Untitled

Shimbhu, Dawan; Doonan, Shown

doi:10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.1998.24.275

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While in an individualised exercise of sentencing these factors may not always outweigh aggravating factors (and that depends on facts and circumstances of individual cases), to say that these factors will almost never mitigate the sentence is contrary to the Bachan Singh framework. 48 This was acknowledged by the Supreme Court itself in Sangeet and Anr. v. State of Haryana, where the court observed that the circumstances of the criminal, referred to in Bachan Singh, appear to have taken a bit of a back seat in the sentencing process.…”

Section: Reduced Role Of Mitigating Circumstances: Crime-centric Apprmentioning

confidence: 99%

Penological Justifications as Sentencing Factors in Death Penalty Sentencing

Surendranath

Vishwanath

Dash

2019

Journal of National Law University Delhi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab in 1980, it also laid down a sentencing framework for subsequent sentencing courts, guiding them in deciding between life imprisonment and the death penalty. This framework, popularly known as the ‘rarest of rare’ framework, was focused on individualised punishment. However, subsequent judgments have strayed away from Bachan Singh’s core framework, and the use of penological justifications as sentencing factors has contributed significantly to this deviation. This article argues that it is not within the mandate of sentencing judges to invoke penological theories as separate sentencing factors in individual cases when deciding between life imprisonment and the death sentence. The article begins by distinguishing between the penological justifications used to retain the death penalty in Bachan Singh and those underlying the sentencing framework developed in the judgment. It then examines subsequent judgments to trace the manner in which the capital sentencing framework was shaped to be crime-centric through the use of penological ideas like ‘collective conscience’ and deterrence. Examining the implications of penological justifications occupying a dominant place in death penalty sentencing, the article examines the broader concerns about the lack of clarity with sentencing goals. The failure in individual cases to distinguish between penological justifications as sentencing factors determining punishment, on the one hand, and viewing them as consequences arising out of an individualised sentencing process, on the other, lies at the core of the critique in this article.

show abstract

Section: Reduced Role Of Mitigating Circumstances: Crime-centric Apprmentioning

confidence: 99%