The Social & Economic Bias Intrinsic To The Death Penalty - A Legal Analysis From An Egalitarian Point Of View
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
THE SOCIAL & ECONOMIC BIAS INTRINSIC TO THE
DEATH PENALTY: A LEGAL ANALYSIS FROM AN
EGALITARIAN POINT OF VIEW
Siddhanth Durgesh Nadkarni, National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal
ABSTRACT
It is a fact that there has been an arduous attempt of us humans to restrict and minimize deviation from and promote adherence to behaviors considered as normal and acceptable by our culture over eons and centuries. Numerous methods have been employed to achieve this end. Many renowned sociologists, criminologists, legal professionals and jurists have, during their careers, thoroughly studied the myriad aspects of crimes and the penal systems put in place to deal with them. Capital punishment has been seen as one of the most contentious of these penalties. 1 Nonetheless, the death penalty has atleast by far, not been called out as unlawful in India, among some other nations like the United States of America. It is a procedure established by law, by means of which an individual is deprived of his life by the state as retribution for committing an exceptionally heinous offence.
India has by far continued with the death penalty to punish offenders that have been found guilty of committing a severe crime from among a set of them. 2 Even though the SC has permitted the capital punishment to be awarded only in some specific cases since the mid-1990s which were deemed by the court to be the “rarest of the rare” and that caused tremors in the conscience of the citizens of the nation. Following this, the Court has persistently upheld the constitutional validity of the capital punishment as awarded upon applying the “rarest of the rare cases” rule, which tempers hearings in the court with a firm presumption in favor of the right to life, acknowledging that the most extreme of penalties, the capital punishment must be awarded only in extraordinary cases.
For the reason that the definition of capital punishment has not been further elaborated upon and no well elucidated guiding rules have been formulated, each judge must ascertain whether or not to award the capital punishment. That being said, scholars of jurisprudence are unambiguous in their stand that the “rarest of the rare” does not in any way connote the uncommonness of the crime as the test; judges are required to initially ascertain the exacerbating factors
1 Should Capital Punishment be Abolished? The Times of India, June 27th, 2004.
2 Majumdar, Sanjoy. India and the Death Penalty, BBC News August 4th, 2005.
(pertaining to the crime) and then balance them out with allaying factors (pertaining to the circumstances in which the accused found themselves in). Additionally, judges are required to liberally and expansively interpret these allaying factors, without harboring the prejudiced notion that the accused is beyond reformation. 3 In the author’s egalitarian point of view, which is firmly in favor of equality, individuals ought to receive the same, or be treated in the same, non-arbitrary and fair way, or at the very least, in certain respects be treated as equals. Another view based on very similar lines elaborates upon this: it says, individuals must be treated as equals, must treat each other as equals, and last but not the least, must relate as equals, or must, atleast to some extent be entitled an equal social status.
The fundamental doctrines of egalitarianism, more often than not rest on the backdrop of the notion that every person on this earth is equal in their fundamental worth or moral status. It must be noted that in sharp contrast to the egalitarian view, the impact of the capital punishment has been far from proportionate. Individuals belonging to the margins of the Indian society have far greater chances of being sentenced to the capital punishment than individuals belonging to its elite section. In the author’s opinion, there is no stronger indictment of the capital punishment than the undeniable truth that for all practical purposes, it is truly a punishment almost exclusively awarded to people from lower social-economic groups.
The capital punishment is unintendedly discriminate on the grounds of class, thus almost equating the punishment with arbitrary killing, the only difference being that the death penalty lies within the sphere of the law. The reasons why poverty-stricken individuals are affected by the death penalty in a much greater proportion are exhaustive. They are quite susceptible to being target by the police. Furthermore, their limited means mean that they cannot afford the fees of a lawyer. One might argue that they are given free legal assistance under NALSA, however this assistance that they might receive, is more often than not, of very substandard quality. Even tracing witnesses and getting experts to procure evidence can prove to be more than the poor can afford.
