CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY
NAME: RAHUL KR. BARNWAL
ROLL NO: 2033
SEMESTER: FIRST
SESSION: 2018-2023
COURSE: B.B.A., LL.B (HONS)
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO
MR. VIJYANT SINHA
FACULTY OF LEGAL RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY
THE RESERCH PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL
FILFULMENT OF THE PROJECT

LEGAL RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY
NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA-800001
1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is a fact that any research work prepared, compiled or formulated in isolation is

inexplicable to an extent. This research work, although prepared by me, is a
culmination of efforts of a lot of people who remained in veil, who gave their intense
support and helped me in the completion of this project.

Firstly, I am very grateful to my subject teacher MR. VIJYANT SINHA, without the
kind support and help of whom the completion of this project was a herculean task for
me.He donated her valuable time from her busy schedule to help me to complete this
project. I would like to thank her for her valuable suggestions towards the making of
this project.
I am highly indebted to my parents and friends for their kind co-operation and
encouragement which helped me in completion of this project. I am also thankful to
the library staff of my college which assisted me in acquiring the sources necessary
for the compilation of my project.
Last but not the least, I would like to thank the Almighty who kept me mentally
strong and in good health to concentrate on my project and to complete it in time.
I thank all of them!

RAHUL KUMAR
BARNWAL
Roll No. – 2033.
B.B.A., LL.B (Hons.)

Session – 2018- 2023.

2
 CERTIFICATE

I, Hereby, Declare That The Work Reported In The

B.B.A., L.L.B (Hons.) Project Report Titled “Capital Punishment ”
Submitted At Chanakya National Law University, Patna Carried Out Under
The Guidance And Supervision Of MR. Vijyant Sinha And The Same Has
Not Been Submitted Anywhere For Any Purposes Whatsoever.

RAHUL KUMAR
BARNWAL

3
 Preface

I am glad to present this report on “CAPITAL PUNISHMENT”.

In this file I’m preparing the report of session 2018-19. During this I’ve

came to know about various aspects of Capital Punishment. As it’s been a

controversial matter all round the world, I’ve tried to study various aspects.

In this work, I’ve spared no pains to make it as compact reliable & perfect

as possible. Every attempt has been made to insert in this report many

references as are to be focused. I hope that this report will help everyone to

understand the structure of Capital Punishment worldwide

4
 CONTENTS

Introduction…………………………………………………………Page. 5

The Death Penalty Debate………………………………………....Page.6-9

 Brutality

 Dignity

 Effectiveness

 Human Rights

Capital Punishment in India………………………………….Page.10-11

Other Aspects………………………………………………….Page.12-15
 The Alternative

 “Life without parole” Vs the death penalty

 The Numbers Games “death Vs deterrence

 Can Capital Punishment ever be “Humane”

Capital punishment; Current scenario………………............Page.16-17

Pardoning Power On Capital Punishment …………..………...Page. 18

Research Methodologies………………………………………..Page.19

Questionnaire and Analysis……………………………………Page.20-22

Suggestions………………………………………………………Page-23

Bibliography……………………………………………………..Page-24
Annexure

5
Introduction

Capital Punishment, legal infliction of death as a penalty for violating criminal law.

Throughout history people have been put to death for various forms of wrongdoing.
Methods of execution have included such practices as crucifixion, stoning, drowning,
burning at the stake, impaling, and beheading. Today capital punishment is typically
accomplished by lethal gas or injection, electrocution, hanging, or shooting.

The death penalty is the most controversial penal practice in the modern world. Other

harsh, physical forms of criminal punishment—referred to as corporal punishment—have
generally been eliminated in modern times as uncivilized and unnecessary. In the
majority of countries, contemporary methods of punishment—such as imprisonment or
fines—no longer involve the infliction of physical pain (see Corporal Punishment).
Although imprisonment and fines are universally recognized as necessary to the control
of crime, the nations of the world are split on the issue of capital punishment. About 90
nations have abolished the death penalty and an almost equal number of nations (most of
which are developing countries) retain it.

The trend in most industrialized nations has been to first stop executing prisoners and

then to substitute long terms of imprisonment for death as the most severe of all criminal
penalties. The United States is an important exception to this trend. The federal
government and a majority of U.S. states allow the death penalty, and on average 75
executions occur each year throughout the United States1.

