As a rule, punishability, by and large, depends on the degree of culpability of criminal act and the danger posed by it to society as also the depravity of the offender. The risk of penalty is the cost of crime which the offender has to pay. When this cost (suffering) is high enough as compared with the benefit which the crime is expected to yield, it will deter a considerable number of people. This is true with crimes punishable with death sentence as well.
A dispassionate analysis of criminological jurisprudence would reveal that capital punishment is justified only in extreme cases in which a high degree of culpability is involved causing grave danger to society. It must, however, be added that a mere objective consideration of dangerousness of the act (crime) to society by itself would not be enough to assess perpetrator’s culpability but his personal attributes and circumstances and gravity of the offence have also to be taken into consideration to decide whether or not he deserves capital punishment. Thus, punishment should be commensurate among other things, with the gravity of offender’s act and societal reaction to it.
Experience has shown that despite consciousness about the desirability of reformative justice, at times unequivocal stand is unavoidable in extreme cases where offender has been fully aware of the fatal consequences of his gruesome and brutal crime and there were no mitigating circumstances. In such aggravating situations, though unwantonly, law must take a firm stand and not hesitate even to award the extreme sentence of death to the offender. These situations have found expression in the penal law of India and other countries of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment