marginalized suffer will all be covered in this
course. It also looks at the moral conundrum faced by lawyers who have to strike a
balance between their responsibilities to the state and their duties to human rights and
constitutional morality. This paper attempts to critically evaluate whether the death penalty
32
can ever be applied ethically—or whether abolition is the only correct response in a
democratic society governed by the rule of law—using doctrinal and analytical research
methods, including a review of significant Indian judgments, Law Commission reports,
and international treaties.

Theoretical Framework
1. Justifications Based on Retribution and Utility
Capital punishment, on the other hand, is justified from a utilitarian perspective as a means
8
of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number by preventing future offenses and
incapacitating dangerous offenders. The death penalty, according to its proponents, deters
would-be criminals by instilling in them the fear of the ultimate penalty, which in turn
lowers crime rates overall. 2 But there are still ethical questions about inflicting
irreversible harm based on uncertain benefits because the empirical efficacy of this
deterrence is still debated.
2. The Concept of Moral Responsibility and Kantian Ethics
Based on the ideas of moral responsibility and human autonomy, Immanuel Kant's
deontological ethics offers a strong ethical justification for capital punishment. Kant
contends that people have rational agency and must be held responsible for their decisions;
the punishment's severity should be commensurate with the offender's guilt. According to
Kant, capital punishment for murder is a categorical imperative of justice that reflects
respect for the moral law and the offender's autonomous decision to break it. According to
this framework, punishment should be administered as a moral obligation that respects
rationality and justice, not as a tool for achieving a specific goal.
However, Kantian ethics also mandates that punishment be given fairly and with complete
11
respect for the offender's dignity, which raises concerns about possible miscarriages of
justice and the moral boundaries of governmental authority. The difficulty lies in balancing
unquestionable moral obligations with the actualities of how the law is administered.
23
3. Inherent Worth of Life and Human Rights
40
From a human rights perspective, the death penalty falls within the larger framework of
41
basic rights, notably the right to life and dignity as protected by international treaties and
12
constitutional law. 6 Article 21 of the Indian Constitution imposes strict procedural
13
safeguards on capital punishment, guaranteeing the protection of life and personal liberty.
6
The inherent dignity of the human person is the core argument against the death penalty,
50
emphasizing that no state or individual has the moral authority to take life arbitrarily or
irrevocably.
1
International human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), support the abolition of the death penalty and call for it to be
restricted to the "most serious crimes," while also emphasizing the importance of fair trial
8
guarantees and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. This normative
1
framework pushes for a reevaluation of the death penalty's moral legitimacy in light of
changing standards of decency and justice.
2
Capital Punishment in India: Legal and Ethical Dimensions
1. Constitutional Provisions and Judicial Interpretations
13
Capital punishment in India is constitutionally sanctioned under Article 21, which
46
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty but allows deprivation of life according to
2
“procedure established by law. ” The Indian Penal Code (IPC) prescribes the death penalty
for offenses such as murder (Section 302), terrorism-related crimes (Section 302 read with
3
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act), and certain offenses against the state.
21
The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in interpreting Article 21’s
36 20
safeguards in the context of the death penalty. The Court recognizes that while the right to
life is fundamental, it is not absolute and can be curtailed in the rarest of cases, ensuring
1
that capital punishment is imposed with utmost caution and strict adherence to due
process.
31
2. The "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine (Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab)
1
The landmark judgment in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab formulated the “rarest of rare”
doctrine to circumscribe the application of the death penalty. This doctrine directs courts to
2
impose capital punishment only when the alternative of life imprisonment is
“unquestionably foreclosed” by the gravity of the crime and circumstances.
While the doctrine aims to balance justice and mercy, its vague and subjective criteria
have led to inconsistent sentencing and ethical concerns regarding arbitrariness and
judicial discretion. Despite attempts at judicial clarity, the application remains prone to
socio-political influence and lacks uniform standards.
3. Role of Mercy Petitions and Clemency Powers
10
The President of India, under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, exercises clemency
22
powers to grant pardons or commute sentences, providing a final safeguard against
3
miscarriages of justice in death penalty cases. Mercy petitions serve as a critical ethical
checkpoint, considering factors like mental health, prolonged incarceration, or procedural
irregularities.
However, delays in processing mercy petitions often prolong the agony of condemned
prisoners, raising concerns of cruel and inhuman treatment. Moreover, the clemency
process is criticised for its lack of transparency and potential political considerations,
which undermine its ethical legitimacy.
4. Ethical Concerns in Application: Socioeconomic Bias, Legal Representation, and
Delay
Ethical challenges in India’s capital punishment system extend beyond jurisprudential
debates to systemic inequalities. Marginalized communities and economically
disadvantaged accused often face poorer quality legal representation, leading to an
increased risk of wrongful convictions or disproportionate sentencing.
Additionally, prolonged delays in trials and executions cause undue psychological trauma,
violating the ethical principle of timely justice. The uneven application of the death
penalty also reflects implicit socioeconomic and caste biases, contravening the
constitutional guarantee of equality before the law.
Comparative Study
1. Ethical Trends in Retentionist and Abolitionist Nations
3
The death penalty is still a controversial subject worldwide, with nations split between
1
abolitionist and retentionist positions. Over 140 nations have abolished the death penalty
in law or practice as of 2025, demonstrating a rising ethical consensus that it infringes