1
https://www.indianbarassociation.org/death-penalty-contemporary-issues/

6
The Death Penalty Debate

The practice of capital punishment is as old as government itself. For most of history, it

has not been considered controversial. Since ancient times most governments have
punished a wide variety of crimes by death and have conducted executions as a routine
part of the administration of criminal law. However, in the mid-18th century, social
commentators in Europe began to emphasize the worth of the individual and to criticize
government practices they considered unjust, including capital punishment. The
controversy and debate over whether governments should utilize the death penalty
continue today.

The first significant movement to abolish the death penalty began during the era known
as the Age of Enlightenment. In 1764 Italian jurist and philosopher Cesare Beccaria
published Tratto dei delitti e delle pene (1764; translated as Essay on Crimes and
Punishments, 1880)2. Many consider this influential work the leading document in the
early campaign against capital punishment. Other individuals who campaigned against
executions during this period include French authors Voltaire and Denis Diderot, British
philosopher David Hume, Scottish economist Adam Smith, and political theorist Thomas
Paine in the United States.

Critics of capital punishment contend that it is brutal and degrading, while supporters

consider it a necessary form of retribution (revenge) for terrible crimes. Those who
advocate the death penalty assert that it is a uniquely effective punishment that deters
crime. However, advocates and opponents of the death penalty dispute the proper
interpretation of statistical analyses of its deterrent effect. Opponents of capital
punishment see the death penalty as a human rights issue involving the proper limits of
governmental power. In contrast, those who want governments to continue to execute
tend to regard capital punishment as an issue of criminal justice policy. Because of these
alternative viewpoints, there is a profound difference of opinion not only about what is

2
On Crimes and Punishments (Italian: Dei delitti e delle pene),  Cesare Beccaria.

7
the right answer on capital punishment, but about what type of question is being asked
when the death penalty becomes a public issue.

A. Brutality

Early opponents of capital punishment objected to its brutality. Executions were public

spectacles involving cruel methods. In addition, capital punishment was not reserved
solely for the most serious crimes. Death was the penalty for a variety of less serious
offenses.

The allegations of brutality inspired two different responses by those who supported

executions. First, advocates contended that capital punishment was necessary for the
safety of other citizens and therefore not gratuitous. Second, death penalty supporters
sought to remove some of the most visibly gruesome aspects of execution. Executions
that had been open to the public were relocated behind closed doors. Later, governments
replaced traditional methods of causing death—such as hanging—with what were
regarded as more modern methods, such as electrocution and poison gas.

The search for less brutal means of inflicting death continues to recent times. In 1977

Oklahoma became the first U.S. state to authorize execution by lethal injection3—the
administration of fatal amounts of fast-acting drugs and chemicals. Lethal injection is
now the preferred method of execution in the majority of U.S. states. However, modern
opponents of capital punishment contend that sterilized and depersonalized methods of
execution do not eliminate the brutality of the penalty.

B. Dignity

In the debate about execution and human dignity, supporters and opponents of the death

penalty have found very little common ground. Opponents of capital punishment assert
that it is degrading to the humanity of the person punished. Since the 18th century, those
who wish to abolish the death penalty have stressed the significance of requiring
governments to recognize the importance of each individual. However, supporters of
3
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/methods.htm

8
capital punishment see nothing wrong with governments deliberately killing terrible
people who commit terrible crimes. Therefore, they see no need to limit governmental
power in this area.

C. Effectiveness

Early opponents of capital punishment also argued that inflicting death was not necessary
to control crime and properly punish wrongdoers. Instead, alternative punishment—such
as imprisonment—could effectively isolate criminals from the community, deter other
potential offenders from committing offenses, and express the community's
condemnation of those who break its laws. In his Essay on Crimes and Punishments,
Beccaria asserted that the certainty of punishment, rather than its severity, was a more
effective deterrent.

Supporters of capital punishment countered that the ultimate penalty of death was

necessary for the punishment of terrible crimes because it provided the most complete
retribution and condemnation. Furthermore, they argued that the threat of execution was a
unique deterrent. Death penalty supporters contended that capital punishment self-
evidently prevents more crime because death is so much more feared than mere
restrictions on one’s liberty.

Supporters and opponents of capital punishment still debate its effectiveness. Social

scientists have collected statistical data on trends in homicide before and after
jurisdictions have abolished capital punishment. They have also compared homicide rates
in places with and without the death penalty. The great majority of these statistical
comparisons indicate that the presence or absence of capital punishment or executions
does not visibly influence the rate of homicide.

