Global Advances in Victimology and Psychological Studies, 1(1) : 49-52; 2022
Online ISSN: Applied For
Global Advances in Victimology and
Psychological Studies
Emilio Viano
Law Professor at American University, USA; emilio.viano@gmail.com
Book Review: The Death Penalty: Perspectives from India &
Beyond
e use of violence, even lethal violence, to establish,
protect, defend and impose one’s rights, dominion and
power over others has been part of human history since
its beginning. According to the 17th Century English
philosopher omas Hobbes, widely regarded as one of a
few truly great political philosophers as his master work
Leviathan rivals in signicance the political writings of
Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls, the
“state of nature” for humans is one of widespread violence
to defend oneself from the dominion and depredations of
others, arm one’s possessions and interests and ensure
one’s self preservation. Life for humans entails the “natural
right to do anything one thinks necessary for preserving
one’s own life.” us the human condition per se is one
of constant war and life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short” (Leviathan, Chapters XIII–XIV). According to
Hobbes, humans nally entered into a “social contract”
limiting one’s rights to power, possessions and unlimited
freedom to act as each wished, in exchange for the
tranquil enjoyment of what one has and has been able
to build and for assurances that it cannot be taken from
him or her by someone else simply because he is more
powerful and better able to defeat others. To escape from
this constantly uncertain, violent and menacing situation,
humans accepted limits on themselves and agreed to
give their government even absolute power. Punishment,
including the death penalty, became then the needed and
justied mechanism for the government to protect and
enforce the social contract governing human relations.
e rst written death penalty laws date as far back as the
eighteenth century BC in the Code of King Hammurabi of
Babylon, which codied the death penalty for 25 dierent
crimes. ere is no question that the death penalty was
widely used throughout human history in all parts of the
world and oen delivered in cruel and debasing ways,
stripping the condemned of their human dignity and
subjecting them to torture and amplepain.
e use of the death penalty for an ever increasing
list of crimes was justied as not being a violation of the
oender’s right to life because he or she had forfeited that
right by perpetrating the crime and breaking the “social
contract”. us, the death penalty was and is considered
justiable as a morally permissible way to respond
forcefully to criminal behavior and discourages others
from engaging in it, thus protecting society’s interests.
An important principle governing how to respond to
criminal victimization is the “lex talionis” that species
dened penalties for specic crimes, mostly based on full
reciprocity. In the Hammurabilegal code, the principle of
exact reciprocity is very clearly stated and operationalized.
For example, if a person caused the death of another
person, the killer would be put to death. Oen a religious
justication has been invoked to justify the adoption
and imposition of the death penalty and to formulate
Book Review
Book Review: The Death Penalty: Perspectives from India & Beyond
Global Advances in Victimology and Psychological StudiesVol 1 (1) | June 2022 |
50
the Enlightenment in Europe began to underline the value
of human beings, started to talk about human rights, and
demanded limits against the excessive authority of kings.
It eventually inspired the French Revolution that also
stressed freedom, equality and fraternity. It was at that time
that challenges to the excessive punishments imposed by
the criminal justice system of the time began to appear.
One of the most talented jurist and greatest thinkers of
the Age of Enlightenment, Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794),
wrote his manifesto “On Crimes and Punishments”. is
slim book, initially published anonymously for fear of
repercussions, strongly criticized and rejected arbitrary
and cruel punishment which was the most common
tool the state used at that time to terrorize people into
submission, especially to prevent and discourage any
rebellion challenging the hierarchical structure of the
society.
e fundamental questions that Beccaria asked were:
“What is the function of punishment?” and “If a person
perpetrates a crime, how should we punish him or her?”
He replied to the rst by rejecting revenge and retribution
and stressing instead prevention and dissuasion from
committing the crime. As to punishment, referring to the
social contract, he stated that punishment is justied only
to protect and defend the social contract and to motivate
everyone to abide by it. He stressed that it should be swi,
as opposed to long detention awaiting trial, to build a clear
connection between crime and its punishment; certain, so
as to have dissuading and preventative value; and most of
all proportional to the crime committed to avoid excessive
and cruel punishment. He cogently argued that crimes
“are more eectually prevented by the certainty than by
the severity of the punishment.” Moreover, Beccaria was
denitely against torture, arguing that it may torment the
criminal but not deter future oenders, and against the
death penalty. He was one of the rst thinkers to write
a logical and sustained critique of the use of the death
penalty. While the death penalty has been used worldwide
in history, Beccaria stated that “the ultimate punishment
has never deterred men determined to harm society”. As
a matter of fact he pointed out that the state uses its most
draconian measures when crime is at its highest levels.
