To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice.

Desmond Tutu Death penalty has been a mode of punishment since time immemorial. The arguments for and against has not changed much over the years. At this point of time when the issue [whether capital punishment must be abolished or not] is still raging, it will be appropriate to remind ourselves as to how the legislatures and the apex Court have dealt with this issue every time it has come up before them. DEATH SENTENCE UNDER DIFFERENT STATUTES

Indian Criminal jurisprudence is based on a combination of deterrent and reformative theories of punishment. While the punishments are to be imposed to create deter amongst the offenders, the offenders are also to be given opportunity for reformation. The courts while imposing death sentence has to record its special reasons as to why the court came to the conclusion. Capital Punishment is laid down as a penalty in several legislative Acts, such as : Indian Penal Code, 1860 Under the IPC eleven offences are punishable by death. For ex-Murder, Abetment of suicide by a minor or insane person, Dacoity with murder etc. Army Act, 1950, the Air Force Act, 1950 and the Navy Act 1956 A death sentence may also be imposed for a number of offences committed by members of the armed forces. The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 Prescribes punishment by death for any person who either directly or indirectly abets the commission of sati (immolation of a widow).

The Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotopic Substances (Amendment) Act, 1988 Introduced the death penalty as a punishment for financing, or engaging in the production, manufacture or sale of narcotics or psychotopic substance of specified quantities (e.g. opium 10 kgs, cocaine 500 gms) after previous convictions. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 Introduced the death penalty for fabricating of providing false evidence that results in the conviction and execution of an innocent member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY Several legislative attempts to abolish the death penalty in India have failed. Before Independence a private Bill was introduced in the 1931 Legislative Assembly to abolish the death penalty for penal code offences. The British Home Secretary at the time however rejected the motion. The Government of independent India rejected a similar Bill introduced in the first Lok Sabha . Efforts were also made in Rajya Sabha to move resolution for abolition of death sentence in 1958 and 1962 but were withdrawn after some debate. The Law Commission in its Report presented to the Government in 1967 and to the Lok Sabha in 1971 concluded that the death penalty should be retained and that the executive (President) should continue to possess powers of mercy PROCEDURE WHEN DEATH SENTENCE IS IMPOSED -Special Reasons -The court has to record special reasons for imposing death sentence. -Confirmation by High Court Court of session after passing a death sentence shall submit the proceedings to the High Court, and the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court. The court passing the sentence shall then commit the convicted person to jail custody under a warrant. -Enquiry and Additional Evidence The High Court while dealing with confirmation may order further inquiry be made into, or

additional evidence taken upon, any point bearing upon, any point bearing upon the guilty or innocence of the convicted person.

-No order for confirmation No order for confirmation shall be made until the period allowed for preferring an appeal has expired, or if any appeal is presented within such period, until such appeal is disposed of. In every case so submitted, the confirmation of the sentence, or any new sentence or order passed by the High Court, shall when such court consists of two or more judges , be made, passed and signed by at least two of them. -Copy of Order Sent to Court of Session In cases submitted by the court of session to the High Court for the confirmation of a sentence of death, the proper officer of the High Court shall ,without delay, after the order of confirmation or other order has been made by the High Court, send a copy of the order under the seal of the High Court and attested with his official signature, to the court of session. Where a person is sentenced to death and an appeal from its judgment lies the execution of the sentence will be postponed until the period allowed for preferring such appeal has expired, or if an appeal is preferred within that period, until such appeal is disposed of. -Postponement of Death Sentence on Pregnant Woman If a woman sentenced to death is found to be pregnant, the High Court shall order the execution of the sentence to be postponed and may, if it thinks fit, commute the sentence to imprisonment for life. -Mode Of Execution The issue regarding the constitutionality of hanging as a mode of execution came up before the Supreme Court in Deena v. Union of India {[1993] 4 SCC 645} , though the court asserted that it was a judicial function to probe into the reasonableness of a mode of punishment ,it refused to hold the mode of hanging as being violative of Article 21 of the constitution. This issue was once again raised in Shashi Nayar {1992 SCC [CRI] 24] the court held that since the issue had already been considered in Deena, there was no good reason to take a different view.

