Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The right to life is a foundational human right, universally recognized as paramount for the existence and enjoyment of all other rights. It is enshrined in numerous international instruments, such as Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and in national constitutions, most notably Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, the question of whether this right is absolute is deeply debated, particularly when confronted with the concept of capital punishment. This essay will explore the arguments surrounding the absoluteness of the right to life, analyzing how capital punishment challenges or conforms to this principle from ethical, legal, and jurisprudential standpoints.
The Concept of an Absolute Right to Life
An absolute right is one that cannot be infringed upon under any circumstances, even in times of public emergency. While the right to life is often considered a "supreme right," its absoluteness is contentious. Many legal frameworks, including international human rights law, recognize limitations or exceptions to this right, often framed as prohibitions against "arbitrary deprivation of life." This distinction suggests that deprivation of life might be permissible under certain narrowly defined legal procedures.
- International Perspective: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3, declares "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." While seemingly absolute, subsequent international treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) allow for the imposition of capital punishment for "the most serious crimes" in countries that have not abolished it (Article 6). This demonstrates a nuanced understanding where the right to life is considered inherent but not entirely without exceptions, particularly in the context of criminal justice.
- Indian Constitutional Perspective: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." The Supreme Court of India has interpreted "procedure established by law" to mean a procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable, incorporating elements of "due process of law." However, the phrase "except according to procedure established by law" itself indicates that the right to life is not absolute and can be curtailed by the state through a valid legal process.
Capital Punishment and its Relationship with the Right to Life
Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the state-sanctioned execution of a person as punishment for a crime. Its very existence raises profound questions about the absolute nature of the right to life.
Arguments for Capital Punishment:
Proponents argue that capital punishment serves several societal purposes that, in their view, justify the deprivation of life:
- Deterrence: The belief that the death penalty deters potential criminals from committing heinous crimes, thereby protecting society. However, extensive research has often found no conclusive evidence that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment.
- Retribution: The idea of "an eye for an eye," where justice requires punishment proportionate to the crime committed. This seeks to provide justice to victims and their families by imposing a penalty of similar gravity to the offense.
- Incapacitation: Executing a convicted criminal permanently prevents them from committing further crimes, either within prison or after release.
- Societal Condemnation: It represents society's ultimate disapproval of exceptionally brutal crimes.
Arguments Against Capital Punishment (Supporting an Absolute Right to Life):
Opponents of capital punishment often emphasize the inviolability of the right to life and highlight several ethical and practical concerns:
- Violation of Human Rights: The death penalty is considered by many human rights organizations and abolitionist movements as a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment that violates the fundamental right to life.
- Irreversibility and Risk of Error: The most compelling argument against capital punishment is its irreversibility. If an innocent person is executed, the miscarriage of justice cannot be rectified. Instances of individuals being exonerated after spending years on death row underscore this risk.
- Lack of Deterrent Effect: Many studies and reports, including by the Law Commission of India, have concluded that the death penalty does not have a unique deterrent effect on crime compared to life imprisonment.
- Discriminatory Application: Concerns exist that capital punishment is disproportionately applied to marginalized communities, the poor, and ethnic minorities, often due to systemic biases in the legal system.
- Against Reformative Justice: Capital punishment negates any possibility of reform or rehabilitation for the offender, focusing solely on retributive and incapacitative aspects of punishment.
The "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine in India
In India, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but limited its application to the "rarest of rare" cases. This doctrine serves as a judicial safeguard, emphasizing that capital punishment should be imposed only when the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed, and the crime is so heinous as to shock the collective conscience of society. This approach attempts to balance the state's power to punish with the individual's right to life, albeit not as an absolute right.
The table below summarizes key aspects of the debate:
| Aspect | Pro-Capital Punishment Perspective | Anti-Capital Punishment Perspective |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Life | Right to life is not absolute; can be forfeited for grave crimes by due process. | Right to life is absolute; state has no moral authority to take a life. |
| Deterrence | Acts as a strong deterrent against heinous crimes. | No conclusive evidence of greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. |
| Justice | Provides retributive justice and closure for victims' families. | Vengeance, not justice; risk of executing the innocent. |
| Reversibility | Acceptable risk given the severity of the crime. | Irreversible; a single error is catastrophic. |
| Discrimination | Due process safeguards ensure fair application. | Disproportionately affects the poor and marginalized. |
Evolving Jurisprudence and International Trends
Globally, there is a growing trend towards the abolition of capital punishment. As of January 2024, 112 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, and a total of 144 countries have abolished it in law or practice. This reflects an evolving understanding of human rights and a move towards more humane forms of justice. International bodies consistently advocate for its abolition, viewing it as a violation of the right to life and the right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
In India, while the death penalty remains legal, its application has been significantly restricted by the "rarest of rare" doctrine and judicial review processes, reflecting a cautious approach by the judiciary to safeguard Article 21.
Conclusion
The right to life, while a fundamental human right, is generally not considered absolute in the strictest sense, as evident in the provisions for legal deprivation of life under specific circumstances, such as capital punishment. However, the existence of the death penalty constantly tests the boundaries of this right. While arguments for deterrence and retribution exist, the irreversible nature of capital punishment, the inherent risk of executing the innocent, and concerns about discriminatory application present profound ethical dilemmas. The global trend towards abolition and India's "rarest of rare" doctrine signify an ongoing struggle to reconcile the state's punitive powers with the sanctity of human life, pushing towards a future where the right to life is protected with minimal, if any, exceptions.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.