NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL

PROJECT ON

JURISPRUDENCE

TOPIC: “THE INHERENT SOCIO-ECONOMIC BIAS IN CAPITAL

PUNISHMENT IN INDIA: A LEGAL ANALYSIS FROM EGALITARIAN
PERSPECTIVE”

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Rashi Ratna Baksh

Assistant Professor Section- A

NLIU, Bhopal ROLL NO. – 2017BALLB51

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My vocabulary falls short on words to express my hearty gratitude towards Jurisprudence

Professor Mr. Ranjan Kumar who gave me the opportunity to work upon such an astonishing
project which helped me in enhancing my thinking skills.

Also, I’d like to thank the prestigious library of NLIU with the material of which I was able
to supplement my project work I want to take out this moment to lastly (but certainly not the
least) thank my parents and The Almighty under whose blessings I am able to conclude this
project. I acknowledge the support of all the aforesaid and start with my project.

Thank you

Rashi Ratna Baksh

2
 SYNOPSIS

TITLE
"The Inherent Socio-Economic Bias in Execution of Capital Punishment in India: A Legal
Analysis from Egalitarian Perspective".

INTRODUCTION
There has been a long quest of human beings to curb and control deviance and promote
conformity to normative behaviour in human culture since times immemorial. Various ways
and means have been attempted in this direction. The criminologists, jurists, sociologists and
legal professionals have dealt with various aspects of the crime and the penal systems. Death
penalty is one of the most debated.1However, capital punishment has never been referred to
as illegal in India as well as in other countries. It is a legal process whereby a person is put to
death by the state as a punishment for committing a crime. India retains capital punishment
for a number of serious offences.2 Although the Supreme Court of India has allowed death
penalty to be carried out only in few instances since 1995 in cases which were “rarest of rare
and shakes the collective conscience of the community”. Subsequently, the Court has
continued to uphold the constitutionality of the death penalty as applied on the ‘rarest of rare
cases’ principle, which imbues into court proceedings a strong presumption in favour of life
recognising that the ultimate penalty of death must be reserved for exceptional cases. Since
this is not further defined and no clear guidelines have been developed, individual judges
must determine whether to impose a death sentence. That said, legal scholars are clear that
the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine is not supposed to suggest the rarity of the offence as the
qualifying factor; judges are meant to first identify and then balance aggravating factors
(relating to the crime) with mitigating factors (related to the circumstances of the accused).
Furthermore, judges are expected to give a liberal and expansive interpretation of mitigating
factors, not least that the accused is beyond reformation.3

1
Should capital punishment be abolished? The Times of India, June 27, 2004.
2
Majumdar, Sanjoy. India and the death penalty. ‘BBC News 4August 2005.
3
Mithu v State of Punjab [1983] 2 SCC 277.

3
In the view of an Egalitarian perspective which favours equality of some sort: People should
get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. An alternative
view expands on this : People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals,
should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian
doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental
worth or moral status.

However, there has been a disproportionate impact of the capital punishment on people from
poorer communities. In India, if you are poor, the chances of being sentenced to death are
immensely higher than if you are rich. There could be no greater indictment of the death
penalty than the fact that in practice it is really a penalty reserved for people from lower
socio-economic groups. This turns it into a class-based form of discrimination, thus making it
the equivalent of an arbitrary killing. People living in poverty are disproportionately affected
by the death penalty for many reasons. They are an easy target for the police, they cannot
afford a lawyer, the free legal assistance they might receive is of low quality, procuring
expert evidence is beyond their means, tracing witnesses is too costly, and access to appeals
often depends on being able to afford extra counsel. Many cannot afford bail and therefore
remain in custody before their trials, further hindering their efforts to prepare an effective
defence. Some legal aid systems become active only at the trial stage, meaning that
defendants from low socio-economic backgrounds are often interrogated and investigated
without a lawyer. By the time the case reaches court, it may already be too late to guarantee a
fair trial. Corruption of law enforcement officials is another detrimental factor. Hence, Death
penalty is irrevocable; it cannot be recalled. It extinguishes the flame of life forever and is
plainly destructive of the right to life, the most precious right of all, a right without which
enjoyment of no other rights is possible.4

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The lower social class profile of death row has largely been taken for granted in India. It has
seldom been documented in a systematic fashion, and even more rarely has it been
theoretically conceptualized. This omission has resulted in little knowledge about how class
shapes the entire capital punishment process.

4
Justice PN Bhagwati in Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 AIR 1325

4
Consequently, the implications of class bias for the justness of the system remain
underappreciated. Largely as a result of the preferential treatment of the wealthy over the
poor, most persons prosecuted for capital murder are not afforded the legal resources
necessary to adequately support their defence and are therefore subjected to harsher sanctions
than their wealthier counterparts.

HYPOTHESIS
Capital punishment and certainly an execution intentionally inflicts on a person significant
pain, suffering, unpleasantness or deprivation that it is ordinarily wrong for an authority like
the state to impose. It is administered in a capricious and arbitrary manner. Yet the
demographic profile of death row populations is patterned rather than random, it is rare to
find upper class individuals who have been convicted of capital punishment and are awaiting
execution. Those on death rows are disproportionately members of an ethnic minority group.
Virtually all have a relatively low social class standing and lack many of the socioeconomic
characteristics that are valued within a capitalist society.

NATURE AND METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

The nature of the study in this project is doctrinal and is primarily descriptive and analytical.
This project is largely based on primary sources of data such as cases and reports of
committees, however secondary & electronic sources of data have been referred to a great
extent. Books, case laws, journals & other reference as guided by faculty of Jurisprudence are
primarily used for the completion of this project.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 Study of Karl Marx’s Egalitarian perspective of capital punishment.

 Analysis of the socio-economic discrimination faced by the death row convicts
in India.

5
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

 Phil Porter, "The Economics of Capital Punishment"

In this online essay, Phil Porter argues that the death penalty is an inefficient method
of deterring crime. He also notes that the death penalty is fallible (a substantial
number of innocent people have been convicted), and has historically been applied in
a discriminatory manner.

 Law Commission Report, No. 262, The Death Penalty,

Law Commission of India in recognition of the fact that the death penalty is an issue
of a very sensitive nature, the Commission decided to undertake an extensive study on
the issue. The report has closely analysed the constitutionality and in length it has
discussed various other aspects. The committee also have forwarded few
recommendations.

 The Hindu: Poverty and the Death row,

In this article it is stated that most of those sentenced to death in the country are poor
and uneducated and many belonged to the religious minorities.
The late President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam also mentioned in his study that the
background of convicts seeking mercy showed “a social and economic bias”.

TENTATIVE CHAPTERIZATION
This project has been divided into 5 chapters. Chapter 1 comprises of Introduction which
brings out the importance of the study and statement of problem. Chapter 2 will contain the
objective of the study. Chapter 3 includes the methodological part of the study Findings,
conclusion and suggestions for further research will be presented in Chapter 4 followed by
references in Chapter 5.

6
INTRODUCTION

Capital punishment is a process where a crime so grievous has been committed that the state
condemns the act by sentencing the convicted to death. It is only applied in the cases where
the crime is of such nature that it cannot be vitiated without a penalty of death. It has existed
since time immemorial, the first recorded instance being that of Hammurabi in the 18th
century B.C. In India, the Bachan Singh Case laid down the extraordinary circumstances
which defines whether or not death sentence was required in the said case.