3
upon the right to life and human dignity. The death penalty is morally indefensible,
abolitionist nations contend, due to the possibility of killing innocent people, the unequal
application of the punishment, and the inconclusive data on its deterrent effect.
15
On the other hand, retentionist nations such as India, China, Iran, and some regions of the
United States hold that capital punishment satisfies justice, deterrent, and retributive
demands in cases of severe criminality. But even within these states, ethical discussions
continue to evolve under the impact of judicial reform, civil society activism, and
international human rights commitments.
2. Case Study: South Africa, Japan, and the United States
2
Despite the fact that its use differs by state, the United States is still one of the few liberal
2
democracies that still have the death penalty. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has
affirmed its constitutionality, it has also set restrictions, such as prohibiting the execution
2
of juveniles and those with intellectual impairments. Racial prejudice, wrongful
convictions, and botched executions are the subject of ethical discussions. Notably, an
increasing number of states have outlawed the practice or implemented moratoria, which
suggests a change in public attitude.
Japan: Although Japan maintains the death penalty and applies it under stringent
procedural safeguards, there has been growing public outrage over the secrecy surrounding
executions and the psychological harm inflicted upon death row inmates. Public opinion in
Japan generally supports the death penalty, but worldwide scrutiny has heightened ethical
discussions about whether it aligns with democratic and human rights values.
35
South Africa: The Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled in State v. Makwanyane
2
(1995) that the death penalty is unconstitutional.
citing the right to life, dignity, and the ban on harsh, inhuman, and cruel punishments, the
death penalty was abolished.
 3
its post-apartheid Constitution's prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment.The
decision has received worldwide praise for incorporating human rights principles into
constitutional interpretation and for establishing an ethical bar for transitional
democracies.
3. International Human Rights Standards (UN resolutions, ICCPR)
6
Capital punishment is increasingly seen by international law as incompatible with current
17
human rights norms. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
1
recognizes the right to life in Article 6 and places severe restrictions on the death penalty,
urging its abolition in nations that have not yet done so. The total abolition is specifically
required by the ICCPR's Second Optional Protocol.
Since 2007, United Nations General Assembly resolutions have continuously called upon
member states to enact moratoria on executions in preparation for eventual abolition.
1
These tools represent a worldwide ethical move toward acknowledging that the death
penalty is intrinsically in conflict with the principles of proportionality, dignity, and
justice, all of which are essential to contemporary human rights legislation.
Legal Stakeholders' Moral Obligations
1
The ethical use of the death penalty depends not just on rules or regulations but also on the
44
behavior and obligations of important players in the legal system. Every participant in the
legal system has a moral obligation to make sure that capital punishment adheres to
constitutional safeguards, human rights, and ethical norms.
1. Judges: Moral Agency and Impartiality
In death penalty cases, judges have a key role in determining whether the punishment is
warranted under the "rarest of rare" concept by interpreting the law. Judicial impartiality is
a moral imperative that necessitates a thorough understanding of the irreversible
5
consequences of the death penalty and the obligations it entails. To prevent
disproportionate sentencing, judges must consider mitigating and aggravating factors
while using legal logic and moral agency.
Ethical prudence is crucial since mistakes in judgment may have irreparable repercussions.
The judge must prioritize the rule of justice tempered with humanity over public opinion,
politics, or emotional urges.
2. The Prosecutors' Discretion and Responsibility for Justice
Because prosecutors have the authority to suggest capital charges, their ethical duty is
enormous. Their main responsibility is to administer justice, even if they are supposed to
speak for the state. Objective evidence evaluation, complete disclosure of any exculpatory
evidence, and consideration of the defendant's history are all necessary components of
ethical prosecution behavior.
The due process is undermined and arbitrariness is introduced by the improper use of
prosecutorial discretion, such as by withholding evidence, overcharging, or seeking the
death penalty without sufficient justification. Such actions become morally untenable as
well as unethical in cases punishable by death.
3. The Role of the Defense Counsel in Ensuring a Fair Trial
Defense attorneys have an ethical obligation to make sure the defendant gets a skilled and
strong defense. The stakes are life and death in capital punishment cases, which increases
9
this obligation. The right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution includes
effective legal representation, and inadequate defense may amount to a miscarriage of
justice.
In India, many death row inmates come from socioeconomically disadvantaged
backgrounds and depend on court-appointed attorneys who may be unmotivated or lack
resources. The defense attorney has an ethical obligation to address these restrictions in
9
order to protect the rights of the accused, dispute procedural errors, and make sure the case
is fully litigated.
4. The Legislature: Striking a Balance Between Ethical Standards and Public
Sentiment
The duty of developing criminal policy lies with lawmakers. Although public opinion and
electoral considerations may sway legislatures, they are morally bound to enact legislation
that upholds justice, equality, and human dignity. Whether capital punishment should be
retained or abolished cannot be decided by majoritarian beliefs alone; rather, it must be
considered from a principled perspective that takes into account international human rights
obligations and constitutional morality.
The ethical responsibility of the legislature includes making sure that death penalty
legislation is precisely worded, consistently enforced, and regularly examined in light of
changing norms of decency and fairness.
1
abolished the death penalty, citing the right to life, dignity, and the prohibition of cruel,
inhuman or degrading punishment under its post-apartheid Constitution.The judgment has
been lauded globally for embedding human rights principles into constitutional
interpretation and for setting an ethical standard in transitional democracies.

