A critique of 262nd Law Commission Report - Abolition of Death Penalty in India

1. A
Critique of
262nd Law
Commission Report
Aditya Kashyap
Roll No. – 16183
Group No. – 12
Submitted to
Dr. Gurneet Singh
Asst. Professor of Law, RGNUL
Criminology & Penology
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW
PUNJAB

2. Times have changed
Lack of Deterrence
Arbitrary Sentencing
Flawed System
Torturous Waiting Period
Other Countries Abolished
An Introduction to 262nd Law Commission Report
abolition of death penalty for all offences except
those related to terrorism
Three members of the commission dissent from
this majority view
Recommendation

3. 1955 •Special Reasons for LI>DP
1967 •The 35th Report on Capital Punishment: capital punishment should be retained.
1973 •Special Reasons for DP>LI
1980 •Bacchan Singh (Rarest of the Rare)
2003 •The 187th Report on the Mode of Execution : hanged till death to be retained.
2013 •Criminal Law Amendment
2014 •Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India => LCI
Backdrop of the ReportBackdrop of the Report

4. 35 years since
Bacchan Singh =>
Maneka Gandhi
Constitutionally
valid penological
goals
Poor Police
Investigations
Judge-centric
decisions
Irregular exercise
of clemency
Exploitation of
downtrodden
Arguments for Abolition

5. Human Fallibility Argument
Order & Security
Due Process of Law
Deterrence
Legislative Supremacy
Retentionist Arguments

6. Analysis of Penological Theories & Death Penalty
Deterrence
Incapacitation
Retribution
Proportionality
Reformation

7. Jacques Derrida
contradiction
Need for
reconciliation
262nd LCR –
Constitutionalism
& Democracy
Paradox
Martha
Nussbaum –
Political Emotions
Abolitionist v.
Retentionist
Conclusion & Suggestions