Death Penalty
September 19, 2024
The Indian Courts have often attributed death sentence to the collective conscience and its state of shock. Although many countries have abolished capital punishment, India seems to be rooting for its continuance. After the recent rape in Kolkata, the Aparajitha bill also moots for capital punishment for culprits of rape.
Sociological Analysis of Capital Punishment
- Collective Conscience in Deviance: According to Durkheim, punishment or deviance is not a rational control mechanism but rather a passion-fuelled instrument in the interest of re-enforcing collective morality in the society. It originated from the ‘social abhorrence’of a crime. Durkheim believed that society and the instruments of society were codependent units that formed a single organic whole and stated that crime was a natural and healthy part of society and how society functioned realistically.
- Intersectionality in Death Penalty: The application of the death penalty is often linked to social inequalities. Research highlights how marginalized groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, are disproportionately sentenced to death. For example, In the U.S., Black individuals have historically been more likely to receive the death penalty than their white counterparts, especially when the victim is white. Poor defendants are less likely to have access to quality legal representation, increasing their chances of receiving a death sentence.
- Self-fulfilling Prophecy and Labelling Theory: Labelling theory posits that deviant behaviour is not inherently criminal, but becomes so through societal reactions and judgments. In the context of the death penalty, those who are convicted of capital crimes are often labelled as the most “dangerous” or “irredeemable” individuals, justifying their execution. For example, in the Telangana “encounter” killings of four accused rapists in December 2019, Labelling theory can help explain how the state, in this case represented by the police, used the label of “rapist” to justify the use of extrajudicial violence as a form of social control.
Arguments against Death Penalty
- High Burden on Marginalized Groups: Research shows that wrongful convictions disproportionately affect marginalized populations, including racial minorities and poor individuals who lack access to quality legal defense.
- Lack of deterrence: Numerous studies have failed to conclusively prove that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than life imprisonment. For example, the murder rates in countries or states that do not have the death penalty are often similar to, or even lower than, those that do. The threat of execution does not necessarily prevent individuals from committing violent crimes, especially in cases where crimes are committed impulsively or under extreme circumstances, such as mental illness.
- Focus on Retribution, Not Prevention: The death penalty tends to focus more on punishing offenders after a crime has been committed, rather than addressing the root causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of education, and social inequality. Crime prevention strategies that focus on rehabilitation, social services, and education may be more effective in the long term.
- Bias in Legal Systems: Research has shown that juries, judges, and prosecutors may be influenced by unconscious biases, leading to uneven application of the death penalty based on factors like race, class, and gender.
- Crime is Often a Symptom of Deeper Social Issues: The death penalty does not address the underlying factors that contribute to criminal behaviour, such as poverty, inequality, lack of education, mental health issues, and social disintegration.
- For example, rape is not only a violent crime against individuals, but also a reflection of entrenched societal structures like patriarchy, which upholds unequal power relations between genders. The death penalty, while focusing on punishment after the crime, does little to address these root causes—like patriarchal norms and gender inequality—that contribute to rape culture.
The death penalty is often criticized for being a flawed, costly, and unjust response to crime. It carries the risk of irreversible errors, perpetuates social inequalities, fails to act as a clear deterrent, and raises serious moral and ethical concerns. Moreover, it diverts attention and resources from addressing the root causes of crime and rehabilitation efforts, which are more effective in promoting long-term safety and justice. The global trend toward abolition reflects the growing recognition that capital punishment is not a solution, but rather a symptom of deeper social and legal issues that require more humane and effective approaches.