Another issue which deserves attention is public hanging as a mode of execution. The issue of public hanging came to the Supreme Court through a writ petition Attorney General v. Lachma Devi {1989 SCC [CRI] 413} in this petition the order of Rajasthan High Court regarding the execution of the petitioner by public hanging under the relevant rules of Jail manual. The S.C. held that public hanging even if permitted under the rules would violate Article 21 of the Costitution.

LEGALITY OF DEATH SENTENCE In the case of Jagmohan V/s State of U.P. {1973 SCC [CRI] 169}the question of constitutional validity of death punishment was challenged before the SC, it was argued that the right to live was basic to freedom guranteed under Article 19 of the constitution . The S.C. rejected the contention and held that death sentence cannot be regarded as unreasonable per se or not in the public interest and hence could not be said to be violative of Article 19 of the constitution. WHEN CAN DEATH SENTENCE BE GRANTED As have been stated earlier, after Cr.P.C. , 1973, death sentence is the exception while life imprisonment is the rule. Therefore, by virtue of section 354(3) of CR.P.C., it can be said that death sentence be inflicted in special cases only. The apex court modified this terminology in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab {AIR 1980 SC 898 } and observed- " A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law's instrumentality. That ought to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.." Rarest of rare cases To decide whether a case falls under the category of rarest of rare case or not was completely left upon the court's discretion. However the apex court laid down a few principles which were to be kept in mind while deciding the question of sentence. One of the very important principles is regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It has been the view of the court that while deciding the question of sentence, a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in that particular case has to be drawn. Full weightage should be given to the mitigating circumstances and even after that if the court feels that justice will not be done if any punishment less than the death sentence is awarded, then and then only death sentence should be imposed.

Again in Machhi singh vs. State of Punjab { [1983] 3 SCC 470 }the court laid down:- " In order to apply these guidelines inter alia the following questions maybe asked and answered: (a). Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence? (b). Are there circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favor of the offenders?" The SC has also discussed such aggravating and mitigating circumstances in various cases. These circumstances include: Aggravating Circumstances # Murder committed in an extremely brutal , grotesque, diabolical , revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. # Murder- for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness. # Murder of a Scheduled cast or Scheduled tribe- arousing social wrath ( npt for personal reasons). # Bride burning/ Dowry death. # Murderer in a dominating position , position of trust or in course of betrayal of the motherland. # Where it is enormous in proportion. # Victim- innocent child, helpless woman, old/infirm person, public figure generally loved and respected by the community. Mitigating Circumstances The court in its discretion, may take into consideration, the following circumstances as mitigating, on the basis of which the lesser punishment can be imposed: 1. That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional distribution; 2. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death; 3. The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society; 4. The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated ;The state shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (3) and (4) above; 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence;

6. That the accused acted under the duress of domination of another person; 7. That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. CONVICTION OF A MINOR The ordinary sentencing applicable to adults will no longer be applicable in the case of juveniles. The Juvenile Justice Act defines the term juvenile as a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years, or a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years. As per sec. 22 of the said Act, no delinquent juvenile shall be sentenced to death ?. CONVICTION OF A PREGNANT WOMAN Section-416 of Cr.pc. provides if a woman sentenced to death is found to be pregnant, the High court shall order the execution of the sentence to be postponed and may, if it thinks fit, commute the sentence to imprisonment for life. LESSER SENTENCE TO CO- ACCUSED In cases where there are more than one accused, and murder has been committed by several persons, under section 34 of IPC, the act done by one will be considered to be acts done by all. So if a lesser sentence of life imprisonment is awarded to one accused, then the co-accused should also generally be given the same sentence, unless it can be established that the role of any one of them in the commission of the crime is more that of others. DELAY IN EXECUTION OF THE DEATH SENTENCE Delay in execution of death sentence is a factor which may be taken into consideration for commuting the sentence of death to life imprisonment. If upon taking an overall view of all the circumstances and taking in to account the answers to the question posed by way of the test of rarest of rare cases, the circumstances of the case are such that death penalty is warranted, the court would proceed to do so. JUDICIAL DISCRETION The ultimate discretion to decide whether death sentence is to be imposed or not , have been vested in the court. There is a debate going on about the extent of this judicial discretion. A brief analysis of the cases decided by the SC. Regarding the question of death sentence over last 25 years, will reveal how differing/dithering the judgments have been.