29
1. Constitution of India, art. 21.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860, §§ 302, 364A; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, § 3.
16
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
4. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684.
5. R. Krishnamurthy, “Judicial Discretion and the Death Penalty,” (2017) 59 JILI 34.
Ethical Responsibilities of Legal Stakeholders
In a capital punishment system, the legal environment is more than just a collection of
regulations and organizations; it is a moral apparatus made up of unique players who have
significant power over choices about life and death. The ethical obligations of judges,
45
prosecutors, defense lawyers, and lawmakers are increased by the fact that the penalty is
irreversible and the system is susceptible to bias, prejudice, and capriciousness. In capital
cases, justice is not only a procedural requirement but also a moral one.
1. Judges: Moral agency and impartiality
In capital punishment cases, judges serve as the ultimate protectors of constitutional and
ethical standards. Their function goes beyond simply interpreting the law; it also includes
protecting human dignity. Judicial ethics are based on the concept of impartiality, which is
25
enshrined in Article 14 and the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21.
In imposing the death penalty, the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly stressed the
1
necessity of judicial restraint and ethical introspection. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,
the Court maintained that before deciding on the death penalty, judges should take into
19
account not only the offense but also the offender, including his socio-economic
background, likelihood of rehabilitation, and any extenuating circumstances. The moral
19
implications of killing someone necessitate that this balance between aggravating and
mitigating circumstances be maintained.
14
In addition, the "rarest of rare" concept was further attempted to be clarified by the Court
in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab by providing illustrative guidelines, but there was still
opportunity for judicial discretion. The significance of moral agency is highlighted by this
subjectivity. Judges must recognize the limitations of certainty in criminal trials, steer clear
of their own biases, and exercise restraint when the case is obscured by social inequality or
doubt. In accordance with the constitutional commitment to dignity, a judge should
ethically favor life over death.
2. Prosecutors: Discretion and Responsibilities to Justice
The prosecutor is frequently referred to as "the minister of justice" because his moral
responsibility extends far beyond just obtaining convictions. Prosecutors are essential
arbiters of justice in capital cases because they have the authority to advocate for or
against the death sentence. This discretion must be used ethically, objectively, impartially,
and free from any outside influence from politics or the general public.
12
According to the 262nd Report of the Law Commission of India, in death penalty cases,
prosecutorial discretion might be subject to abuse or arbitrariness if it is not regulated by
clear standards. Ethical issues arise when prosecutors seek the death penalty in politically
sensitive cases or suppress mitigating evidence that could lessen guilt. Additionally,
research indicates that prosecutors have a propensity to overcharge defendants from
marginalized groups, which is an ethical failing in maintaining equality before the law.
 15
Rigorous adherence to the principles of proportionality, respect for the rights of the
accused, and recognition of the sanctity of life are all requirements for ethical
38
prosecutorial conduct. The Supreme Court stated in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra that the prosecutor's job is to help the court in its search for justice, not to get
a conviction at any cost.
3. Defense Counsel: Making sure the trial is fair
The last line of defense against judicial misconduct is the defense attorney. As
demonstrated by many international and Indian cases, ineffective assistance of counsel can
result in unjust executions in capital punishment cases. The Indian Constitution's Article
1
22(1) provides the right to counsel, and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that this
right encompasses the right to competent representation.
Nevertheless, in India, a significant portion of capital cases include impoverished
defendants being represented by understaffed, inexperienced, or unmotivated legal aid
5
attorneys. According to a 2016 research by the Centre on the Death Penalty at National
Law University Delhi, attorneys in several capital cases neglected to call expert witnesses,
look into mitigating circumstances, or even meet the defendant prior to trial.
This indicates an ethical issue in the legal aid system. Defense lawyers have an ethical
duty to treat their clients with respect, defend them vigorously within the law, and use
facts and arguments to refute the State's account. Failing to do so not only jeopardizes
legal rights but also breaks the moral imperative to protect human life whenever feasible.