Opponents of capital punishment maintain that these studies refute the argument that the
death penalty deters crime. Many capital punishment opponents consider the deterrence
argument fully negated and no longer part of the debate. However, supporters of the
death penalty dispute that interpretation of the statistical analyses of deterrent effect.
Capital punishment advocates note that because the death penalty is reserved for the most

9
aggravated murders, the deterrent effect of capital punishment on such crimes may not be
apparent in data on homicide rates in general. Supporters also urge that the conflicting
results of various studies indicate that the deterrent effect of the death penalty cannot not
be proven or disproven with any certainty. They maintain that in the absence of
conclusive proof that the threat of execution might not save some people from being
killed, capital punishment should be retained.

D. Human Rights

A unique facet of the modern debate about capital punishment is the characterization of

the death penalty as a human rights issue, rather than a debate about the proper
punishment of criminals. Modern opposition to the death penalty is seen as a reaction to
the political history of the 20th century, most notably the Holocaust—the systematic
mass killing of Jews and others during World War II (1939-1945). All the major nations
in Western Europe utilized capital punishment prior to World War II. After the defeat of
the National Socialist (Nazi) and Fascist governments of Germany and Italy, those two
nations became the first major powers in Europe to abolish capital punishment. The
postwar movement to end capital punishment, beginning in Italy and Germany and then
spreading, represented a reaction to totalitarian forms of government that systematically
violated the rights of the individual (see Totalitarianism).

The human rights focus on the death penalty has continued, especially in settings of

dramatic political change. When people view capital punishment as a human rights issue,
countries that are becoming more democratic have been eager to abolish the death
penalty, which they associate with the former regime and its abuses of power. For
example, a number of Eastern European nations abolished capital punishment shortly
after the collapse of communist regimes there in 1989. Similarly, the multiracial
government of South Africa formed in 1994 quickly outlawed a death penalty many
associated with apartheid, the official policy of racial segregation that had been in place
since the late 1940s.

10
Capital Punishment in India

Between 1975 and 1991, about 40 people were executed. Since 1995 only one
execution, that of Dhananjoy Chatterjee in August 2004, has taken place. The number
of people executed in India since independence in 1947 is a matter of dispute; official
government statistics claim that only 55 people had been executed since
independence, but the People's Union for Civil Liberties cited information from
Appendix 34 of the 1967 Law Commission of India report showing that 1,422
executions took place in 16 Indian states from 1953 to 1963, and some have
suggested that the total number of executions since independence may by as high as
4,300.

The Supreme Court of India ruled in 1983 that the death penalty should be imposed
only in "the rarest of rare cases." Capital crimes are murder, gang robbery with
murder, abetting the suicide of a child or insane person, waging war against the
government, and abetting mutiny by a member of the armed forces.4 In recent years
the death penalty has been imposed under new anti-terrorism legislation for people
convicted of terrorist activities. Recently, the Indian Supreme Court in Swamy
Sharaddananda v. State of Karnataka made imposing the death penalty even harder.
The judgment holds that the “rarest of the rare” test prescribed in Bachchan Singh’s
case was diluted in the Machchi Singh case. The judgment then goes on to say that
the “rarest of the rare” must be measured not only in qualitative but also in
quantitative terms. Thus, given that the general crime levels have been worsening
since Machchi Singh’s case was decided, the categories of “rarest of the rare” should
also change. Therefore, all the categories specified in Machchi Singh need not fit in
with “rarest of the rare” today – a lot of the categories are no longer as rare. It remains
to be seen post this judgment how Courts will apply the "rarest of the rare"
formulation.

About 40 mercy petitions are pending before the president, some of them from 1992.
At least 3 are women. Many more are on death row after having been sentenced to die
by lower courts, but on appeal most of them are likely to be commuted to life
imprisonment by the State High Courts or the Supreme Court of India.

4
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA, A.R. Blackshield ,Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol. 21, pp. 137-
226

11
It appears that judges in the lower courts are also getting increasingly averse to use
capital punishment. For example in 2007 several high profile cases involving pre-
meditated cold blooded murders, rape and murder of minors during rioting, terrorist
bombings, etc. have not attracted the death penalty. But activists reveal a flaw, that
due to the absence of sentencing guidelines in what constitutes "rarest of the rare", in
some less gruesome murders, the lower courts have awarded death sentences possibly
due to poor defence presented by the lawyers of the economically backward.
The death penalty is carried out by hanging. After a 1983 challenge to this method,
the Supreme Court ruled that hanging did not involve torture, barbarity, humiliation
or degradation.
At least 100 people in 2007, 40 in 2006, 77 in 2005, 23 in 2002, and 33 in 2001 were
sentenced to death, according to Amnesty International figures. No official statistics
of those sentenced to death have been released. In December 2007, India voted
against a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on the
death penalty.