In the case of Mohd. Chaman {2000 SOL CASE NO 705 } , on the question of extent of judicial discretion, the court observed :" Such standardization is well nigh impossible . Firstly degree of culpability cannot be measured in any case. Secondly criminal cases canno tbe categorized there being infinite , unpredictable and unforeseeable variations . Thirdly in such categorization, the sentencing procedure will cease to be judicial . And fourthly , such standardization or sentencing discretion is policy matter belonging to the legislature beyond the courts functions"

IS DEATH PENALTY ABOUT TO DIE - INDIAN PERSSPECTIVE Death penalty has been a mode of punishment since time immemorial. The arguments for and against have not changed much over the years. Crime as well as the mode of punishment correlates to the culture and form of civilization from which they emerge. With the march of civilization, the modes of death punishment have witnessed significant humanized changes. However, in India not much has been debated on the issue of mode of execution of death sentence.

In few countries where It has been dropped, it has been replaced by life imprisonment which is, worse than the death penalty itself. It is better to die in a single moment than to go on dying slowly.Letting off criminals can result in vigilante justice. Also, the punishment has to be proportionate to the degree of wrongdoing and mitigating circumstances have to be considered while deciding the quantum of punishment. Various societies in different parts of the world react to crime in different ways. While some, such as a few Arab countries, choose retributive punishment of "an eye for an eye", others have deterrent punishment. Of late, there has been a shift towards restorative and reformist approaches to punishment, including in India.

Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was added to the Code in 1973, requires a judge to give "special reasons" for awarding death sentences. In 1980, in the Bachan Singh case, the Supreme Court propounded the "rarest of rare" doctrine and since then, the life sentence is the rule and the death sentence the exception. But recently, the Supreme Court refused to impose the capital punishment in the Graham Staines, Jessica Lall and Priyadarshini Mattoo murder cases on the ground that these did not fall within the category of "rarest of rare."

ATTEMPTS TOWARDS ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY: INDIA

Several attempts to abolish the penalty by legislation have failed. Before independence; a private bill was introduced in the 1931 legislative assembly to abolish the death penalty for penal code offenses. The British home minister however rejected the motion; the government of independent India also rejected the similar bill introduced in the first Lok Sabha. Resolution introduced in the Rajya Sabha in 1958 and 1962 met with a similar fate, but the government agreed to forward copies of the 1962 house debates to the law commission which was, at the b time, reviewing the penal code and a code of criminal procedure. The law commission in the 35th report presented to the government in 1967 and the Lok Sabha in 1971, concluded that the death penalty be retained, and the executive should continue the process power of the mercy. The law commission recommended against listing exhaustive principles for clemency. The Lok Sabha specifically discussed the abolition of the death penalty last in 1983.

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STANDARD: TOWARDS ABOLITION

The international community increasingly called for states to limit and, ultimately, eliminate use of the death penalty. While capital punishment has not yet been prohibited under international legal law, various united nation human right organs and bodies have, on several occasions, reaffirm the growing international consensus in favor of abolition of death penalty. The corner stone of contemporary human right law is the Universal Declaration Of Human Right adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nation on 10 December 1948. The conclusion from article 3 of the universal declaration of human right is indeed that respect for human life is non-negotiable. The drafters of universal declaration created an original norm right to life but with meaning going for far beyond, a mere right not to be deprived of life except with due process. While negotiations were going on for the treaty, the death penalty was viewed virtually unanimously as a necessary evil, one whose existence could not be justifies on philosophical or scientific ground.