The Legislature: Striking a Balance Between Ethical Principles and Popular Opinion
1
As the body that establishes the legal framework under which the death penalty functions,
the legislature is collectively morally accountable for its continued use. Lawmakers have
to tread a fine line between giving the public what they want in terms of severe penalties
and maintaining constitutional principles.
Capital punishment is frequently backed by public sentiment in retaliation for heinous
crimes, particularly those involving terrorism, rape, or children. But ethical legislation
39
must not be solely based on popular opinion. The Supreme Court stressed in Naz
Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi that legislative choices must be guided by
constitutional morality rather than majority morality.
In acknowledgement of changing human rights standards, ethical legislative measures
48
have caused several nations throughout the world to outlaw the death penalty. In recent
49
years, though, the Indian Parliament has broadened the use of capital punishment, such as
7
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684.
2. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470.
3. Law Commission of India, 262nd Report on the Death Penalty, 2015, para 4.3.1.
51
4. S. Bedi, “Caste and Conviction: Structural Bias in Indian Death Penalty Sentencing,” (2017) 59 JILI 48.
4
5. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.
6. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1.
26
7. Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2009) 160 DLT 277.
 14
by establishing the death penalty for particular sexual offenses under the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2018. The tension between evidence-based, ethically conscious policy
and symbolic law-making is shown by this trend.
Legislators have an ethical duty to carefully consider if the death penalty is fair or just
retribution. When developing criminal justice policy, they must take into account empirical
1
evidence such as the risk of wrongful execution, the lack of deterrent effect, and systemic
prejudices. Since they are representatives of a constitutional democracy, they have a moral
obligation to protect the dignity of all citizens, even those who have been found guilty.
34
In a capital punishment regime, the legal ecosystem is not merely a set of rules and
institutions, but a moral machinery with distinct actors exercising profound influence over
life and death decisions. The ethical responsibilities of these actors—judges, prosecutors,
defense counsel, and legislators—are heightened due to the irreversible nature of the
punishment and the system's vulnerability to error, prejudice, and arbitrariness. Ensuring
justice in capital cases is not only a procedural mandate but a deeply ethical obligation.
Capital Punishment Alternatives
The moral discussion is progressively shifting toward practical solutions that strike a
6
balance between justice, deterrence, and human rights as the movement to abolish the
1
death penalty gains traction worldwide. The principles of rehabilitation, proportionality,
and the sanctity of life underpin these options. The two main options discussed here—life
imprisonment without parole and restorative justice—provide morally sound strategies
that prioritize social order while reducing irreversible harm.
1. Life Sentence Without Parole (LWOP)
1
In retentionist and abolitionist jurisdictions alike, life imprisonment without the option of
parole (LWOP) has become the most popular replacement for the death penalty. From an
ethical standpoint, LWOP is thought to be a more compassionate penalty because it
1
ensures the offender is permanently removed from society without the irreversibility and
moral weight of execution.
24
The Supreme Court of India established a unique category of punishment between life
imprisonment and death—in effect, establishing a judicially mandated LWOP sentence—
37
in Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka to guarantee justice in borderline
18
circumstances without resorting to the death penalty. The Court stressed that if life
3 18
imprisonment, even without remission, can achieve the goals of justice, the death penalty
should not be used.
The Ethical Benefits of LWOP:
• Reversibility: If later evidence establishes innocence, an unjust LWOP sentence can be
overturned, as opposed to death.
• Equal deterrence: Empirical research reveals no discernible distinction in deterrent
impact between the death penalty and LWOP.
• Avoiding capriciousness: Capital sentencing is frequently impacted by extralegal
variables such socioeconomic position, caste, or the caliber of legal counsel. By
standardizing punishment, LWOP minimizes this danger.
Nonetheless, there are ethical issues with LWOP. Critics contend that it may be tantamount
to a "slow death" by incarceration, especially if prison conditions are terrible or the
prisoner is denied rehabilitation. However, in comparison to execution, it provides the
moral benefit of protecting life and the chance for moral introspection or change.
2. Strategies for Restorative Justice
The moral basis of punishment is changed by restorative justice (RJ) from retribution to