12
Other Aspects
A. The alternatives

What are the realistic alternatives to the death penalty?

Any punishment must be fair, just, adequate and most of all, enforceable. Society still
views murder as a particularly heinous crime which should be met with the most severe
punishment. Whole life imprisonment could fit the bill for the worst murders with
suitable gradations for less awful murders. Some 44 people are serving whole life tariffs
in the UK.
In modern times, we repeatedly see murderers being able to "get off" on the grounds of
diminished responsibility and their alleged psychiatric disorders or by using devices such
as plea bargaining. This tends to remove peoples' faith in justice which is very dangerous.
Are there any other real, socially acceptable, options for dealing with murderers? One
possible solution (that would enrage the civil liberties groups) would be to have
everyone's DNA profile data-based at birth (not beyond the wit of modern computer
systems), thus making detection of many murders and sex crimes much easier. If this was
done and generally accepted as the main plank of evidence against an accused person and
a suitable, determinate sentence of imprisonment passed, involving a sensible regime
combining both punishment and treatment, it would considerably reduce the incidence of
the most serious and most feared crimes. The reason for this is that for most people, being
caught is a far greater deterrent than some possible, probably misunderstood punishment,
e.g. "life imprisonment." Surely this has to be better than the arbitrary taking of the lives
of a tiny minority of offenders (as happens in most countries that retain the death penalty)
with all the unwanted side effects that this has on their families and on the rest of society.
It is clear that certainty of being caught is a very good deterrent - just look at how people

13
observe speed limits when they see signs for speed cameras and yet break the speed limit
as soon as the risk is passed.

B. "Life without parole" versus the death penalty

Many opponents of capital punishment put forward life in prison without parole as a
viable alternative to execution for the worst offenders, and surveys in America have
shown that life without parole (LWOP) enjoys considerable support amongst those who
would otherwise favour the death penalty.
However, there are drawbacks to this:
It is argued by some that LWOP is in fact a far more cruel punishment that death. This
proposition was put forward in a UK parliamentary debate by the philosopher John Stuart
Mill in the 19th century. It is interesting to note that no less than 311 prisoners serving
life sentences in Italy petitioned their government in 2007 for the right to be executed.
They cited LWOP as a living death where they died a little every day. In the USA, as of
January 2008, there are over 2,200 people serving whole life sentences who were under
18 at the time they committed the crime, as US law no longer permits the execution of
minors. One might be forgiven for asking what is the point of locking a person up to the
day they die and one might wonder if it is indeed a far worse punishment than death.
Death clearly permanently incapacitates the criminal and prevents them committing any
other offence. LWOP cannot prevent or deter offenders from killing prison staff or other
inmates or taking hostages to further an escape bid - they have nothing further to lose by
doing so and there are instances of it happening in the USA.
However good the security of a prison, someone will always try to escape and
occasionally will be successful. If you have endless time to plan an escape and everything
to gain from doing so, it is a very strong incentive.

14
C. The Numbers Game "death versus deterrence”

If we are, however, really serious in our desire to reduce crime through harsher
punishments alone, we must be prepared to execute every criminal who commits a capital
crime irrespective of their sex, age (above the legal minimum) alleged mental state or
background. Defences to capital charges must be limited by statute to those which are
reasonable. Appeals must be similarly limited and there can be no reprieves. We must
carry out executions without delay and with sufficient publicity to get the message across
to other similarly minded people. This is similar to the situation which obtains in China
and would, if applied in Britain, undoubtedly lead to a large number of executions to
begin with until the message got through. I would estimate at least 2,000 or so in the first
year if it were applied for murder, aggravated rape and drug trafficking. This amounts to
more than 7 executions every day of the year Monday through Friday.
Are we, as a modern western society, willing to do this or would we shy away from it and
return to just carrying out the occasional execution to show that we still can without any
regard for natural justice? These events will be seized upon by the media and turned into
a morbid soap opera enjoyed by a (large?) proportion of the population. (Note the
popularity in the American media of capital murder trials there.) It is doubtful whether
executions carried out on this basis will deter others from committing crimes.
For capital punishment to really reduce crime, everyone of us must realise that we will
personally and without doubt be put to death if we commit particular crimes and that
there can be absolutely no hope of reprieve. One wonders if as many people would be
willing to vote for this scenario in a referendum when they realised the full consequences
of their action. I have no doubt that if we were to declare war on criminals in this fashion,
we would see a rapid decline in serious crime but at what cost in human terms? There
will be a lot of innocent victims - principally the families of those executed

