What is your view regarding "Abolition of Death Penalty for non-Terrorism Offence?

Kamlaksh Jha

I Believe that Death Penalty should be there in Law, It shouldn't be abolished. Because there are many Offences like Rape (Which is increasing in our Country), Murder, Human-trafficking etc. Abolition of Death sentence will give wings to such crimes and Culprit will not fear about the judgement of death penalty. It will increase the crime in Country.
So far the Judgement of Death Penalty, It already takes more than 4-5 years(investigation) for a prisoner to prove guilty, then only he gets the Punishment. So after long investigation I think it is fair Judgement.
Note: The person assured has committed the crime that's why he is under-trial, The judgement takes time for 100% surety about the crime and investigate about the loop-holes(If anyone also involve, etc) in the whole matter.That's why it takes more than 4-5 years if the matter is about Death Penalty.

Please give your views..

Gandhi

There is no scientific evidence that proves that death penalty deter criminals. And also long investigation doesn't mean that It will be correct. In few cases, death penalty is reversed, as later found mistakes in judgment. There is always chance of human err. This may take life of innocent.
In the recent survey it is found that trial courts are awarding death penalties frequently. They are not following the 'rarest of rare cases' criterian for awarding the death penalty.
Abolition of death penalty will be right way to end all these controversies.

Optimus14

In the course of evolution of laws all over the world the character of punishment has been changed considerably since the ancient times. Till the medieval period almost every state folloed the barberic pattern of punishment among many of them one was the Death penalty. However after renaissance in Europe and subsequent study of the various types of punishment and their impact on crime rate substantially changed the characters of punishment for crime. For all the type of crime there was now either penalty and imprisonment or death penalty. But further study over the many year of time also suggested that death penalty is not effective in curbing the crime rate as was thought before.
Along with this there are many issue with death penalty such as
1. It leaves no space for judicial correction of a mistake once a person died.
2. It forces criminals to kill the victims in case of henious crime
3. Until hanged convicted person face mental trauma every day
4. The term rarest of rare is vague and can be used to satisfy conscience of a group of people or while public
5. The purpose of punishment is to bring chnage in the convicted person but death penalty does not follow this fundamental and basic principles of law

Kamlaksh Jha

In the course of evolution of laws all over the world the character of punishment has been changed considerably since the ancient times. Till the medieval period almost every state folloed the barberic pattern of punishment among many of them one was the Death penalty. However after renaissance in Europe and subsequent study of the various types of punishment and their impact on crime rate substantially changed the characters of punishment for crime. For all the type of crime there was now either penalty and imprisonment or death penalty. But further study over the many year of time also suggested that death penalty is not effective in curbing the crime rate as was thought before.
Along with this there are many issue with death penalty such as
1. It leaves no space for judicial correction of a mistake once a person died.
2. It forces criminals to kill the victims in case of henious crime
3. Until hanged convicted person face mental trauma every day
4. The term rarest of rare is vague and can be used to satisfy conscience of a group of people or while public
5. The purpose of punishment is to bring chnage in the convicted person but death penalty does not follow this fundamental and basic principles of law

For a "Criminal" Is it necessary to think that he(Criminal) faces mental trauma after destroying lives of many innocents . The person who commit crime should get the punishment and as far "Judiciary". I respect that its Decision is not at all vague in any term. Do you know any "recent" case where criminal got the Death Penalty and he was innocent, Ok Possibility, earlier may be more but right now media is also there, and awareness is off-course present so Right now it is hard to get the vague judgement.
I support Death Penalty... Please give me a reason so that I think, Right now at present it needs to be Abolish ....

Optimus14

In the course of evolution of laws all over the world the character of punishment has been changed considerably since the ancient times. Till the medieval period almost every state folloed the barberic pattern of punishment among many of them one was the Death penalty. However after renaissance in Europe and subsequent study of the various types of punishment and their impact on crime rate substantially changed the characters of punishment for crime. For all the type of crime there was now either penalty and imprisonment or death penalty. But further study over the many year of time also suggested that death penalty is not effective in curbing the crime rate as was thought before.
Along with this there are many issue with death penalty such as
1. It leaves no space for judicial correction of a mistake once a person died.
2. It forces criminals to kill the victims in case of henious crime
3. Until hanged convicted person face mental trauma every day
4. The term rarest of rare is vague and can be used to satisfy conscience of a group of people or while public
5. The purpose of punishment is to bring chnage in the convicted person but death penalty does not follow this fundamental and basic principles of law

For a "Criminal" Is it necessary to think that he(Criminal) faces mental trauma after destroying lives of many innocents . The person who commit crime should get the punishment and as far "Judiciary". I respect that its Decision is not at all vague in any term. Do you know any "recent" case where criminal got the Death Penalty and he was innocent, Ok Possibility, earlier may be more but right now media is also there, and awareness is off-course present so Right now it is hard to get the vague judgement.
I support Death Penalty... Please give me a reason so that I think, Right now at present it needs to be Abolish ....

Actually you didn't get the basic principle behind punishment. Punishment is awarded not tortutre the criminal but to reform the same. Secondly no one can outrighly blame a person for committing crime except when he is professional criminal otherwise all the circumstances which forces him or her to commit crime must be considered
So in that case also death penalty is not justified.
Regarding we all know how they cover and distort the news for increasing TRP. For eg they are now a days busy with a ridiculous high profile case while ignoring the killing of rationalist VC.
About terriorist they don't care whether they will be hanged or not so whatever decision is made doesn't bother them.
If i sum up my thoughts then I believe if someone commit a henious crime or kill somebody and in return society ask death penalty for him or her then both are murder though later one crime is committed by the society so may not seems wrong. Gandhi Ji once said that an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.