The ability to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of higher courts, is often dependent on an individual’s ability to pay for additional counsel. A lot of poor people fail to pay the security amount required for bail and for this very reason, continue to remain in pretrial detention for prolonged durations, further exacerbating their ability to put forth a strong defense. Some of the mechanisms for legal aid, get activated only at the stage at which the actual trial commences. This basically means that the defendants possessing limited financial means are often subjected to police interrogation and investigation in the absence of any
3 Mithu v. State of Punjab [1983] 2 SCC 277
lawyer. Until it is time for the cases to reach the court, it may already prove to be too late to assure a fair hearing to the poor defendant. Rampant corruption prevailing among the officers responsible for the enforcement of the law is yet another detrimental factor. For this reason, the author believes that the capital punishment is cannot be recalled. It blows out, the life’s flame once and for all and simply destroys the most fundamental and precious right to life, in the absence of which no person can exercise any other right of theirs. 4 Statement of Problem The fact that the death row, for the most part, comprises members of the lower socio-economic strata, has largely been subjected to oversight by most so-called right-thinking Indians. Rarely have any systematic records of this been made, and even more rarely has this sad fact been taken to a conceptual level.
Omitting this fact has consequently resulted in scanty awareness about how class plays a pivotal role in the shaping of the entire process of the sentencing of a defendant to death. Due to this lack of knowledge, the consequences of the class-bias on the fairness and non-arbitrariness of the system remain underacknowledged. As a consequence of the inegalitarian treatment of the rich over the economically backward, an overwhelming majority of the persons taken to court for capital murder are not provided access to all the legal resources required to sufficiently defend themselves. For this very reason, they are subjected to much stricter sanctions than their more affluent counterparts.
Hypothesis Studying Karl Marx’s egalitarian point of view on the capital punishment can help us better understand certain less-apparent reasons behind the government in capitalist countries wanting to execute the poor. It is also important for us to critically analyze the myriad reasons behind the skewed demographic make-up of the death row in India, that has been touched upon in the statement of problem. Apart from the reasons behind the socially and economically disadvantaged comprising most of the death-row, the implications of the execution of a deathrow inmate on the inmate’s family need to be analyzed. Lastly, suggestions need to be made to completely eradicate the socio-economic bias that is at present, implicit in the awarding of the capital punishment. Only then can we safely say that the justness and fairness of the judiciary
4 Justice P.N. Bhagwati in Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab [1982] AIR 1325
will remain intact. Nature and Methodology of Research The author would like to declare that this research-paper is purely doctrinal in nature as it is for the most part based on primary data sources, including but not limited to various committee reports. However, a few online secondary sources such as blogs have also been accessed. This research-paper is analytical and also descriptive in nature. A number of paperback books and journals along with case-laws, among other references have also proven to be indispensable in the completion of this paper. Objectives of the Study The objectives of this research paper have been stated as under:
1. Studying the Marxian egalitarian perspective on the death penalty.
2. Critically analyzing the social and financial discrimination suffered by those Indian
convicts who have been sentenced to death. Review of Literature
1. Phil Porter, “The Economics of Capital Punishment”:
It has been argued by the author of this e-essay, that the method of awarding capital punishment lacks efficacy in ensuring the deterrence of heinous crimes. Furthermore, he acknowledges that the capital punishment is not infallible (for the reason that a significantly large number of innocents have been found guilty and sentenced to death by the state) and that capital punishment has throughout the passage of time, been award discriminately.
2. Law Commission Report, No. 262, The Death Penalty:
The Law Commission while acknowledging the fact that capital punishment is a matter that is very delicate in nature, took the decision of undertaking an in-depth study of the matter. The 262nd report has minutely scrutinized the constitutional validity of the
punishment while discussing numerous other aspects of it, at great lengths. The said report of the commission also contains within it, a few recommendations.
3. The Hindu: Poverty and the Death Row:
This article in a renowned Indian daily, states that most of the individuals condemned by the state to capital punishment in India, are financially incapacitated and illiterate. Furthermore, a number of them even identify as members of religious minority groups. The late former president of India, A. P. J Abdul Kalam also stated in one of his many studies that the background of many of the condemned that wrote mercy petitions to him, showed very clearly, “a social and economic bias”. Chapterization of the Paper The research paper has, for the convenience of the readers, been partitioned into 5 chapters.
Chapter 1 – Introduction to the paper The significance of the subject matter of the paper Statement of the problem being dealt with by the paper Hypothesis Chapter 2 – Objectives of the paper Citation of pieces of literature that were indispensable to completing the paper Chapter 3 – Methodological component of the paper Chapter 4 – Findings of the paper Conclusion Recommendations for future research and investigation Chapter 5 – Bibliography and references
Introduction Capital punishment is a process established by the law in force in a country, whereby an offence so heinous in nature has been committed by a person, that the state expresses its condemnation of the offence by taking the convicts life, the very thing that is the most inalienable and precious to him. This punishment is awarded only in the instances where the offence by its very nature is such that it is impossible to vitiate it in any way other than awarding a punishment of death. The death penalty has been in existence almost since the advent of civilization in man. The evidence for this is the fact that the penalty was included in the code of King Hammurabi of Babylonia, way back in the 18th century B. C. 5 In the context of India, the landmark case of Bachan Singh v.
State of Punjab6 set forth the “rarest of the rare cases” condition which assists the judges in determining whether awarding capital punishment was essential in the case at hand or not. Nonetheless, the argument surrounding capital punishment is one among the many unending debates of today’s day and age. There is nothing surprising about this, for the simple reason that death lies on both sides of the arguments: one side argues that the convict will be killed at the hands of justice while the other side calls the punishment of taking one’s life, a grave injustice. As a consequence, one can counter any argument related to the dearness of life, or simply the “secular right to life” with equal vociferity from the other side. The demographic make-up of the inmates on death-row is typed rather than irregular.
One can seldom find a member of the elite, who has been awarded a death sentence, waiting to be executed. More often than not, an overwhelming proportion of death-row inmates belong to a social group that can be classified as an ethnic-minority. It is safe to say that close to all death-row inmates are on quite a low social and economic footing and do not possess a lot of the qualities that are considered as desirable in the capitalist setup of most societies of today’s day and age. It is a Marxian perception that the system of administering justice in countries functioning in a capitalist set-up, is used by the bourgeoisie to repress the proletariat. The laws in force in such countries are nothing but a reflection of the interests of the bourgeoise and those tasked with enforcing the laws, do so in a way that discriminates against the underprivileged and the weak.
Due to this very notion, Marxism is fundamentally opposed to awarding the capital punishment
5 Early History of the Death Penalty – Death Penalty Information Center
6 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1982) AIR 1980 SC 898
in capitalist countries since it would inevitably be abused as an oppressive tool. Criticism of the capital punishment is more often than not, based on the arguments about its irreversible nature, inhumanity, and the high chances of error and on the age old saying, that “an eye for an eye makes the world blind. ” (i. e. The sense of justice attained upon doing unto convicted murderers, what they had done to their victims is false. ) In the context of India, the convict’s ethnicity and linguistic background are surrounded by a great deal of politics. It has been often observed that this forms the basis for clemency pleas by the convicts.
The author has seldom seen the invoking of a more valid reason such as the possible interference of the convict’s social status, economic background, religious identity or level of education with his interests in the court proceedings, while pleading for clemency. Due to this reason, the National Law University, Delhi put out a report which dealt with the working of the capital punishment in India. This report gives us affirmation and evidence for a reality that those involved in/ well acquainted with the system that administers justice, were aware of all along: an overwhelming majority of those condemned to death in India are economically disadvantaged and illiterate, or atleast semi-literate and quite a few are also members of religious minorities. As many as
241 out of 385 death-row convicts has been convicted of an offence for the very first time.
There is a strong chance that quite a few of them might have been juveniles while they had committed the heinous offence for which they were punished with death, but failed to procure and provide the court with the requisite documentation as a testament to their age. As opposed to the principle of the law, that individuals who are too young to understand the true implications of their actions and likewise, those who are too old should not be awarded the capital punishment, 54 of the death-row inmates whose ages were made known to the public, were aged around 18-21 years at the time at which they committed the offence for which they were condemned to death, and shockingly, 7 were aged above 60 years.