D. Can capital punishment ever be "humane"?

I have never personally believed that any form of death, let alone execution, is either
instant or painless, so which method of capital punishment should a modern "civilised"
society use? Should our worst criminals be given a completely painless death even if the

15
technology exists to provide one, or should a degree of physical suffering be part of the
punishment? Whatever method is selected should have some deterrent value whilst not
causing a deliberately slow or agonising death.
British style, hanging is an extremely quick process that is designed to cause instant and
deep unconsciousness and also benefits from requiring simple and thus quick preparation
of the prisoner. It also seems to have substantial deterrent value.
Lethal injection may appear to be more humane than other methods to those who have to
administer and witness it, but it is also a very slow process. It is essential that the catheter
actually goes into a vein rather than through it or round it if the prisoner is to die a pain
free death. If it doesn’t, then the person may suffer a great deal of pain but will be unable
to communicate this due to the paralysing effects of the second drug. The biggest single
objection to lethal injection is the length of time required to prepare the prisoner, which
can take from 20 to 45 minutes depending on the ease of finding a vein to inject into.
The gas chamber seems to possess no obvious advantage as the equipment is expensive to
buy and maintain, the preparations are lengthy, adding to the prisoner's agonies, and it
always causes a slow and cruel death. It is also dangerous to the staff and witnesses.
Electrocution can cause a quick death when all goes well, but seems to have a greater
number of technical problems than any other method, often with the most gruesome
consequences. (This may in part be due to the age of the equipment - in most case 70-90
years old!)
Shooting by a single bullet in the back of the head seems greatly preferable to shooting
by a firing squad in that it is likely to cause instant unconsciousness followed quickly by
death rather than causing the prisoner to bleed to death, often whilst still conscious.
It is easy to condemn capital punishment as barbaric, but is spending the rest of one's life
in prison so much less cruel to the prisoner or is it merely a way of salving society's
conscience and removing the unpleasantness for the staff and officials?

16
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT : THE CURRENT SCENARIO

Supreme Court on Validity of Capital Punishment in India Article 21 of the Indian

Constitution ensures the Fundamental Right to life and liberty for all persons. It adds no
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law. This has been legally construed to mean if there is a procedure, which
is fair and valid, then the state by framing a law can deprive a person of his life. While
the central government has consistently maintained it would keep the death penalty in the
statute books to act as a deterrent, and for those who are a threat to society, the Supreme
Court too has upheld the constitutional validity of capital punishment in “rarest of rare”
cases. In Jagmohan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1973), then in Rajendra Prasad vs
State of Uttar Pradesh (1979), and finally in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980), the
Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional validity of the death penalty. It said that if
capital punishment is provided in the law and the procedure is a fair, just and reasonable
one, the death sentence can be awarded to a convict. This will, however, only be in the
“rarest of rare” cases, and the courts should render “special reasons” while sending a
person to the gallows19 .

Criteria for Rarest of Rare

The principles as to what would constitute the “rarest of rare” has been laid down by the
top Court in the landmark judgment in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980).

Supreme Court formulated certain broad illustrative guidelines and said it should be
given only when the option of awarding the sentence of life imprisonment is
“unquestionably foreclosed”. It was left completely upon the court’s discretion to reach
this conclusion. However, the apex court also laid down the principle of weighing,
aggravating and mitigating circumstances. A balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating

17
circumstances in a particular case has to be drawn to ascertain whether justice will not be
done if any punishment less than the death sentence is awarded. Two prime questions, the
top court held, may be asked and answered. First, is there something uncommon about
the crime which renders the sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a
death sentence?

Second, are there circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to
impose the death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating
circumstances which speak in favour of the offenders20?

18
Pardoning Power
 This has been a highly debatable issue as its nature will decide whether or not there is
need for guidelines for exercise for pardoning power. Before we go into this debate we
first need to understand the difference between power and function. They are as follows:

a) Power is always vested in an individual. E.g. in ancient Indian state system power was
solely vested in the king. Whereas function is vested in more than one person
orinstitution. E.g. various governmental authorities, because the actual work is carried
out by those authorities. Function is always vested in more than one person or institution.

b) Power comes with the discretion. It means in exercising the power when there are
more than one options, what to choose and what not solely depends upon the power
holder. But so far as the function is concerned there is no such question of discretion.
There are no such options. It is mandatory to the person who performs it to perform it.

c) Power is independent in nature. It means when the power is provided, no advice or aid
is needed, it is up to power holder to take advice or not and not up to any other person.
But function is carried on with consultation with others, with aid and advice of others.

d) Power cannot be delegated, except provided by the source of power. Whereas the
functions can be delegated or reassigned.