SUPREME COURT ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

The Supreme Court of India ruled that the presence of death penalty in the statute book means that it can be imposed in heinous and gruesome murder cases, such as those relating to honor killing, dowry death, fake encounters and hired killings. This ruling was handed down by a bench of Justices Markandey Katju and C K Prasad while upholding death penalty to one Ajit Singh Harnam Singh Gujral who killed his wife and three grown up children in Mumbai in April 2003.The death sentence coincides with a renewed debate on death penalty in the wake of efforts to whip up resistance to the impending hanging of death row convicts: from those held guilty of assassinating former PM Rajiv Gandhi to Khalistani terrorist Devendra Pal Singh Bhullar to Parliament attack plotter Afzal Guru. The court noted that globally the movement was away from death penalty, but said that the judiciary cannot stop using the capital punishment for "rarest of rare" cases so long as it was provided for under the law. Arguing against capital punishment, Amnesty International believes that "The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life...It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. There can never be any justification for torture or for cruel treatment." The bench held that the court's failure to impose capital punishment for heinous crimes falling in the rarest of rare category would amount to "repeal of death penalty by the judiciary". Discussing a whole gamut of Supreme Court judgments dealing with death penalty and laying down the rarest of rare category guidelines, Justice Katju said: "In our opinion this is one of such cases. Burning living persons to death is a horrible act which causes excruciating pain to the victim, and this could not have been unknown to Gujral." "A person like Gujral who instead of doing his duty of protecting his family kills them in such a cruel and barbaric manner cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. The balance sheet is heavily against him and accordingly we uphold the death sentence awarded to him," the bench said.

The apex court also examined the trend of death penalty worldwide and noted the divergence -- 96 countries have abolished it, 34 have not used it for a considerable period of time while 58 countries still retain it.1 The Supreme Court in the case of Deena v. Union of India, 1983 (4) S.C.C. 645, discussed HOW LETHAL INJECTION IS TO BE ADMINISTERED. It may be mentioned here that in Dena's case (supra) the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 for carrying out of death sentence by hanging by neck till he is dead as the best available method in India to electric chair, shooting or lethal injection. Justice Bhagwati in Bachchan Singh v State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 24 has made observations pertinent to the arbitrariness involved in awarding the death sentence." The judges have been awarding death penalty or refusing to award it according to their own scale of values and social philosophy and it is not possible to discern any consistent approach to the problem in the judicial decisions. It is apparent from a study of the judicial decisions that some judges are readily and regularly inclined to sustain death sentences, other are similarly disinclined and the remaining waver from case to case. Even in the Supreme Court there are divergent attitudes and opinions in regard to the imposition of capital punishment. If a case comes before one Bench consisting of Judges who believe in the social efficacy of capital punishment, the death sentence would in all probability be confirmed but if the same case comes before another Bench consisting of Judges who are morally and ethically against the death penalty, the death sentence would most likely be commuted to life imprisonment."

UNITED NATIONS CALL ON DEATH PENALTY A committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted to back a resolution calling for a global moratorium on executions with a view to eventually abolishing the death penalty entirely. The Assembly's third committee, which deals with human rights issues, voted 99 to 52, with 33 abstentions, in favor of the resolution, which states "that there is no conclusive evidence of the death penalty's deterrent value and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the death penalty's implementation is irreversible and irreparable."

The resolution welcomed "the decisions taken by an increasing number of States to apply a moratorium on executions, followed in many cases by the abolition of the death penalty," and expressed deep concern that the death penalty continued to be applied in some countries. It called on nations that do impose the death penalty to ensure they meet internationally agreed minimum standards on the safeguards for those facing execution, and to provide the United Nations Secretary-General with information about their use of capital punishment and observation of the safeguards. Further, the resolution asked countries to progressively restrict the use of the death penalty, such as by reducing the number of offences for which it may be imposed, and called on those States that have abolished the practice to not reintroduce it. In December 2007, India voted against a UN resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. But in effect, there has been a moratorium on the death penalty in India. The judiciary appears to be hesitant in awarding the death penalty. The executive has disposed of several mercy petitions in the past few months. "The death penalty has failed to act as a deterrent against any crime. It's nothing but retribution. Such Medieval Justice does not reflect the ethos of Mahatma Gandhi. India should abolish the death penalty and join the league of civilized countries".