rehabilitation. Rather than just state-administered penalties, it attempts to remedy the harm
done by crime via community participation, accountability, and dialogue.
In several jurisdictions, RJ has been expanded to include serious crimes, such as murder,
even though it has historically been used for minor offenses. By placing reconciliation
over punishment, restorative measures have successfully handled mass violence in nations
23
like New Zealand, South Africa (Truth and Reconciliation Commission), and Rwanda
(post-genocide).
The Moral Benefits of Restorative Justice:
22
• Humanizing criminals: Respects the inherent worth of every individual by
acknowledging the possibility of change and rehabilitation.
• Victim-centered approach: Moves past the binary of punishment and acquittal by giving
victims a voice, closure, and sometimes compensation.
• Group therapy: Addresses the underlying causes of crime, such as trauma or
marginalization, in order to foster social healing and lower recidivism.
Restorative justice is still underutilized in India, particularly in cases punishable by death.
Discussions on victim-offender mediation and community conferencing, as well as pilot
models, are becoming more popular, though. The Justice Verma Committee Report (2013)
emphasized the revolutionary potential of restorative procedures in sexual violence cases.
Even though RJ cannot completely take the place of punitive justice in all capital offenses,
especially those with high societal outrage and gravity, it provides an ethical complement
or post-sentencing component, particularly in situations where death or LWOP do not meet
the victim's needs or rehabilitate the offender.
Conclusion
Capital punishment is still one of the most ethically controversial practices in
contemporary legal systems. This study has shown that its use is not just a legal issue but a
11
serious ethical dilemma that affects the conscience of everyone involved in the criminal
justice system. Arguments in favor of the death penalty on the basis of retribution and
deterrence are growingly challenged by human rights norms, empirical ineffectiveness,
and the irreversibility of the punishment.
The duties of legal stakeholders are given top priority when viewed from an ethical
standpoint. Judges are expected to use their discretion and moral agency, understanding
that their choices have irreversible effects. Prosecutors must prioritize justice over
conviction, refraining from using the death sentence as a political or populist weapon.
Adequate training and resources must be given to defense counsel, who are sometimes the
 28
last line of defense between the defendant and the gallows, in order to protect the
constitutional right to a fair trial. In the meantime, legislators must legislate in accordance
with constitutional morality, international obligations, and changing social ideals, ignoring
public sentiment.
The Indian death penalty system's attempts to balance retributive justice with moral
47
restraint—especially through the "rarest of rare" doctrine and mercy petitions—have also
been examined in this article. However, continuing inconsistencies in sentencing,
socioeconomic prejudices, and procedural errors still raise significant ethical questions
about discrimination and arbitrariness. The imperative for change is emphasized by the
worldwide trend toward abolition, which is based on human rights standards like the
ICCPR and UN resolutions.
3
The death penalty has morally sound and constitutionally viable alternatives, such as life
imprisonment without parole and restorative justice. In addition to reducing the chance of
53
unjust execution, these alternatives are consistent with the principles of dignity,
proportionality, and reform. Particularly restorative justice, which empowers victims,
humanizes perpetrators, and fosters long-term social healing, questions conventional
punitive models.
The ethical legitimacy of a justice system is ultimately determined by its ability to protect
43
the dignity of all people, including those accused of heinous offenses, with consistency
and compassion, rather than by the severity of its penalties. In a constitutional democracy
like India, which strives for the highest standards of justice, fairness, and respect, it is
essential that capital punishment laws reflect these fundamental principles. The ethical
responsibilities discussed in this article should be seen as enforceable duties in the cause of
a fair and compassionate society rather than as lofty ideals.
Bibliography
Reports and Government Publications
2
Law Commission of India, 262nd Report, 2015.
Committee Report, 2013, Justice J.S. Verma.
5
National Law University Delhi's Project 39A Death Penalty India Report Volume II, 2016.
Cases:
30
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470.
52
(2008) 13 SCC 767, Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka.
4
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra, 1973 2 SCC 793.
Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1.
27
Naz Foundation vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi, 160 DLT 277.
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26066:460005693