 From above if we examine Article 72 and 161, as was intended by the Drafters; we come
to following conclusion about the nature of pardon:

i) It was to be vested only in the President and the Governor in absolute, plenary form; no
other body would be given the same power in their respective scope.

 
ii) President was to be given full discretion about what facts are to be considered and
interpreted and what judgement is to be given.

iii) Pardoning under the Constitution did not state about any interference from anybody
else for example any advice by ministers. However it was to be upto the President to take
up the advice. Thus it was meant to be a power.

19
iv) Further the Pardoning could not be delegated to any other person except for
permission by the President. From the above we come to the conclusion that Pardoning
was meant to be a power of the President not a function.5

Research Methodology
Research is a procedure of logical and systematic application of the fundamentals of
science to the general and overall questions of a study and scientific technique which
provide precise tools, specific procedure and technical rather than philosophical means
for getting and ordering the data prior to their logical analysis and manipulation.
Different type of research design is available depending upon the nature of research
project, availability of capable manpower and circumstances.

Objectives of Research

The purpose of research is to discover answer to questions through the application of

scientific procedures. Through each research study has its own specific purpose, we may
think of research objectives as falling into a number of following broad groupings:

1. To gain familiarity with a phenomenon or to achieve new insights into it;

2. To portray accurately the characteristics of a particular individual, situation or a

group;
3. To determine the frequency with which something occurs or with which it is
associated with something else;
4. To test a hypothesis of a causal relationship between variables.

Research Design :

The research design is the blueprint for the fulfillment of objectives and answering
questions. It is a framework which determines the course of action towards the collection
and analysis of required data. It is a master plan specifying the method and procedures for
collecting and analyzing needed information. Descriptive Research is used in this study,
as the main aim is to describe characteristics of the phenomenon or a situation.

5
Kehar Singh v. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 653

20
Time Schedule :

The collection of data was done during the month of April 2009.

Data Collection :

The source of data includes primary and secondary data sources.

 Primary Sources : Primary data has been collected directly from sample
respondents through questionnaire and with the help of interview.

 Secondary Sources : Secondary data has been collected from standard textbooks,
Newspapers, Magazines & Internet

Sample Design :

Sample design is definite plan determine before any data is actually obtaining for a
sample from a given population. The researcher must decide the way of selecting a

Questionnaire and Analysis

Q.1. Should Capital Punishment be imposed by the law?

70
60
60

50
40
40 Yes

30 No

20

10

0
Openion

21
Q.3. What should be the alternative punishment?
Lif e Imprisonment

30%

Lif e Imprisonment
Other

70%

Q.4. Are you agree with the statement “Death penalty deters crime”?

22%

45%
Yes
Partially
No

33%

Q.5. “Capital Punishment degrading to the humanity to the person

punished” – do you agree with the statement?

22
 33%

Yes
No

67%

Q.6. Do you find any disparity in application of Capital Punishment in

our country?

38%

Yes
No

62%

Q.7. A lenient action towards wrongdoers encourage them for

committing crime?

23
 23%

Yes

No

77%

24
 Suggestions
On the basis of findings, I’ve reached at some suggestions :

Not to have the death penalty and the genuine problems it causes and continues to
accept the relatively high levels of murder and other serious crimes that we
presently have.

Reintroduce capital punishment for just the "worst" murderers which would at
least be some retribution for the terrible crimes they have committed and would
permanently incapacitate them. It would also save a small amount of money each
year which could, perhaps, be spent on the more genuinely needy. This option is
unlikely to reduce overall crime levels.

Reintroduce the death penalty in the really strict format outlined above and see a
corresponding drop in serious crime whilst accepting that there will be a lot of
human misery caused to the innocent families of criminals and that there will be
the occasional, if inevitable, mistakes.

25
Bibliography :

Primary Sources :
 Sample Survey
 Sample Size : 50
 Method : Survey done individually

Secondary Sources
 India Together (2 April 2005)
 Times of India (10 March 2005)
 http://www.capitalpunishmentu.org/thoughts.html
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
 https://www.britannica.com/topic/capital-punishment
 https://debatewise.org/debates/2588-capital-punishment/
 https://www.criminaljusticedegreeschools.com/criminal-justice-
resources/criminal-justice-capital-punishment-focus/

26