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. The most popular alternative to the death penalty is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole plus restitution. This alternative not only costs much less than capital punishment, but also keeps the criminal in jail for the rest of his life - so he cannot return back to society. Restitution means that while the prisoner is in jail, he will be put to work - with all the money made going to the family of the victim. Public opinion over the past few years has shown an increase in support for this alternative as well. When asked plainly of the death penalty, 77% of the public support and believe that the death penalty is good, according to recent polls. However, when an alternative to the death penalty is presented, public support drops. When asked the same question with an alternative such as prison with parole after 25 years, death penalty support drops to 56%. When the alternative "prison with no parole ever" is introduced, death penalty support drops further to only 49%. And finally, when introduced to life in prison with no parole ever, plus restitution, death penalty support drops to its lowest, at 41% - becoming the minority to that alternative. The public is becoming more aware of the flaws in our justice system, and because of this, public support for the death penalty is at its lowest ever. Other alternatives to the death penalty exist as well; they are just not as popular as life imprisonment. One of these is prison with parole. The average sentence for someone convicted of murder is twenty years. The average time spent in jail for a convicted murderer before being released is around 8.5 years. These numbers mean that most murderers do receive parole and go back into society. John DiIulio writes that even though some paroled murderers remain dangerous, "the vast majority of [them] never commit another murder or violent crime. Many have not only gone straight but have continued paying their debt to society... by making postrelease restitution, manning youth and community outreach centers that work with juvenile felons, and more"5. When someone is sentenced to death, most of the time it is between 10-20 years before the death sentence is carried out. By this time, we are executing a completely

different person than we first sentenced. Criminals are no different than other human beings they can change, and usually do given ten years in prison. Now, of course, some may never change, which makes this a more dangerous and less supported alternative to the death penalty. Another alternative is rehabilitation or reformatories. Reformatories are used to reform criminals working with the physical, mental, and moral issues of their inmates - instead of just punishing them as we would in jails. They put their offenders to work for society and try to turn their lives around, so they can live a normal life in society. Reformatories are used now for young offenders, those that are around sixteen to twenty-five years old, but they could be used for older criminals, too. A good use of this method would be for juveniles on death row. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 18 children under the age of 18 have been executed. This is unacceptable to a civilized society. Instead of keeping these kids in jail for 10-20 years and then executing them, we should at least try to rehabilitate them. We all do stupid things as children (maybe not that stupid, but ...) - we shouldn't have to pay for those stupidities with our lives. Although not all criminals can be reformed, the vast majority of them can be, proven by the fact that most parolees never commit a violent crime again when re-entering society. This alternative to the death penalty is a more practical solution, rehabilitating criminals instead of just punishing them. However, it remains a more dangerous alternative because not every criminal can be truly reformed. Hence, this is probably the least supported alternative to capital punishment.

FUTURE OF THE DEATH PUNISHMENT Punishment will remain popular with the general public (and therefore politicians) as long as there are no viable alternatives and as long as crime continues its present inexorable rise. Logically, however, punishment (of any sort) cannot be the future - we must progress and therefore we will.Until this utopian point is reached, which we believe it ultimately will be, we think that we will see the use of the death penalty continuing and its reintroduction in countriesthat had previously abolished it. Most of the Caribbean countries are trying to get it reintroduced. It is clear that in strict penal societies such as Singapore, that the crime rate is much lower than in effectively non-penal societies such as Britain. It is, therefore, logical to assume that Singaporean style policies are likely to be adopted by more countries as their crime rates reach unacceptable proportions. We do not believe that the majority of people who support capital punishment or other severe punishments, do so for sadistic reasons but rather out of a feeling of desperation that they and their families are being overwhelmed by the rising tide of crime which they perceive the government is doing too little to protect them from. We think there would, in the long term, be sufficient support for non-penal methods of dealing with criminals if these were proved to be effective. A particular danger in our society is that we continue to do little or nothing effective about persistent juvenile offenders. If the death penalty were re-introduced, we may be consigning many of these to their death at the age of 18, having never previously given them any discipline whatsoever. Surely execution should not be both the first and last taste of discipline a person gets and yet as we allow so many youngsters to run wild and commit ever more serious crimes unpunished, public opinion and thus political expediency makes it more and more likely. Nicholas Ingram, who went to the electric chair in the American state of Georgia in 1995, is a perfect example of this phenomenon. We should start by introducing stricter discipline from "the bottom up," i.e. start with unruly children at school and on the streets and progress through young thugs and older thugs before we think about restoring capital punishment. This way, we might bring up a generation or two of