There is quite a high possibility that upon being picked at random, an Indian death-row inmate, waiting to be executed, belongs to a social group that is either a religious minority, a lower/down-trodden caste, a backward class or from a financially weak family, and has, in all probability, not even completed his secondary education, let alone his higher secondary or undergraduate education. Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, the late President of India had once famously posed the following question in one of his studies: “Why are so many people in death row? ” A very strong connection can be established between the social and economic standing of an individual and the access he enjoys to capable legal-counsel and proper representation in the courtroom. At this juncture, a concerning question that arises in our minds is whether these statistics indicate
a bias in the judicial system or a prejudice that is institutionalized in nature. It has been rather frequently observed that the legal grounds for pardon that are said to be “unavailable” to the socially or economically backward/vulnerable are used for pardoning those criminals that are influential in the society. To highlight this, the author would like to give an example. Ina particular case, 4 inmates belonging to a certain political party who had been condemned to death for indulging in the act of setting alight, a bus while taking part in a “protest” and in the process, murdering 3 female students.
The court of law, while making their sentence less severe, invoked the ‘doctrine of diminished responsibility’ and in the reasoning explaining their decision, said that those responsible, owing to the fact that they were completely engulfed by the frenzy of the mob, were unable to take full cognizance of the on-ground situation that they were in. The author, while welcoming any decision of a court, that invokes a ground to commute a sentence of capital punishment to life in prison without the possibility of parole, would like to reiterate that past decisions have made it easy to infer that such grounds are more often than not invoked at the very final stages and only for those individuals that possess the financial means to afford competent counsel and legal remedies until the very end of the proceedings.
When any judiciary that can be overtly observed as acting in favour of the affluent and influential, resorts to the death penalty, it will always be subject to the accusations of socioeconomic bias. It is thus the author’s firm belief that both, society and law, shall, for the aforementioned reasons be better served by the abolition of the capital punishment. The author hopes that the statistics that he has placed before the readers of the paper, reinforces the larger argument against the state depriving any human being of his/her life as a form of punishment. This argument is afterall, rooted purely in morality.
Perception of an Egalitarian Karl Marx, at the very outset, has challenged the perception of the “social-contract”, as a piece of law that is nothing but a reflection of the meeting of minds for the collective good among the right-thinking individuals living in a civilized society. It is Marx’s contention that the unequitable division of material wealth in most societies in the modern world, consequently gives rise to the unequitable division of power across the various sections of the societies. Individuals not possessing adequate amounts of wealth shall, as a result, exercise scant power over the material conditions that are influencing their lives and are, in the end, at the mercy of the whims and fancies of the members of the bourgeoisie. The members of the bourgeoisie are then in a position that enables them to regulate most aspects of the society in such a way that
their self-interests are better represented and served, while on the other hand, the proletariat have continuously remained repressed/downtrodden and exploited as the cost-bearers of those selfish interests. For this very reason, Marx saw criminal acts as a very rudimentary form of revolt by the members of the proletariat against the prevailing social order, which he viewed as very unfair, and not as acts that intentionally violated the “common good”. If we consider the system that administers justice, and more particularly, the death penalty from the egalitarian point of view, the hegemonic reasoning that governs the decision to sentence someone to death remains essentially based on the worthiness of an individual. Persons deemed the worthiest of being killed, i. e.
the “killable”, are more often than not, poor and thus assumed by members of the society to be lethargic, incapable of being trusted, inferior, both morally and intellectually, and therefore, worthy of the fate that they have been condemned to, whereas the individuals who can be said to have succeeded under the standards set by capitalism, and who are often members of the middle class or the upper class, are for the most part, exempted. Hegemonic reasoning to justify the process of ascertaining who receives the capital punishment and who doesn’t are rooted in these perceptions and usually serves as a mechanism that enables members of the middle and upper classes to socially and morally alienate themselves from the members of the lower rungs of the society, with the likes of whom they do not associate/identify.
Considering this economic context and the class polarities from Karl Marx’s point of view, some reasonably inferable reasons that can explain why the financially vulnerable are disproportionately sentenced to death are enumerated below.