However, the debate about death penalty is one of the endless debates of the modern times.
That it is understandable, for there is death at both ends of the arguments: the one who is to
be killed at the hands of the justice or injustice. And so every argument about the
preciousness, or the merely secular right to life can be answered with equal force from the
other end. The demographic profile of death row populations is patterned rather than random.
When examining death row demographics, it is rare to find women and rarer still to find
middle or upper class individuals who have been convicted of capital murder and are
awaiting execution. Those on death row are disproportionately male and members of an
ethnic minority group. Virtually all have a relatively low social class standing and lack many
of the socioeconomic characteristics that are valued within capitalist society.5

It’s believed that the justice system in capitalist countries is used by the bourgeoisie to
oppress the proletariat. These laws reflect the interest of their class and are enforced
disproportionately against the poor and weak. In this way Marxism is generally against the
death penalty under a capitalist government since it will be used as a tool of oppression .
Opposition to death penalty is often rooted in the arguments about its irreversibility, its
essential cruelty, the possibility of error and the false sense of justice is doing unto convicted
murderers what they had done to their victims. In the Indian context, politics surrounding the
prisoners’ ethnic origin or linguistic affinity is often the basis for pleas for clemency. Rarely
is a more compelling reason invoked; the possibility of an offender’s economic background,
educational level, social status or religious identity working against his interests in legal
proceedings. Hence, on a report prepared by the National Law University, Delhi on the

5
Wp.//wwu.edu- racism-in- capital-punishment.//

7
working of the death penalty in India provides validation and proof for something that those
familiar with administration of justice knew all along: that most of those sentenced to death
in the country are poor and uneducated and many belong to the religious minorities. As many
as 241 out of 385 death row convicts were first time offenders. Some may have been
juveniles when they committed capital offences, but lacked the documentation to prove their
age. Against the statutory principle that those too young and too old be spared the death
sentence, 54 death row convicts whose age was available were between 18 and 21 at the time
of the offence, and seven had crossed 60 years of age. An average prisoner awaiting
execution is likely to be from a religious minority, a Dalit caste, a backward class or from an
economically vulnerable family, and is unlikely to have finished secondary education.

The late President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam had once mentioned in a study: “Why are so many
people in death row”? The link between socio-economic standing and access to competent
legal counsel and effective representation is quite strong. A question of concern that arises is
whether these statistics indicate systemic bias or institutionalised prejudice. It is not
uncommon that legal grounds unavailable to the vulnerable are invoked in favour of the
influential. In an instance, four prisoners from a political party who were sentenced to death
for burning a bus during a protest and killing three women students. The court, while
commuting their sentence, invoked the ‘doctrine of diminished responsibility’ and reasoned
that those gripped by mob frenzy were not fully cognisant of the situation around them.
While invoking any ground to commute a death sentence to life is welcome, the impression is
inescapable that such relief often comes at a very late stage and only to those with the means
to pursue legal remedies till the very end. When a judicial system that is seen as favouring the
influential resorts to capital punishment, it will be vulnerable to the charge of socio-economic
bias. Law and society, therefore, will be better served if the death penalty itself is abolished.
These statistics must reinforce the larger moral argument against the state taking the life of a
human being — any human being — as punishment.

8
 PERCEPTION OF AN EGALITARIAN
Marx fundamentally challenges the notion of the social contract, the proposition that law
represents a consensus of the common good among members of society. Rather than
exemplifying a consensus of general will, Marx contends that the unequal distribution of
wealth in a society results in the unequal distribution of power throughout the society. Those
without wealth inevitably have little power over circumstances affecting their lives and are
ultimately subject to the will and desires of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are then able to
control aspects of society in order to better represent and serve their own particular interests,
while the proletariat remain continually exploited at the expense of those interests. Therefore,
Marx viewed crime as a primitive form of rebellion by the proletariat against the dominant
social order, not as the willful violation of the common good.

