The Supreme Court of India has done a good job in exploring the criteria for presenting the mitigating factors for awarding the death penalty.
The Supreme Court of India has done a good job in exploring the criteria for presenting the mitigating factors for awarding the death penalty.
Post-conviction sentencing is a complex problem in cases involving capital crimes. Trial judges are called upon to decide whether a death sentence alone would accomplish the end of justice, or a life sentence would suffice. As a reasonable criterion, the Supreme Court has determined that the death penalty can be imposed only in “rare to rare” cases. Subsequent judgments have sought to reinforce the theory that the gruesome nature of a crime cannot be the sole criterion to decide what makes it fall under the ‘rare to rare’ category. The offender, his socio-economic background and his mental state are also major factors in this regard. In practice, the trial is part of the sentence after the court registers a conviction. This is often done on the day of judgment, with only a limited number of arguments being heard on the guilty’s side on ‘mitigating circumstances’ and on the prosecution’s side on ‘gratuitous circumstances’. Fresh order of three judge bench Referring to the Constitution Bench on the issue of giving meaningful opportunities to the guilty On the question of punishment, there is a big step towards humanizing the process of punishment.
The same day sentence has been upheld by multiple judgments, the Supreme Court often holding that where the convict has been given a meaningful opportunity of presenting the mitigating factors, the mere fact that the death sentence was awarded on the same day That would not spoil the sentence. Some High Courts have given the convicts an opportunity to present the mitigating factors so that the inadequacy of the sentencing process in the lower court does not matter. However, current thinking is leaning towards the idea that courts should receive reports from prison officials, probation officers and even trained psychologists to assess mitigating factors in favor of not imposing the death penalty. In its referral order, the Bench has also raised the question at what stage the mitigating factors are to be presented. It is noted that the scales are now tilted against the convicts, as it is only after the conviction that they are able to speak about mitigating circumstances. On the other hand, the prosecution presents its case from the very beginning as to how heinous the crime was and how much the accused deserved the maximum punishment. The constitution bench may come up with new guidelines under which trial courts can comprehensively examine factors related to upbringing, education and socio-economic conditions of an offender before deciding the sentence itself. The legal and moral dilemma of sending someone to the gallows will certainly remain as long as the death penalty remains on the statute book.