1) DEARTH OF FINANCES:
The foremost and most apparent reason is inadequacy of means. In contradistinction to the persons whose pockets are lined enough to enable them to hire, and to retain private legal counsel all through the entirety of the arduous capital hearing process, an overwhelming majority of the defendants, owing to their impoverished state, are eventually rendered with scanty choices as to the standards of the public legal counsel that will be provided for their representation, by the court. In the unlikely case of the defendant initially not being indigent, the incredibly high cost (including the costs of procuring legal documents, witness costs, phone calls, payments to independently commissioned experts, costs of photocopies etc.) and duration of the capital process shall surely make them indigent by the end of the entire ordeal. The cost of the capital
process is also inflated by high administrative and collateral costs which poor defendants are often unable to pay.7 If the defendant is unable to sustain capable legal counsel, it will most certainly endanger a capital defendant’s prospects of getting a favourable verdict. This verdict will be the thin line between life and a condemnation to death. The legal counsel for the capital defendant plays a pivotal role in each stage of the hearing, exerting significant influence over not just the choice of the prosecutors to seek capital punishment for the accused, but also over the failure or success of the defendant in the initial trial and subsequent appeals.
2) LACKLUSTER SERVICES OF PUBLIC LEGAL COUNSEL:
An overwhelming number of public lawyers appointed by the court for the defence of the accused, have insufficient experience, resources and time, all of which are imperative to put up a solid defense for the accused. The fact that most public lawyers are insufficiently paid and are overworked because of the sheer volume of cases given to them means that they often give limited time and attention to a particular capital defendant. To add on to the woe of the defendant, their public counsel often lacks the money needed for investigating and psychologically testing witnesses or hiring experts.
Public lawyers also more often than not, do not adequately investigate numerous aspects of the case and the criminal history of the defendant, that could, in all probability act as “mitigating circumstances” and improve the chances of the capital defendant receiving some sort of leniency or a less severe sentence. As a consequence of the limitations that come with most, if not all public counsel appointed by the courts, many of those indigents convicted of capital murder, complain of the inefficiency and inefficacy of their counsel. On the other hand, individuals possessing adequate financial means, manage to outmaneuver the system and the laws put in place by it.
3) OVERREPRESENTATION IN STATISTICS:
The second reasoning behind the disproportionate execution of poor capital defendants, is their overrepresentation in statistics on homicide, thanks mostly to the manner in which the laws on crime are codified and enforced. The law’s definition of homicide includes behaviours as well as actions commonly attributable to poor people than to
7 UN document, “Extreme poverty and human rights”
affluent individuals or firms or corporations. As a consequence of this street and violent crime are sanctioned in a more targeted manner by the system, in contradistinction with white-collar or corporate crimes. This targeted sanctioning can also be attributed to the available behaviours, opportunities, and resources that are more attributable to the poor than to the affluent or to corporations. This is not to say that the impoverished do not have an abnormally high rate of participation in incidences of homicide, however, as mentioned earlier, Marx considers this as nothing but a form of protest against the unjust social order. For this reason, the poor are usually the more likely victims and perpetrators in cases involving homicide, under its legalistic definition, than are members of the middle and upper class.
4) NATURE OF THE CRIME:
The very nature of the crime of “capital homicide” is in itself a contributing factor to the high rates of execution of impoverished capital defendants. The poor are not equipped with the resources and the legal alternatives (including ADR or private counsel) to solve issues arising in their lives, that the members of the middle and upper classes are equipped with. Therefore, as a group, the poor are much more likely than the wealthy to default to physical force/ violence as a means to solve day to day issues.
5) UNEQUITABLE ACCESS TO EDUCATION AND INFORMATION:
is yet another reason why poor capital defendants tend to get sentenced to death. The world over, judicial systems are extremely complicated and individuals being prosecuted for capital murder require the assistance of an expert to mount a strong defence. People languishing in impoverished conditions more often than not lack access to education about the legal system and are less literate in comparison to the general masses. Furthermore, they are often not provided with the requisite legal, social and financial aid. In the absence of such aid, such individuals are usually not quite able to comprehend and fully part-take in capital punishment proceedings that have been brought against them. Their illiteracy and consequent ignorance often result in them not knowing the process of obtaining legal aid.
As a natural consequence of this, poor capital defendants are rather unlikely to firmly assert the rights that they enjoy. This in turn may result in them not benefitting from the various safeguards that exist in the law.
Low literacy levels greatly contribute to the hardship of the poor in understanding the functioning and developments of the courts that they and their families have to face. Consequently, the poor capital defendants are not afforded of the possibility of appealing to a higher court following their sentencing to death. This perilous state of affairs is exacerbated by the predisposition of judiciaries to better protect the interests of the affluent and the influential while at the same time, treating the socially and economically disadvantaged with a lack of empathy and importance. 8 (“The Death Penalty in India” report prepared by “Project 39A” of the National Law University, Delhi, states that of the 370 interviewed death-row inmates, 74. 1% were economically disadvantaged.
The report further state that quite a few of those who were condemned to death were semi-literate and among the financially underprivileged, 20% never went formally attended a school. )9
6) BEING A MIGRANT WORKER/MENIAL:
It has been observed in quite a few instances, that merely being employed as a “migrant worker” or as a “menial” can be something that could potentially increase the chances of the capital defendant being condemned to death. In a developing nation like India, the financially backward, usually engage in menial and/or underpaid pursuits, often referred to as blue-collar jobs including rigorous manual labour, housekeeping, being a domestic help etc. If such individuals are required to interact with the criminal justice system, their standing in the rungs of the society will result in them being subjected to discrimination. This will further restrict their already limited access to the justice system.
There are certain nations such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where according to the “Shari’a Law”, the family of the murdered individual, may at their discretion forgive the killer on the condition that he pays “Diyat”, which translates to “blood money”, in English. However, migrant workers usually tend to not possess adequate funds to be able to pay this Diya. Consequently, they may be awarded the capital punishment merely for the reason that they don’t have deep pockets. It also goes without saying that migrant workers do not have the political relations required to get a pardon through
8 UN document, “Extreme poverty and human rights”. (Para 25)
9 National Law University, Delhi, The Death Penalty India Report, 2016. p.108
underhand mean. So, statistics suggest that migrant workers in KSA are about 7 times more likely to be sentenced to death than nationals of KSA.10
7) FAULT-RIDDEN LEGAL AID:
The defendant’s right to receive legal aid, is protected in almost all world-wide and regional charters and treaties on human rights. This access to legal aid is imperative to ensure that the fundamental principles of due process and equality before the courts are upheld at all times. 11 The reality is starkly different however. In practice, capital defendants are not afforded access to the legal counsel that they wish to be represented by. They also often do not enjoy access to their legal counsel while the pre-trial investigation is underway, or for that matter, even when the proceedings themselves are underway. The proceedings include pivotal investigative procedures including, but not limited to “crossexaminations”.
Defendants that are socially and economically underprivileged often have great difficulty in sustaining the public counsel allotted to them by the court, for the reason that the counsel will on many occasions decline to accompany the capital defendant during interrogations in case the defendant is unable to remunerate them for “in-jail visits”. Consequently, such individuals are unfairly convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Legal aid programs form an integral part of the plans of many governments that strive to improve access to justice for all their citizens, irrespective of their social or economic status. Nonetheless, in quite a few nations, public lawyers appointed by the court for the defence of the accused are poorly prepared for cases related to capital punishment and their assistance is often not available throughout each and every stage of the appeal process.
Legal aid missions/programs can be made more effective only when they are provided with adequate funds. In India, the law even allows for the defendant’s right to avail a legal counsel prior to the 1st time the defendant is produced before the magistrate. 12 In spite of this provision,
10 Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, “Facts About the Death Penalty: Saudi Arabia”.
11 Ex. Constitution of India, Article 22.
12 UN Document, “Extreme Poverty and human rights
“The Death Penalty in India Report” states that a whopping 89% of those on the deathrow were not afforded legal representation at the time of their 1st production before the magistrate. Only 1.6% of the surveyed defendants had been duly given legal aid.13
8) CORRUPTION:
Corruption is the final reason. Corruption is ubiquitous, present in nearly any and every country, in almost every law enforcing body, including the police, the judiciary and the judicial system as a whole as well. “Bigwigs” including those with lined pockets or with a solid network of other influential people or affluents are more like to obtain a desirable outcome. Impoverished capital defendants that are unable to afford the services provided by the justice sector, which should ideally cost nothing, often faced dropped, delayed or rejected petitions. Corruption is also often times the culprit to blame for alarming prison conditions. Bribery is considered by most, if not all deathrow inmates as the only means by which they can survive in their squalid surroundings (such as in the infamous “Anda Cell”).
Corruption can also percolate through the system that pardons and commutes the death sentences. 14 In certain nations, the set criteria for commutation or pardon is quite obfuscated and uncertain. It is the affluent capital defendants that are able to capitalize on these ambiguities. Thanks to corruption, in the absence of the assistance of kith and kin living outside the jail, poor death-row inmates find it very difficult to obtain adequate food or the healthcare that they require Consequences After the Execution The economic and social consequences of a death sentence can be dramatic for people living in poverty. Deprived of liberty, they are also deprived of income, employment, and social benefits. The family is also directly affected, especially if the convicted person was the family’s main breadwinner.
15 The financial burdens for family members that arise throughout the legal proceedings can also lead to poverty. As far as children are concerned, most of the time they receive little help from the State: “Potential alternative carriers, including other family members, may not take in the children of parents sentenced to death or executed. This can be because they are unable to do so due to the additional costs of supporting the children, lack of
13 National Law University, Delhi, The Death Penalty Report, 2016, p. 133.
14 http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/278&refer=english/&Lang=E para 57
15 http://www.un.org/fr/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/278
accommodation, or because they are unwilling due to the stigma associated with the crime or fear of revenge by those affected by the crime. If nobody else steps in to support the children, they will have to look after themselves. They may end up living on the street, may be more vulnerable and at a much higher risk of becoming victims of crime, including sexual violence and exploitation, or may turn to crime themselves in order to survive. 16 In India, nearly half of the people on death row who shared their unemployment history were working in the unorganized sector and taking low-paying vulnerable jobs throughout most of their lives. Among those people sentenced to death who are economically vulnerable, 63. 2% are the sole or primary source of income for their families.
For these people, who are the primary earners for their families, a death sentence is made even more devastating, not just for their lack of resources for legal representation, but also because the death sentence will have such a serious impact upon the economic well-being of their family members who were dependent on their income. 17 Suggested Remedies a) The author suggests that remedial actions like enforcing systemic reforms in the police force, introducing schemes that ensure the protection of witnesses as well as the families of victims, along with schemes that adequately compensate the victim’s kin, must be taken up by governments with utmost urgency.
b) Despite the fact that there exists no legal/penological validation for viewing terrorism from a lens distinct from that through which other offences are viewed, a frequently voiced apprehension is that the eradication of the capital punishment for terrorism and associated crimes such as the waging of war, will inevitably have an adverse effect on the security interests of the country. In the author’s opinion however, taking into consideration the apprehensions, duly raised by parliamentarians, there seems to be no apparent reason due to which we need to wait any further before taking initial steps in the direction of abolishing the system of awarding capital punishment, atleast for all crimes, save for terrorism and other associated crimes. 16 Quaker United Nations Office, Children of Parents Sentenced to Death or Executed: How are they affected? How can they be supported?
17 National Law University, Delhi, The Death Penalty Report, 2016, p. 105
c) A more cogent, well-informed and principled deliberation on the removal of the capital punishment for all offences, except for the aforementioned few, must take place at the earliest because this deliberation shall go a long way in aiding the reducing of the difficulties (including racism and other forms of discrimination) that the impoverished death-row inmates are subjected to. d) Lastly, the author altruistically hopes that the drive for complete abolition of capital punishment shall be rapid and as irreversible as the act of the state taking someone’s life away from them is. Conclusion The consequence of tags that having been tied to indigency, is that a violent and brutal path has been forced upon many persons.
Even though people are very well aware of the unfairness of doing so, they continue to presume the vilest of the socially marginalized and individuals possessing inadequate financial means. The state is doing absolutely nothing to rectify such untrue presumptions. As a result of this racism and other forms of discrimination continue to be inseparably embedded into the society we live in and also into the running of the prison system. It is mostly the financially underprivileged that are condemned to death because of this racial and economic bias.