In terms of the criminal justice system and more specifically capital punishment, hegemonic
ideology governing capital justice decisions remains fundamentally premised on the basis of
individual worthiness. Individuals deemed most deserving of death, the “killable,” are
overwhelmingly poor and considered by society to be lazy, untrustworthy, intellectually and
morally inferior, a hindrance, and ultimately deserving of their fate, whereas those who have
succeeded under capitalism’s standards, and who often belong to the middle and upper
classes, are largely exempt Hegemonic justifications for determining who does and does not
receive the death penalty are based on these perceptions and often serve as a mechanism that
enables middle and upper class persons to morally disengage and socially distance
themselves from the lower class Other, with whom they often cannot identify . Given this
economic context and the nature of class inequalities from a Marxist perspective, some
common explanations as to why the poor are disproportionately executed are considered
below. One of the primary and most obvious reasons that the poor are disproportionately
executed is a lack of financial resources. Unlike those who possess the financial means
necessary to retain, and to also sustain, private legal counsel throughout the lengthy capital
process, the vast majority of capital defendants are ultimately left with little choice as to the
quality of legal counsel that they will be provided by the court. As a result of their
impoverished state, most capital defendants are forced to rely on court appointed counsel and
public defender services for the duration of their trial . In the rare event that a defendant is not
initially indigent, there is a very high likelihood that by the close of their trial they will be as
a result of the extreme cost and length of the capital process . The inability to retain
experienced and quality legal counsel can be detrimental to a capital defendant and can often

9
be the difference between life and a sentence of death. Defense counsel plays a significant
role in every phase of the capital process, influencing not only the decision of the prosecution
to seek the death penalty, but also the success or failure of the initial trial and subsequent
appeals.

The majority of attorneys appointed to capital defendants by the court lack the time,
experience, and resources necessary to mount an optimal defense for their client. Many are
overworked and underpaid, carry caseloads that limit the amount of attention that they can
devote to a particular trial, and lack the financial resources necessary for needed
investigations, psychological testing, and experts or witnesses. Additionally, court appointed
counsel and public defender services often fail to properly investigate many aspects of the
defendant’s case and prior history that could ultimately serve as mitigating circumstances and
increase their likelihood of receiving leniency or a lesser sentence. As a result of the
constraints and limitations that accompany most court appointed counsel and public defender
services, ineffective assistance of counsel is a common claim made by many indigent
defendants who have been convicted of capital murder and sentenced to die. Thus, the poor
and persons who lack financial means are usually treated more harshly and are more strictly
policed by the criminal justice system than are persons who possess the financial resources
and capabilities to successfully subvert the law and maneuver throughout the system.

Aside from the availability of financial resources and the inability to privately retain quality
defense counsel, another commonly evoked explanation for why the poor are
disproportionately executed is their disproportionately high involvement in homicide. The
poor and persons from the lower and impoverished social classes are overrepresented in
homicide statistics largely as a result of the way in which the criminal laws are written and
enforced. The legalistic definition of homicide encompasses both actions and behaviors that
are associated more with the poor than with persons of means or with corporations, and this
results in a harsher and more targeted sanctioning of street and violent crime over white
collar and corporate crime . Thus, and as a result of available opportunity, resources, and the
behaviors typically characteristic of lower social class standing, persons who are poor and
impoverished are often much more likely to be both the victim and the perpetrator in
instances of homicide, under its legalistic definition, than are persons from the middle and
upper social classes.

10
In addition to the way in which homicide is legally defined, in that it is slanted to the actions
of the lower social class, the nature of capital or aggravated homicide itself is also a factor in
the disproportionate execution of the poor. As a group, the poor are much more likely than
the wealthy to resort to violence as a means for problem solving. In solving problems, those
from the middle and upper social classes have many more options and resources available to
them than do persons from the lower social class. The poor and the impoverished frequently
do not have access to legal alternatives, such as attorneys or alternative dispute resolution,
and default to physical force in order to solve issues that arise throughout the course of their
daily lives.

Less Apparent Explanations for Executing the Poor

Persons from the lower social class are often convicted and sanctioned for their criminal
behavior at a much higher rate than persons from the middle and upper social class who
commit acts that are socially harmful though not defined as homicide . Disproportionate and
biased treatment under the criminal law also extend to capital punishment where,
overwhelmingly, persons convicted of capital murder are poor, underprivileged, and/or are
members of a marginalized or minority group .The legal actors of the criminal justice system,
such as the legislators who create the law, the police and prosecutors who enforce the law,
and the judges who interpret the law, knowingly and unknowingly allow their perceptions of
morality, and what they deem to be acceptable in terms of behavior and action, to influence
their legal decision making .

Additionally, these individuals are predominantly from the middle and upper social classes,
which often makes it difficult for them to identify with the typical lower class capital
defendant. Due to the social distance that exists between these two groups, dehumanizing
practices are frequently employed by the legal actors of the court in order to demonize capital
defendants and to create the perception that they are irredeemable and deserving of death.

The poor and persons from the lower social class, as opposed to their better off counterparts,
are often overrepresented in homicide statistics partly as a result of their actions being
disproportionately defined as criminal under law. The nature of the law itself is a major
contributor to class disproportionality in capital punishment in that law is inherently biased in
both its creation and enforcement. The law almost exclusively targets the lower social class

11
by capitally sanctioning aggravated homicide while, conversely, overlooking the equally or
more significant socially harmful behavior of the upper social class, such as marketing
products known to be unsafe or improperly disposing of toxic waste.

As a result of biased treatment under the law, certain populations, such as the poor and
minorities, are often subject to far more scrutiny than others and ultimately come to be seen
as dangerous, morally inferior, and as in need of stricter punitive and legal regulation.
Through this othering process, and as a result of the social distance that exists between the
wealthy and the poor, the poor subsequently become easier to scrutinize, punish, and, in
terms of capital punishment, condemn to death. Persons from the lower social class are far
more likely to be targeted by the criminal law than are persons who create and enforce the
law. This, consequently, makes what it means to be a criminal largely premised upon the
ideas and notions of the affluent class, rather than on the reality of social harm or on the ideas
of the lower class.

From an ideological point of view, and as discussed in the previous overview of Marxism and
class inequality, capitalism was, and still is, presented as a system of meritocracy in which
society is stratified based on talent and individual merit. However, rather than creating an
even playing field between all members of society as ideologically espoused, capitalism has
led to the creation of monopolies and a continually widening divide between the rich and the
poor . Extra-legal factors such as race, gender, and group affiliation have become significant
contributors to this growing disparity.

Impact of biases:

• Access to justice

Access to justice is a fundamental principle of the rule of law. In its absence, citizens cannot
be heard, exercise their rights, challenge discriminatory measures or engage decision makers.
States must provide the right to access to justice for all, including members of vulnerable
groups, and undertake all necessary measures to ensure that, without discrimination, all
people have access to an equitable, transparent and effective system of justice.6
6
Access to Justice : United Nations and the Rule of Law”, available at https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/thematic-

12
• Lack of financial resources

People living in poverty face many obstacles when approaching the criminal justice system.
Their lack of financial resources often undermines the extent and quality of legal advice that
they receive and their capacity to pay critical administrative fees and other collateral costs is
limited.7 In addition to the costs of legal assistance, there are numerous other costs associated
with accessing justice which constitute a major barrier for the poor, who simply cannot afford
those expenditures.8 Fees are encountered at every stage of the legal process, along with
several indirect costs that include payments for obtaining legal documents, witness costs,
commissioning independent experts, photocopies and phone calls. The cumulative impact of
those costs is a crucial factor preventing the poor from accessing and benefiting from the
justice system.9

• Unequal access to education and information

All over the world, justice systems are very complex and people facing the death penalty
need expert assistance to sustain their defense. People living in poverty often lack access to
education and are also regularly deprived of necessary social, financial and legal support.
Without such reinforcement, people living in poverty are not often in a position to understand
and fully participate in death penalty proceedings initiated against them. They may not know
how to obtain legal support, are less likely to assert their rights and subsequently may not
benefit from protections that do exist at law. Often people who have socio-economic
vulnerabilities have lower levels of education compared to the general population.

7
UN document, “Extreme poverty and human rights”
8
UN document, “Extreme poverty and human rights”. Available at

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/278&referer=/english/&Lang=E para 51
9
UN document, “Extreme poverty and human rights”. Available at

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/278&referer=/english/&Lang=E para 51

13
The lack of education may contribute to the difficulty in understanding the legal system and
its development that they and their families experience. This may in turn deprive them of the
possibility of appealing after being sentenced to death. This precarious situation is amplified
by the tendency of legal systems to better protect the interests of the most privileged while
treating the disadvantaged and those living in poverty with less importance and damaging
effect. 10(The Death Penalty in India report of the National Law University, Delhi, specifies
that 74,1% of the people sentenced to death interviewed (370) are economically vulnerable.
The report shows that the majority of those who are sentenced to death are less educated and
among those who are economically vulnerable, 20% never went to school). 11

• migrant workers

In a country like India, the underprivileged performs underpaid or menial work, such as
housekeeping or hard physical labor. Those workers often take such jobs because they come
from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds in their home towns. If these people are
required to interact with the criminal justice system then they may face discrimination in
addition to the immediate barrier of poverty due to their status.

In certain countries such as Saudi Arabia, according to Shari’a law, the murder victim’s
family may choose to pardon the murderer in exchange for Diyat, or “blood money,” but
migrant workers often don’t have these funds. As a result, they may be executed simply
because they don’t have enough financial, social, or political power. Migrant workers often
lack the financial and social resources, as well as the political relations needed and will most
likely be executed12.Furthermore, migrant workers are seven times more likely to be executed
in Saudi Arabia than Saudi nationals13

10
UN document, “Extreme poverty and human rights”. Available at
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/278&referer=/english/&Lang=E para 25
11
National Law University, The Death Penalty India Report, 2016. p. 108
12
Amnesty International, Killing in the name of justice. The Death Penalty in Saudi Arabia, 2015.
13
ornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, “Facts About the Death Penalty: Saudi Arabia”. Available at :
http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=Saudi+Arabia.

14
• Legal assistance

The defendant’s right to legal assistance, enshrined in numerous international and regional
human rights instruments, is essential for ensuring due process and equality before the
courts.14

In practice, however, defendants are denied access to the lawyer of their choice, and have
limited access to their lawyer during the pre-trial investigation and the trial itself, including
crucial investigative actions like cross- examinations. Defendants from poor socio-economic
backgrounds may have a hard time retaining court-appointed counsel because counsel will
“often refuse to be present at interrogations if their clients are not able to pay for in-jail
visits15. As a result, people belonging to ethnic minorities and generally lacking financial
resources receive unfair convictions and are more likely to be exposed to the death penalty.

Legal aid programs are an essential component of the strategy to improve access to justice.
However, in some countries, court-appointed lawyers are sometimes ill-prepared for death
penalty cases and legal assistance is not always available at all stages of the appeal process.16
These programs can only be effective if they are sufficiently funded.

In practice, legal assistance is not always available. In India, the law provides for the right to
representation prior to the first production before the Magistrate 17. Despite this provision,
“The Death Penalty in India Report” indicates that 89% of the prisoners sentenced to death
did not have representation by the time they made the first production before the Magistrate.
Only 1.6% of the respondents had legal aid18.

14
Ibid.
14 Constitution of India, Art. 22.
15

16
Ibid.
17
UN document, “Extreme poverty and human rights ». Available at
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/278&referer=/english/&Lang=E para 60
18
National Law University, The Death Penalty India Report, 2016, p. 133.

15
 • Corruption

Corruption is endemic in many countries, including in the police force, the judicial system,
and even amongst the judiciary. Those who have significant financial means or a strong
social network may be able to derive more efficient and favorable outcomes. Those who
don’t have the financial means to pay justice-sector services—which are supposed to be free
of charge—see their petitions and requests delayed, rejected, or dropped. Corruption is often
coupled with dreadful prison conditions. Bribery may be regarded by many as the only way
for prisoners to survive. Corruption may also permeate the system of pardons and
commutations.19

The system of pardons and commutation of sentences can also be subject to corruption.
While in some countries the standards for pardon may be blurred or difficult to grasp, it is
easy to see that those with sufficient financial resources benefit from this right.

The existence of corruption is also associated with the terrible deterioration of living
conditions for those sentenced to death. Without the help of friends or family outside the
prison, those in poverty confront great difficulties in obtaining sufficient food or medical
treatment.

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. 20 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 accommodation, or because they are unwilling due to the stigma associated with the
19
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/278&referer=/english/&Lang=E para 57
20
Doc NU, « Extrême pauvreté et droits de l’Homme », disponible sur
http://www.un.org/fr/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/278

16
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
21
violence and exploitation, or may turn to crime themselves in order to survive. In India
nearly half of the people on death row who shared their employment history were working in
the unorganized sector and taking low-paying and 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 in 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 income22.

21
Quaker United Nations Office, Children of parents sentenced to death or executed: how are they affected?
How can they be
22
National Law University, The Death Penalty India Report, 2016, p. 105

17
 SUGGESTIONS

a) It is recommended that measures like provisions for police reforms, witness protection
scheme and victim compensation scheme should be taken up expeditiously by the
government.

b) Although there is no valid penological justification for treating terrorism differently from
other crimes, concern is often raised that abolition of death penalty for terrorism related
offences and waging war, will affect national security. However, given the concerns raised by
the law makers, there is no reason to wait any longer to take the first step towards abolition of
the death penalty for all offences other than terrorism related offences. It is recommends that
the death penalty be abolished for all crimes other than terrorism related offences and waging
war.

c) A more rational, principled and informed debate on the abolition of the death penalty for
all crimes should happen as this will also aid in lowering the hardships faced by the
marginalized death row convicts in the form of racism.

d) Further, it is sincerely hoped that the movement towards absolute abolition will be swift
and irreversible.

18
CONCLUSION

Labels tied to core values of slavery and discrimination have resulted in a brutal and violent
path for individuals. Despite being aware of the unjust nature to assume the worst of race and
people of little or no income, nothing is being done to correct such false assumptions made.
Racism and discrimination remain deeply rooted within our society and engrained in the way
prison systems are run. Through racial and economic bias, those most typically arrested or
placed on death row are people of color and those in poverty

19
Bibliography

Gilmore, Kim. “Slavery and Prison — Understanding the Connections.” Social Justice, vol.
27,205.3(81), 2000, pp. 195–205. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/29767242.

Likert Scale Survey Temple.” Perfect Resume Example Resume And CV Letter,
resumehcsqn.netlib.re/like rt-scale-survey-template.html.

MSNBC. 1 In 10 Still Support Discrimination On Religious Grounds. 6 June 2014,

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/discrimination-african-americans_n_5462036.html.

Racklin, Meghan. “Why Mandatory Minimum Sentencing For Assault Isn’t The Answer.”
The Establishment, 21 July 2016, medium.com/the-establishment/why-mandatory-minimum-
sentencing-for-sexual-assault-isnt-the-answer-266839160e6c.

 Phil Porter, "The Economics of Capital Punishment"

In this online essay, Phil Porter argues that the death penalty is an inefficient method
of deterring crime. He also notes that the death penalty is fallible (a substantial
number of innocent people have been convicted), and has historically been applied in
a discriminatory manner.

 Law Commission Report, No. 262, The Death Penalty,

Law Commission of India in recognition of the fact that the death penalty is an issue
of a very sensitive nature, the Commission decided to undertake an extensive study on
the issue. The report has closely analysed the constitutionality and in length it has
discussed various other aspects. The committee also have forwarded few
recommendations.

20
 The Hindu: Poverty and the Death row,

In this article it is stated that most of those sentenced to death in the country are poor
and uneducated and many belonged to the religious minorities.
The late President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam also mentioned in his study that the
background of convicts seeking mercy showed “a social and economic bias”.

21