disciplined people who might not need the threat of execution to deter them from committing the most serious crimes. It is noticeable that whilst Singapore retains and uses the death penalty, it also has severe punishments for all other offences, including caning for many offences committed by young men who are usually the most crime prone group. Thus, Singapore provides discipline at all levels in its society and has the sort of crime figures that most countries can only dream of.

HOW THE PRACTICE OF BENCH FORMATION CONTRIBUTES TO ARBITRARINESS IN THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY?

Arbitrariness in the imposition of death penalty is considerably accentuated by the fragmented Bench structure of our courts where Benches are inevitably formed with different permutations and combinations from time to time and cases relating to the offence of murder come up for hearing sometimes before one Bench, some times before another sometimes before a third and so on. Professor Blackshield has in his article on "Capital Punishment in India"7 pointed out how the practice of Bench formation contributes to arbitrariness in the imposition of death penalty. Professor Blackshield has abstracted 70 cases in which the Supreme Court had to choose between life and death while sentencing an accused for the offence of murder and analysing these 70 cases he has pointed out that during the period April 28, 1972 to March 8, 1976 only 11 Judges of the Supreme Court participated in 10 per cent or more of the cases.

IS THIS THE END OF DEATH PUNISHMENTS IN INDIA-A CONCLUSION

Some time back, Mohammad Ajmal Kasab, the Pakistani gunman convicted in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, was sentenced to death by hanging. Everywhere in Mumbai, where 166 people were gunned down by Kasab and his accomplices, people cheered and fought to express their joy to newspapers and TV channels. But Kasab, who has the right to appeal his sentence at a higher court, is in queue ahead of him is Afzal Guru, who was convicted in the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament.Guru had filed a mercy petition, which is doing the rounds between ministries in Delhi. Everyone, it seems, wants him hanged quickly so Kasab can be hanged quickly. Except Farooq Abdullah, the minister for renewable energy and a lone dissenting political voice, who said he was not in favor of death for Guru as it would make a hero of him for generations of misguided youth. That is the argument being made in some quarters against death for Kasab, as well. More than two-thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in death or practice. China tops the list in terms of numbers executed, well above 1,000 in 2009. At number five was the United States, where one can still opt for the gas chamber or the firing squad in some states. The death penalty in India is only handed down in the "rarest of rare" cases. Those that are convicted have the option to appeal to a higher court, going up to the Supreme Court and also file a mercy petition with the president.That is not enough, say human rights activists who want to do away with the death penalty altogether. The state should not have the right over someone's life and India's criminal justice system cannot be trusted to be fair, they say. The world's largest democracy ought to show humane leadership, they argue. Sentencing someone to life - that is, for as long as they live is just as severe a punishment, they say.The families of victims disagree. Punishment must be equal to the crime and only the death penalty would dissuade potential militants and other criminals, they say. In the 21st century, we are finding new ways to create life and prolong life. But we still can't make up our minds about whether it is right, ethical or good to take someone's life, even when it is dignified by a court of law.

In the end , we would seem to be left with three options 1) Not to have the death penalty and the genuine problems it causes and continue to accept the relatively high levels of murder and other serious crimes that we presently have. 2) 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. 3) 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.