Death penalty

April 15, 2013 12:31 am | Updated September 28, 2016 02:49 pm IST

The Supreme Court has rightly rejected the mercy petition of Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar saying a long delay by the President or the Governor in disposing of a plea cannot be a ground for commuting the death sentence. The victims of Bhullar, who triggered a bomb blast in Delhi in 1993 killing nine persons, lost their precious lives and their dependents lost their dear ones forever.

More than a punishment, the death penalty is meant to have a demonstrative effect. The rejection of the mercy petition will instil a sense of fear in citizens. Our society is not mature enough to do away with the death penalty.

P.G. Moorthy ,

Thiruvananthapuram

The debate on capital punishment becomes serious whenever the mercy petition of a death row convict is rejected and his days are numbered. The law is clear and judges take all aspects into consideration before pronouncing the death sentence. The President has the final say on the course of action. Every convict who faces the death penalty is responsible for causing pain and agony to a family or a group of people, which we comfortably ignore. Let the law give the affected family the right to decide whether or not a person should be executed once the mercy petition is rejected by the President.

M. Rajagopal ,

Chennai

The death penalty is primitive and should be done away with at the earliest. A condemned man kept in isolation for a long period, with the noose dangling around his neck, loses his stability. The state is responsible for his mental decay and debility. The execution of the death sentence after about 10 years — after the prisoner has already served a near-life term in jail — is not only cruel but also double jeopardy.

N.R.C. Kurup ,

Kollam

A death row convict lives in only one hope — the hope of living. The Supreme Court verdict has dashed the hope. It is a setback for natural justice.

Sudharsan Rajagopalan ,

Chennai

The Supreme Court judgment upholding the death penalty to Bhullar should be seen as an outcome of judicial process or, more precisely, the administration of the criminal justice system. The judgment should not be evaluated on political, regional, sectarian or similar considerations. Unfortunately, the criminal justice system is marred by long delays. The need of the hour is judicial reform.

Qazi Nadeem Alam ,

Azamgarh

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.