He also reasoned that replying to savagery with state-
sponsored savagery negates the “general humaneness of
civil society.” Overall, Beccaria maintained that the state
penalties for specic crimes. Some propose that this was
at least in part intended to prevent excessive punishment
at the hands of either an avenging private party or the
state. e most common expression of lex talionis is “an
eye for an eye”, but other interpretations have been given
as well. Legal codes following the principle of lex talion
is have one thing in common: they prescribe ‘tting’
counter punishment for a felony. In the legal code written
by Hammurabi, the principle of exact reciprocity is very
clearly used. e simplest example is the “eye for an eye”
principle. In that case, the rule is that punishment must
be exactly equal to the crime. is is clearly expressed in
the book of Leviticus in the Hebrew Bible: “And a man
who injures his countryman – as he has done, so it shall
be done to him [namely,] fracture for fracture, eye for
eye, tooth for tooth. Just as another person has received
injury from him, so it will be given to him” (Lev. 24:19–
21). e principle is also mentioned in Deuteronomy
and Exodus. is norm has been interpreted by some
as actually soening and limiting the excesses that feuds
and vendettas did generate when retribution was carried
out. Even further, the Talmud interprets the verses
referring to “an eye for an eye” and similar expressions
as requiring monetary compensation in tort cases,
contradicting a dierent interpretation by the Sadducees
that the Bible verses refer only to physical retaliation in
kind. roughout history, the lex talion is or “Law of
Retaliation” has also been presented as actually a quite
benign and positive development, requiring that the law
establish and the oender provide equitable retribution.
In Islam the Qu’ran (5:45) mentions the “eye for an
eye” concept as mandatory for the Children of Israel. e
principle of Lextalion is in Islam is Qiṣāṣ (Qur’an, 2:178).
Muslim countries that apply Islamic Sharia law, such
as Iran or Saudi Arabia, apply the “eye for an eye” rule
literally.
However, in Christianity, in the Sermon on the Mount,
Jesus actually urges his followers to turn the other cheek:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one
who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek,
turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:38–39). However,
in reality, since it is also part of Christianity’s holy books,
the Hebrew Bible’s mandate has had a preponderant
practical inuence. It was not until the 18th century that
Emilio Viano
Global Advances in Victimology and Psychological Studies 51
Vol 1 (1) | June 2022 |
has little legitimacy when imposing the death penalty
and that doing so is really not an especially useful
policy. Beccaria’s approach was very inuential at the
time, including in the newly formed United States, and
it continued being so throughout the centuries since his
death. Recent policies he impacted include, but are not
limited to, truth in sentencing, swi punishment and the
abolition of the death penalty in some states in the United
States. For example, the state of Michigan abolished it as
early as 1846 (except for treason).
e death penalty continues to be applied in a number
of countries and the debate over its use has increased,
especially aer the middle of the XX century when
important legal, social, and humane principles were
enshrined in international declarations and conventions
under the auspices of international organizations like
the United Nations, the Organization of American States
and the Council of Europe. Examples are the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the American
Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man (1948), the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (1950), the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the
American Convention on Human Rights (1968). e
establishment of the European Court of Human Rights
(1959) and of the Inter American Court of Human
Rights (1979) greatly strengthened the recognition and
application of human rights and among them, the right
to life. us, the argument that the death penalty is a
violation of the most fundamental human right– the
right to life. It represents the ultimate cruel, inhuman
and degrading punishment. Another powerful argument
is that the death penalty is imposed in a discriminatory
way. For example, in the United States and others,
the death penalty was oen utilized in rape cases, but
especially when the defendant was African-American
and the victim white. Poor people without the nancial
means to defend themselves eectively, and especially
members of minority groups, received the death penalty
disproportionately when compared to white people. is
also because when in 1976 the Supreme Court reinstated
the death penalty in the United States, it allowed the
possibility of using it not only for murder but also for rape
and armed robbery, thus multiplying the situations when
it could be meted out.
Another serious objection to the death penalty is
based on its nality. Someone who is innocent can be
released from prison if there is evidence to overturn the
conviction. However, an execution cannot be reversed.
e oen touted deterrent eect of the death penalty has
also been seriously and empirically disputed. However
powerful beliefs and stereotypes persist, strengthened
by racial prejudice and class status. Opposing the death
penalty is still a risky move. On November 8, 1988 the
governor of Massachusetts USA, Michael Dukakis, was
defeated in the presidential election by George W. Bush
in part because Dukakis opposed the death penalty
and supported a prison furlough program meant to be
rehabilitative. Unfortunately, an inmate incarcerated for
murder did commit a series of crimes, including rape,
right aer he was furloughed. Another argument against
the death penalty oen mentioned is its cost especially
in countries like the United States where lengthy appeals
are understandings are common, costing the taxpayer
considerably. Currently, a major point of debate and
opposition to the death penalty is on how it is carried out.
Hanging, the electric chair, the ring squad have been
discontinued in many jurisdictions in favour of the use
of a cocktail of medicines that induces death. Because
of the refusal of the medical profession to participate in
executions since it would violate the Hippocratic oath
governing the practice of medicine, executions using
drugs are carried out by prison employees, resulting at
times in botched executions that violate the human right
against cruel and unusual punishment. Moreover, many
drug suppliers under pressure by opponents of the death
penalty are refusing to supply the needed drugs. us,
many executions have been placed on hold. Recently, the
state of Oklahoma in the United States has announced
the resumption of executions because it has reportedly
secured a reliable source of the chemicals needed.
is volume, e Death Penalty: Perspectives from
India and Beyond, authored by Sanjeev P. Sahni and
Mohita Junnarkar, represents a substantial and needed
contribution to the international debate about the death
penalty. First it places the discourse on the death penalty
within a global context. In a useful way it oers an
overview of the current use, debate, and application of the
death penalty in Africa, the Americas, the Asia Pacic, the
Middle East, and Europe and, nally, in the area of major
Book Review: The Death Penalty: Perspectives from India & Beyond
Global Advances in Victimology and Psychological StudiesVol 1 (1) | June 2022 |
52
focus of this book, India. is is a very valuable update on
the status of the death penalty and related developments
worldwide, a much-needed global summary that
provides context and analysis and builds the foundation
for a clear and well-founded understanding of the main
focus of the book: the status and application of the death
penalty in India. e authors and their team deserve to
be strongly congratulated for mastering a large amount
of material and information; for their judicious selection
of the central and most cogent points; the clarity and
readability of the exposition; the major eort and care
with which they undertook their research and writing;
the accuracy and clarity with which they reported their
ndings; and the authoritative guidance oered to the
readers in understanding the complexity of the subject
matter against the background of diverse cultures and
settings. e book then oers a full report on the situation
and application of the death penalty in India. e role
and inuence of dierent religions and politics on
maintaining and applying the death penalty are addressed
with considerable sensitivity and depth.
e book then moves into a very important area
that strongly inuences continuing the death penalty’s
justication and application in the various regions of the
world: public opinion. e authors and their team provide
a very informative and well summarized overview of public
opinion in various parts of the world. is oers a unique
panorama of the variety of view points on this sensitive
subject matter nuanced by the impact of dierent religious,
cultural and legal traditions. As the previous overview
section, this part of the book constitutes a valuable
summary of helpful perspectives and information of a
global nature, an element especially important these days
when globalization and instant communications impact
all aspects of our lives and lead to a stronger awareness
and also a growing convergence of laws, legal decisions,
criminal justice practices and standards of acceptable
reactions to and punishment of crime.
e next section, chapter 5, delves into a delicate and
profound aspect of the sentencing to and application of
the death penalty: the psychosocial consequences that
aect the victim of the crime being sanctioned and his/
her family, the condemned’s family and those of others
involved in the procedure from the jurors to the prison
guards to the executioners. en the chapter examines
some theoretical models used to explain the experiences
of the victim’s family in death penalty cases. Examples of
models discussed are grief theory, PTSD, and the concept
of closure.
is literature survey oers a synopsis of very useful
and current information that no doubt will be quite useful
to anyone in the justice system and also in the therapeutic
professions oering the victim’s family their support and
assistance. e volume then delves into the key point:
Public opinion in India. is chapter 6 constitutes the key
contribution and the core value of this book. It is based
on a survey with 25, 210 participants that were asked to
respond to a questionnaire especially developed for this
study. Since the support of public opinion is key to the
perceived legitimacy and validity of the imposition and
carrying out of the execution of the condemned, this
chapter represents an original contribution to the public
and legal discourse in India on the death penalty. It is a
chapter rich in information, data, and nuanced analysis,
providing a picture of the status of this key question in
India. Reading it will oer a contemporary snapshot of
where Indian public opinion is and of the reasoning,
values, religious inuences, and personal understandings
in relation to this controversial theme. us the
contribution of this book to the dialogue on the death
penalty in India is rmly anchored in empirical data and
in its accurate analysis that takes into account the rich
tapestry of Indian culture, laws, religions and traditions.
e data are presented in a readily understandable
manner with illustrations and tables easy to follow and
capture. e conclusion of the study is that in India the
death penalty has strong support across various strata of
society.
In conclusion, this is an important work that provides
a credible empirical basis for an informed debate in India
about the death penalty against the rich backdrop of the
global understanding and acceptance or not of this form
of punishment and the universal call for recognition and
respect of human life and truly impartial justice. It will
no doubt enrich and guide the continuing debate on the
issue and act as a reliable compass guiding it and helping
maintain it in the realm of rationality in order to obtain
are a sonable, credible and well founded outcome.