21% Overall Similarity

Top sources found in the following databases:
13% Internet database 6% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
20% Submitted Works database

TOP SOURCES
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be
displayed.

Universitas Pamulang on 2024-07-20

1 4%
Submitted works

Vivekanand Education Society's Institute of Technology on 2024-11-18

2 2%
Submitted works

Delhi Metropolitan Education on 2023-06-18

3 1%
Submitted works

National Law School of India University, Bangalore on 2025-04-12

4 <1%
Submitted works

nualslawjournal.com
5 <1%
Internet

ora.ox.ac.uk
6 <1%
Internet

NALSAR University of Law Hyderabad on 2022-10-15

7 <1%
Submitted works

Brunel University on 2024-09-26

8 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26066:460005693

National Law University New Delhi on 2016-11-07

9 <1%
Submitted works

lexhumanitariae.co.in
10 <1%
Internet

Staffordshire University on 2023-08-11

11 <1%
Submitted works

The WB National University of Juridical Sciences on 2018-07-17

12 <1%
Submitted works

jmsjournals.in
13 <1%
Internet

Rahul Education on 2025-01-18

14 <1%
Submitted works

corteidh.or.cr
15 <1%
Internet

Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration of Manageme...

16 <1%
Submitted works

publications.parliament.uk
17 <1%
Internet

Rahul Education on 2025-01-18

18 <1%
Submitted works

Symbiosis International University on 2013-04-19

19 <1%
Submitted works

Kingston University on 2025-02-04

20 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26066:460005693

Maharishi University Of Information Technology, Lucknow on 2024-0...

21 <1%
Submitted works

Sharda University on 2025-04-17

22 <1%
Submitted works

Goodhart, Michael. "Human Rights: Politics and Practice", Human Right...

23 <1%
Publication

National Law School of India University, Bangalore on 2025-04-30

24 <1%
Submitted works

Satvinder Juss. "Human Rights in India", Routledge, 2019

25 <1%
Publication

coursehero.com
26 <1%
Internet

Amity University on 2018-04-17

27 <1%
Submitted works

Uttaranchal University, Dehradun on 2023-05-23

28 <1%
Submitted works

jlmpgofficial.wordpress.com
29 <1%
Internet

delhidistrictcourts.nic.in
30 <1%
Internet

ylfkashmir.com
31 <1%
Internet

National Law School of India University, Bangalore on 2009-12-16

32 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26066:460005693

University of Bedfordshire on 2025-04-27

33 <1%
Submitted works

University of Cambridge on 2024-09-02

34 <1%
Submitted works

silt.mgu.ac.in
35 <1%
Internet

bareactslive.com
36 <1%
Internet

docslib.org
37 <1%
Internet

allahabadhighcourt.in
38 <1%
Internet

humandignitytrust.org
39 <1%
Internet

King's College on 2025-04-28

40 <1%
Submitted works

Ntsebesha, Fundisiwe Cynthia. "The Legalization of Physician-Assisted...

41 <1%
Publication

Uttaranchal University, Dehradun on 2022-05-30

42 <1%
Submitted works

Vivekanand Education Society's Institute of Technology on 2024-04-30

43 <1%
Submitted works

adslawcollege.com
44 <1%
Internet

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26066:460005693

indiankanoon.org
45 <1%
Internet

National Law University New Delhi on 2014-08-17

46 <1%
Submitted works

University of Birmingham on 2024-09-06

47 <1%
Submitted works

University of Edinburgh on 2021-09-10

48 <1%
Submitted works

Uttaranchal University, Dehradun on 2023-06-02

49 <1%
Submitted works

Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur on 2024-10-15

50 <1%
Submitted works

National Law School of India University, Bangalore on 2024-12-07

51 <1%
Submitted works

National Law University New Delhi on 2018-10-02

52 <1%
Submitted works

National Law University New Delhi on 2024-11-08

53 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview