capital punishment cases in karnataka

The Home Minister said Rs 665 crore was spent under the Nirbhaya Fund to set up cameras to ensure security.

"Bengaluru alone has 4,500 to 5,000 cameras. Overall, the state has 7,500 cameras, so we can monitor happenings from the control rooms," said Parmeshwar.

Apart from 444 rape cases reported between 2021-2023 in Bengaluru, the city also witnessed a significant hike in molestation, dowry, domestic violence and illegal trafficking incidents. Published By: chingkheinganbi mayengbam Published On: Feb 26, 2024

IN THIS STORY

Indian Legal Solution Journal of Criminal and Constitutional Law

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA – A CRITICAL ANALYSIS: PRATEEK JAIN

Posted on April 15, 2020 April 16, 2020 Author Your Admin Leave a comment

Capital Punishment in India- A Critical Analysis

Author: Prateek Jain

LL.M. (2 nd Semester) Seedling School of Law & Governance, Jaipur National University, Jaipur, Rajasthan

ISSN: 2581-8465

In the 21st century, each and every developed and developing country dealing with the issue related to increasing crime rate. As a developing country, India has a wide range of written legislation that offers various punishments to punish the wrongdoer and reduce the crime rate. There are different types of punishment in India such as capital punishment, life imprisonment, imprisonment, fine, etc. Capital punishment/Death punishment considered a grave type of punishment that is ordered in the rarest and rare cases. This particular paper gave an overview of the history and background of capital punishment in India with some landmark judgment given by the Supreme Court. It explains the methods of execution of the death penalty and gave an overview of the sentences passed for the death penalty in India: Annual Statistics report 2019. It also explains the theories related to capital punishment in India and the doctrine of rarest and rare cases. And provide statistical data about those countries that abolished the death penalty for all crimes or some ordinary crimes. And In the end, it gave an explanation about Mercy Petition, a statistical report published by the Law Commission of India on Mercy petition decided by the President of Indian. And it provides a brief about the recommendation given by the Law Commission of India on the punishment of the death penalty.

• INTRODUCTION

“Capital Punishment is against the better judgment of modern criminology, and, above all, against the highest expression of love in the nature of god.”

-Martin Luther king, Jr. 

In the Mauryan Dynasty era, if a person is performing any act that is against the law of dynasty then they punish them with various punishments according to the nature of the act. The principal followed by dynasty to punish the wrongdoer was an eye for an eye, a hand for a hand, etc. The dynasties give capital punishment in the following ways which include, dragging the body by a horse, cutting of head or any body part, stamping by an elephant which was very brutal in nature.

When we look back into history, we found that King Hammurabi of Babylon was the first king who codified the criminal laws regarding Death penalty/Capital Punishment. In other parts of world different forms of capital punishment are practiced such as guillotining in France, beheading in middle east countries, execution by electrocution in Russia, etc.

Capital punishment or Death penalty is always the uppermost level of punishment that can be given to a wrongdoer under any law (penal law) in force in any part of the world. The death penalty is the lawful technique of the state in which it practices its capacity to take a person’s life. It has been in action since the initiation of the State itself.

In the British era, there were many cases of Indians were awarded death penalty and hanged till death after the proper trial or even before it. But after India got independence a new era of Indian judicial system came into existence. It was a complete contrast to the British era judicial system in which the Indians had no chance to access to justice, or if we take a glimpse of empires and kingdoms where the ruler or king holds the divine power to provide justice to the victim and punishment to the wrongdoer. The king, thus had the authority to sentence any person to death whoever may he or she be, even on a whim.

After 1947, when India became a republic nation and got its independence from the British ruler, and that brings a huge change in the system of passing death penalties to the accused. The lawmaker followed the rule of natural justice and amend The Indian penal code read with The Indian Constitution provided for the passing of death penalty only in rarest of rare cases and offences.

The Indian Constitution is Grundnorm for the judicial system of India that provides fundamental rights to the citizens. Article 21 of the constitution, provides the right to life as a fundamental right and guarantees that, “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.” This explains that every citizen has the right to live without any restriction and no one can withdraw their right to live from them, except by the procedure established under law, that is the state can take away your life through the given process of law if it deems fit.

But in the 21 st century with written and codified legislation and developed ethics, Is capital punishment still really the most adequate option of punishment? Even after many Human rights organizations and NGO’s raising their voice and protesting against capital punishment and demand for its abolishment, it is still in practice by different countries. The United Nations declares, capital punishment or Death punishment as a violation of human rights and a crime against humanity.

• CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: MEANING & DEFINITION

A Capital punishment/Death penalty is a legal process where if any person commits any act that is against the law, then the wrongdoer is punished with the death penalty by the state. An order passed by the judicial authority of the death penalty is called the death sentence, while the whole process of killing the person is called the execution of the death order. Penal laws explain various crimes that can result in capital punishment are called capital crimes/ offences. The term capital has originated from a Latin word ‘capitalist’ that means ‘regarding the head’.It refers to a judgment that punished a wrongdoer to death. It is also a condition or scenario that is considered to be deadly; also a forecast of death.

In India, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides the authority to High Courts for confirmation of death sentence under section 368. High courts pass an order of death penalty in rarest of rarest cases and murder, rape, for waging war against nation.

• CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA

“Capital Punishment is a legal death penalty in India. India gives capital punishment for a serious offence.” [1] In the Indian legal system the death penalty is given for most grievous offence and heinous offences that fall under the category of rarest and rarest cases. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is “Protection of life and personal liberty” that says, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except as according to procedure establish by law”. This article explains that every citizen has the right to life and no one has the authority to take it without procedure established by law. In India, the Indian Penal Code provides the death penalty as a punishment in various offences such as ‘Criminal conspiracy, murder, waging war against the state, abetment of mutiny, dacoity with murder, and anti-terrorism. The Indian constitution provides the remedy of mercy petition to convicts that is presented before the president and president has to power to grant an order of mercy to convicts. Since 1995, the 22 death penalty is done in India and after Independence,52 death penalty is done in India. InMithu v. State of Punjab[2]case the Apex Court struck down the Indian Penal Code Sec 303 which provide mandatory death sentence for the offenders.[3]During passing of the resolution, calling for a prohibition on the death penalty by UN General Assembly, India cast a vote in favor of it.[4] In the year 2012, India continues its support on the prohibition of the death penalty by casting its vote against the United Nations General Assembly draft resolution request to ban the death penalty. [5]

• LANDMARK CASES RELATED TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA
• MITHU VS STATE OF PUNJAB (1983)

“In this case the Supreme Court struck down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, which recommend for mandatory death sentence for offenders.” [6]

• BACHAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB (1980)

“In this case the Supreme Court says that capital punishment was given only to the rarest of rarecases.” [7]

• JAGMOHAN VS STATE OF U.P.(1972)

“This was the first case dealing with the question of constitutional validity of capital punishmentin India.” [8]

• METHODS OF EXECUTION IN INDIA

In India the death penalty is performed by hanging or shooting.

• HANGING: All death penalty in India is executed by hanging. Post-Independence, In India Nathu Ram Godse, was the first convict to be executed by the death penalty in Mahatma Gandhi Murder case. The Apex Court of India gave its suggestion that the death penalty must be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases trial in India.[9]
• SHOTTING: The Army Act and The Air Force Act of India also provides provisions of the implementation of the death penalty in India.[10] Section 34 of The Air Force Act, 1950 provides the power of the court-martial of any person who commits any act that is unlawful in the eye of law. [11]

Mostly, Indian Government practice hanging method to implement the death penalty.

• DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA: ANNUAL STATISTICS (YEAR 2019)
• STATE-WISE-STATISTICS

* Total number of Prisoners on Death Row as on 31 st December, 2019 = 378

“National Law School, Delhi, and National Legal Service authority carried out a project called “The Death Penalty India Report (DPIR)” that presents yearly statistics report about the death penalty given in India. According to the Project39A report, the total no. of prisoners on death row as on 31st December 2019 is 378 but the authorities carried out only a few executions. In India the death sentence rarely converted into executions. The law commission in India mostly recommends abolishing death sentence.” [12]

• THEORIES RELATED TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA

There are two prime theories of punishment that are related capital punishment:

1. Reformative theory

2. Preventive theory

7.1. REFORMATIVE THEORY

Once Mahatma Gandhi quoted, “An eye for an eye turns the whole blind.” This reformative theory is based on this particular quote. The main objective behind this theory is to rehabilitating the wrongdoer and reform into law-abiding members of society. The purpose to practice this theory is to disapprove of all kinds of corporal punishment and put more pressure on reform the offender.

This theory helps a law-offender to live a life like a normal citizen in society. The prisons and reform homes are constructed with a motive to treat the inmates and help them to rebuild and reform themselves and as soon as offenders feel that they are ready to settle in the society and its members with a reform mindset. The transformation was generally done either through probation or parole as tools for reforming criminals. This reformative theory always supports the ideology of criminology. Criminology explains that “every crime as a diseased phenomenon, a mild form of insanity. criminal anthropology, criminal sociology, and psychoanalysis support Reformative theory. This theory aims to correct the criminal minds in a good manner and they can live a life like a normal citizen. This theory criticizes all kind of corporal punishment.” [13]

• PREVENTIVE THEORY

As it is quoted, “Prevention is better than cure”. Prevention is always helping us to prevent any unfortunate act to happen that may cause loss. The main objective behind this theory is to isolate the wrongdoer from the community and kept under security. According to this theory, the main purpose behind this is to set an example for the members of the community and prevent them to do any act that is against the law. In this theory, the judiciary passes sentence of the death penalty, life imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment to the offenders. This theory was supported by many law schools and law reformers because it helps to improve the penal law of the state and it shows the real effect on members of community & offenders. The main aim of the preventive theory is to take proper measures that the offender doesn’t repeat the unlawful act in the future after completing his/her punishment. This theory shows that the death penalty is the most severe form of punishment because of its impairment result. Taken the life of the accused person that killed an innocent person. If a person has killed someone and taken the life of that person. So, he is also liable to be deprived of his life as a punishment. In India penal law majorly follows this theory to provide justice and prevent the increasing rate of the crime rate.

• RAREST OF RARE CASE DOCTRINE

There is no proper definition of rarest of the rare cases mentioned in any penal or procedural law but during a criminal trial, the nature, gravity, and facts of the crime are taken into consideration for judge whether particular falls under the category of rarest of rare case. “ Therefore, weightage is given to the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should respond to the society’s cry for justice against the criminal”. [14] That is to say, “the existence of such extraordinary grounds under which the Court has no other resort than to effect a capital punishment for the survival of the State as well as society.” [15]

In Delhi Gang Rape-cum-murder case, the supreme court examines the nature and gravity of the case and considered it as a rarest of a rare case and passes an order of death penalty to the accused.

Evolution of Rarest of rare case-

• In Maneka Gandhi’s case, the Apex Court held that “the death penalty can be given only in special cases. It constitutes an exceptional punishment which will be imposed only with special reason and must be properly conferred by the High Court.”[16]
• In a case[17], Justice Krishna Iyer observed that “If the murderous operation of a die-hard criminal jeopardizes social security in a persistent, planned and perilous fashion then his enjoyment of fundamental rights may be rightly annihilated.”[18]
• In the Bachan Singh case,[19] the Supreme Court laid down the caveat of rarest of rare.
• In Santosh Kumar Case, the Apex Court held that “appropriate punishment is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The death sentence is not to be given in the `rarest of rare’ case where reform is not possible.” [20]
• RETENTIONIST AND ABOLITIONIST NATIONS

Article 5 of UDHR, 1948 and Article 7 of ICCPR, 1966 explains that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Even Article 3 European Convention of HR explains that “Capital Punishment has been recognized as a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment which infringes on the basic human rights of the accused.” And Article 3 of UDHR provides the right to life, liberty and security to every human being.

Capital punishment were opposed by United nations, many countries and various law reformers and they demand for abolishment of capital punishment around whole world. The General assembly of UN explains that if any offender is sentenced with capital punishment then there must be proper fair trial which should be conducted by state.

“There are 106 countries which were abolitionist death penalty for all crimes, 7 countries were abolitionist death penalty for ordinary crimes only, and 29 were abolitionist death penalty in practice and 142 countries in the world abolitionist capital punishment in law. Only a minority of countries use capital Punishment in practice. Countries that practice capital punishment including India, China, Indonesia, and the United States.” [21]

• MERCY PETITION IN INDIA

The aim behind the mercy petition is to save the life innocent of a person form the death penalty. The Constitution of India provides power to the President and The Governor of a State to grant pardon under article 72 and 161.

If the Supreme Court sentenced the death penalty to a convict or reject his appeal against the order of High court, then the convicted person can use the remedy of mercy petition as a last resort to suspend his death penalty and pray for pardon. In the case, the supreme court held that “the grant of pardon by the President is an act of grace and therefore, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The power exercisable by the President being exclusive of administrative nature is not justifiable.” [22]

President and Governor of a state are not independently exercising their power of granting the pardon, they need to take advice from the home ministry and head of the states. In the case, the supreme court held that “The power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution can be exercised by the Central and State Governments, not by the President or Governor on their own. The advice of the appropriate Government binds the Head of the state.” [23]

President and Governor of a state has the power to grant pardon, commute, remission, reprieve and respite the punishment.

LAW COMMISSION REPORT ON MERCY PETITION DECIDED BY PRESIDENT IN INDIA [24]

*In 2013, Afzal Guru’s Mercy Petition was rejected and he was sentenced to death by death penalty on 9 Feb, 2013.

*In 2014, Yakub Memon’s Mercy Petition was submitted before President Pranav Mukherjee, but it was rejected and Yakub Memon was executed to death by death penalty on 30 July, 2015.

*In 2020, All 4 convicts in Nirbhaya’s Case presented their mercy petition before President Ram Nath Kovind, but it was rejected and they executed to death by death penalty on 20 March, 2020.

11. RECOMMENDATIONS GIVENBY LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA

• On 31 st August, 2015, Justice A.P. Shah, Chairman, Law Commission, presenting the 262 nd Law Commission report on death penalty in India.
• The Supreme Court of India referred issue of death penalty to Law commission of India in Santosh Kumar Satish Bhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra[25]and Shankar KisanraoKhade v. State of Maharashtra[26].
• In 1967, 35th Law Commission report on capital punishment recommended the retention of death penalty in India.
• In Landmark case the supreme court upheld, “the constitutionality of the death penalty, but confined its application to the ‘rarest of rare cases’, to reduce the arbitrariness of the penalty.”[27]
• But after the 35th Report of Law Commission, the social, economic and cultural perspectives of the Nation have changed. So, it’s high time to reconsider and conduct a wide study about the application of the death penalty in India.
• After conduct, extensive study commission concludes that the death penalty does not serve the penological goal of deterrence any more than life imprisonment and it fails to achieve the penological goal.
• The Law Commission also concludes that India should adopt a reformative and rehabilitative form of punishment than a preventive form of punishment.
• The Law Commission recommended that the death penalty/capital punishment need to be abolished for all the crimes except crimes related to terror and waging the war that affect the national security and there is no reason to wait longer for the abolishment of the death penalty, we need to take proper and adequate steps against it.
• Finally, the Law Commission recommended that states should establish victim relief funds for the victims of crimes.

Death Penalty/ Capital Punishment is not a new concept it has been practicing since the era of kings and emperors but it is an offence against human rights. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and Article 3 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides the right to life and personal liberty and death penalty which is completely against these provisions. Thus, the punishment of the death penalty should be declared unconstitutional and against humanity.

The main aim to practice the death penalty is to prevent the increasing rate of crime rate in India. But when we look into the crime statistics of our nation, the death penalty has not proved as an effective weapon to decrease the rate. Even the Law Commission of India recommended in its report that Indians need to abolish the death penalty for all crimes except offences related to terror. And we need to adopt a reformative form of punishment to punish offenders and educate them for being better human beings & law-abiding citizens of the nation. Law reformers should adopt the required steps to eliminate the punishment of the death penalty form society. Because it is not effective to control the crime rate in India.  

[1] Sanjoy Majumder, “India and the death penalty” BBC News-South Asia, Aug. 4, 2005.

[2] Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983)2 S.C.R. 690 (India).

[3] V. Venkatesan, “A case against the death penalty” Frontline-The Hindu, 7 September 2012.

[4] “General Assembly GA/10678 Sixty-second General Assembly Plenary 76th & 77th Meetings”. ANNEX VI.

[5] “General Assembly GA/11331 , Sixty-seventh General Assembly Plenary 60th Meeting”. Dec. 20, 2012.

ANNEX XIII.

[6] Mithuv. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 S.C.R. 690 (India).

[7] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 898 (India).

[8] Jagmohan v. State of U.P.,(1973) 2 S.C.R. 541 (India).

[9] Monica Sakhrani&MaharukhAdenwalla, “Death Penalty” Economic & Political Weekly; Vol. 40; Issue No. 11, 12 March, 2005.

[10] Law commission of India, “Consultation paper on mode of execution of death sentence and incidental matters” (PDF).”.

[11] Sec. 34, cl. a-o, The Air Force Act, No. 45, Acts of Parliament 1950 (India).

[12] Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics (Year 2019), https://www.project39a.com/annual-statistics .

[13] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 898 (India).

[14] Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. the State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 S.C.C. 175 (India).

[15] Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 3 S.C.C. 646 (India).

[16] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 597(India).

[17] Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 3 S.C.R. 78(India).

[18] Dr.Janak Raj Jai, Death Penalty 120, (Regency Publications, New Delhi, 2005).

[19] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 898(India).

[20] Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 498(India).

[21] Abolitionist and retentionist countries, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/international/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries .

[22] Kehar Singh v. Union of India, (1989) 1 S.C.C. 204 (India).

[23] Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 S.C.C. 220 (India).

[24] Law Commission of India, 262 nd Report on Death Penalty, (August 2015).

[25] Satish Bhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 498.

[26] Shankar KisanraoKhade v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 S.C.C. 546.

[27] Bachan Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 3 S.C.C. 24.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

ETV Bharat   /   state

HC confirms capital punishment on man who killed five, including three of his children

Published : Jun 10, 2023, 11:18 AM IST

Updated : Jun 10, 2023, 11:29 AM IST

While confirming the death sentence of a man who killed five, including three of his children, the Karnataka High Court ordered compensation to Rajeshwari, the only child that survived the massacre.

Bengaluru: A division bench of the Dharward Bench of the High Court of Karnataka has confirmed the death sentence on a man who killed five persons including his three minor children. The HC has also issued several directions to the prosecution in cases where it is seeking the death penalty.

"The atrocity of the crime resulting in five deaths including 3 children below 10 years of age and the brutality with which the same has been committed, leaves us no option but to confirm the order of death sentence passed by the trial court, which we do with a heavy heart. This in our considered opinion qualifies the test of rarest of rare cases requiring the award of death penalty," the bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice G Basavaraja said disposing of two petitions filed by the convict and the State.

The HC had reserved the judgement on the petitions after completing the hearing on November 22, 2022 itself. But it had sought several pieces of information including certain records and reports. These records, the court said were necessary to issue directions to be followed in all cases where the prosecution seeks for award of the death penalty. The accused Byluru Thippaiah, a labourer from Kenchanagudda Halli in Kampli, Hosapete, Ballari, suspected his wife of 12 years was having an affair which led to quarrels.

They had four children, and Thippaiah declared that only one of them was born to him. On February 25, 2017, he attacked his wife, Pakkeeramma with a chopper. He also attacked his sister-in-law Gangamma and his children Pavithra, Nagaraj and Rajappa. All the five succumbed to their injuries.

The Sessions Court at Ballari which conducted the trial against him, examined 36 witnesses and 51 material objects before finding him guilty and awarded the death sentence on December 3, 2019 under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC and directed him "to be hung till death." Thippaiah approached the HC against the sentence imposed by the Trial Court while the prosecution approached the HC for confirmation of the death penalty. The HC in its judgment said that it was shocked at the brutality.

"The manner in which the offence has been committed by the appellant is having attacked two women and three children in the house, hacked them and chopped them resulting in multiple injuries being caused to them and the Appellant coming out of the house and proclaiming that he has killed the prostitutes while holding chopper covered in blood. The same would shock the conscience of anybody and has indeed shocked our conscience, despite us having dealt with so many cases of offences relating to murder," the HC said.

The HC while confirming the death sentence, ordered for payment of compensation to Rajeshwari, the only child that survived the massacre. The Additional Registrar was directed to forward the concerned file to the District Legal Service Authority to make necessary arrangements. The HC also gave guidelines for the prosecution to follow in all cases where it is seeking the award of the death penalty.

These include placing report on the conduct and behavior of the accused in jail, a psychological and physiological evaluation of accused, details of family background, relationship with siblings, history of violence or neglect, opinion of parents, relationship with family members, educational background, socio-economic background, criminal antecedents and history of social behaviour.

"The above reports to be submitted firstly at the time when the Appellant is committed to trial, a second report, at the time of hearing on sentence if the Appellant were to be convicted, third report at the time when the appeal is heard and the matter is reserved for judgment," the HC directed. (PTI)

Quick Links / Policies

• PRIVACY POLICY
• CODE OF ETHICS
• TERMS & CONDITIONS

Please write to us, for media partnership and Ad-sales inquiries. Email: [email protected]

Explained: Why Indians Are The Least Promiscuous of Most People in the World

Sins of omission: how caa plays a cruel joke on sri lankan tamil refugees, fake police defraud japanese tourist of rs 31 lakh in jaipur, real cops take hush money to bury case, explained: the science behind why waiting causes anxiety and mood changes.

Copyright © 2024 Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., All Rights Reserved.

Site Navigation

• Gary Graham
• Aileen Wuornos - NEW!
• Anthony Porter - NEW!
• General Resources
• Create new account
• Request new password
• Free Email Updates

Summaries of Key Supreme Court Cases Related to the Death Penalty

Witherspoon v. Illinois , 391 U.S. 510 (1968): Jurors must be willing to impose the death penalty in order to sit on a capital jury.

Furman v. Georgia , 408 U.S. 238 (1972): The application of the death penalty is unconstitutional.

Woodson v. North Carolina , 428 U.S. 280 (1976): Mandatory death sentences violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Coker v. Georgia , 433 U.S. 584 (1977): Death sentences for the rape of an adult woman violate the Eighth Amendment.

Lockett v. Ohio , 438 U.S. 586 (1978): Death penalty statutes must allow consideration of mitigating evidence in addition to the circumstances of the offense in determining whether a defendant should be sentenced to death.

Enmund v. Florida , 458 U.S. 782 (1982): Death sentences for individuals who did not intend to kill the victim violate the Eighth Amendment.

Ford v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 399 (1986): The Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of a person who is insane and not aware of his execution or the reasons for it.

Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986): It is unconstitutional to exclude potential jurors solely on the basis of race.

McCleskey v. Kemp , 481 U.S. 279 (1987): Statistical studies that show evidence of racial disparities in capital proceedings do not prove that an individual's death sentence is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Thompson v. Oklahoma , 487 U.S. 815 (1988): The execution of a person under the age of 16 at the time of the offense is a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302 (1989): It is not unconstitutional to execute a person with "mental retardation", however the Texas statute insufficiently allows jurors to consider "mental retardation" as a mitigating factor.

Stanford v. Kentucky , 492 U.S. 361 (1989): The Constitution does not prohibit the execution of individuals who were 16 or 17 at the time of the offense.

Herrera v. Collins , 506 U.S. 390 (1993): A defendant's claim of actual innocence does not entitle him to federal habeas relief.

Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 (2002): The execution of a person with "mental retardation" violates the Eighth Amendment.

Wiggins v. Smith , 539 U.S. 510 (2003): The Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to conduct mitigation investigations in capital cases.

Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 (2005): The Constitution prohibits the execution of individuals who were under 18 at the time of the offense.

Baze v. Rees , 553 U.S. 35 (2008) : The Supreme Court ruled that Kentucky's three-drug protocol for carrying out lethal injections does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Kennedy v. Louisiana , 554 U.S. 407 (2008) : The U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that allowed the death penalty for the rape of a child where the victim did not die.

Vietnam Billionaire Sentenced To Death Over Multi-Billion Dollar Fraud

Hundreds of people protested in the capital hanoi and ho chi minh city, a relatively rare occurrence in the one-party communist state, after her arrest in october 2022..

The court ordered Lan, 67, to pay almost the entire damages sum in compensation

A top Vietnamese property tycoon was sentenced to death on Thursday in one of the biggest corruption cases in history, with an estimated $27 billion in damages.

A panel of three hand-picked jurors and two judges rejected all defence arguments by Truong My Lan, chair of major developer Van Thinh Phat, who was found guilty of swindling cash from Saigon Commercial Bank (SCB) over a decade.

"The defendant's actions... eroded people's trust in the leadership of the (Communist) Party and state," read the verdict at the trial in southern business hub Ho Chi Minh City.

After the five-week trial, 85 others were also sentenced on charges ranging from bribery and abuse of power to appropriation and violations of banking law. Four were given life imprisonment, while the others received jail terms ranging between 20 years and three years suspended.

Lan's husband, Hong Kong billionaire Eric Chu Nap Kee, was sentenced to nine years in prison.

Lan embezzled $12.5 billion, but prosecutors said Thursday the total damages caused by the scam now amounted to $27 billion -- a figure equivalent to six percent of the country's 2023 GDP.

The court ordered Lan, 67, to pay almost the entire damages sum in compensation.

The death sentence is an unusually severe punishment in such a case, although the country is a leading executioner globally, according to Amnesty International.

Lan and the others were arrested as part of a national corruption crackdown that has swept up numerous officials and members of Vietnam's business elite in recent years.

She appeared to say in final remarks to the court last week that she had thoughts of suicide.

"In my desperation, I thought of death," she said, according to state media.

"I am so angry that I was stupid enough to get involved in this very fierce business environment -- the banking sector -- which I have little knowledge of."

Hundreds of people began to stage protests in the capital Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, a relatively rare occurrence in the one-party communist state, after Lan's arrest in October 2022.

Police have identified around 42,000 victims of the scandal, which has shocked the Southeast Asian country.

Among them is Nga, a 67-year-old Hanoi resident who told AFP Thursday that she had hoped for a life sentence for Lan so she could live to fully witness the pain her actions had caused ordinary people.

"Many people worked hard to deposit money into the bank, but now she's received the death sentence and that's it for her," said Nga, using a pseudonym to protect her identity.

"She can't see the suffering of the people."

Nga has so far been unable to retrieve the $120,000 she invested with SCB.

Lan was accused of setting up fake loan applications to withdraw money from SCB, in which she owned a 90 percent stake.

Police say the scam's victims are all SCB bondholders who cannot withdraw their money and have not received interest or principal payments since Lan's arrest.

Prosecutors said during the trial they had seized more than 1,000 properties belonging to her.

Authorities have also said $5.2 million allegedly given by Lan and some SCB bankers to state officials to conceal the bank's violations and poor financial situation was the largest-ever bribe recorded in Vietnam.

Do Thi Nhan, the former head of the State Bank of Vietnam's inspection team, was sentenced to life in prison for receiving bribes. She said during the trial that millions of dollars was handed to her in Styrofoam boxes by the former CEO of SCB.

More than 4,400 people have been indicted during Vietnam's corruption crackdown, across more than 1,700 graft cases, since 2021.

Promoted Listen to the latest songs, only on JioSaavn.com

A top Vietnamese luxury property tycoon -- Do Anh Dung, head of the Tan Hoang Minh group -- was sentenced to eight years in prison last month after he was found guilty of cheating thousands of investors in a $355 million bond scam.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Track Budget 2023 and get Latest News Live on NDTV.com.

Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world .

Track Latest News and Election Results Coverage Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world.

Watch Live News:

Tennessee Senate passes bill to allow death penalty in child rape cases

Part of the goal of the legislation, supporters say, is to push a case to the u.s. supreme court..

Republicans in the Tennessee Senate on Tuesday approved a measure allowing the death penalty for defendants convicted of raping a child — in an effort to challenge a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. 

Senate Bill 1834 would allow capital punishment for adults convicted of raping a child, with certain aggravating factors. Companion legislation in the House will be taken up after the legislature passes a budget. 

Senators approved the bill in a vote of 24 to 5 on Tuesday. Sen. Todd Gardenhire, R-Chattanooga, was the lone Republican to vote against the bill. Sens. Mark Pody, R-Lebanon and Kerry Roberts, R-Springfield – though both in the Senate chamber – did not vote. 

“We’re not violating the constitution: we’re challenging a ruling,” said Sen. Janice Bowling, R-Tullahoma. 

Only seven other states have passed similar laws permitting capital punishment for rape of a child under 12, which each chip away at Kennedy v. Louisiana. In that 2008 case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Louisiana law that allowed the death penalty in child rape cases that do not involve the victim’s death, finding that it amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment.” 

Tennessee is one of 27 states that allows capital punishment, and currently does not allow capital punishment for non-homicide crimes. No one has been executed in Tennessee for any crime other than first-degree murder since the 1950s. 

Roberts, who serves as chair of the Senate Government Operations Committee, offered an amendment aimed at strengthening the state’s standing to challenge the Supreme Court ruling. Fellow Republicans voted it down.  

“I'm absolutely not against the death penalty for the rape of a child. But if we think for one minute that the bill in front of us can overturn Kennedy, the greater danger is that the bill in front of us will reaffirm Kennedy,” Roberts said. 

Roberts said the bill as written is “blatantly unconstitutional,” and, as such, questioned whether Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti would defend it in the courts in the effort to bring the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

On the other side, Democrats argued the effort could lead to less reporting of sexual offenses and fewer perpetrators being brought to justice because of heightened difficulties reporting and prosecuting capital cases. 

“The greatest tragedy in the world of sexual abuse cases is how many of them don’t come to light. How many people suffer in silence for years and decades without justice from institutions for families,” said Sen. Jeff Yarbro, D-Nashville. “I believe that what we’re doing here is potentially pushing further into the shadows.” 

Vivian Jones covers state government and politics for The Tennessean. Reach her at [email protected] or on X at @Vivian_E_Jones. 

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Tennessee Senate advances bill to allow death penalty for child rape

FILE - The Tennessee Capitol is seen, Jan. 22, 2024, in Nashville, Tenn. The Republican-led Tennessee House advanced a proposal Thursday, March 14, that would require law enforcement agencies in the state to communicate with federal immigration authorities if they discover people are in the the country illegally, and would broadly mandate cooperation in the process of identifying, catching, detaining and deporting them. (AP Photo/George Walker IV, File)

• Copy Link copied

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee’s GOP-controlled Senate advanced legislation on Tuesday allowing the death penalty in child rape convictions as critics raised concerns that the U.S. Supreme Court has banned capital punishment in such cases.

Republicans approved the bill on a 24-5 vote. It must still clear the similarly conservatively dominant House chamber before it can go to Gov. Bill Lee’s desk for his signature.

If enacted, the Tennessee bill would authorize the state to pursue capital punishment when an adult is convicted of aggravated rape of a child. Those convicted could be sentenced to death, imprisonment for life without possibility of parole, or imprisonment for life.

Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis enacted a similar bill nearly a year ago. Supporters in both states argue that the goal is to get the currently conservative-controlled U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider a 2008 ruling that found it unconstitutional to use capital punishment in child sexual battery cases.

Republican Sen. Ken Yager argued during Tuesday’s debate that his bill was not unconstitutional because it only gave district attorneys the option of pursuing the death penalty for those convicted of child rape.

“We are protecting the children using a constitutional approach,” Yager said. “I would not stand here and argue for this bill if I didn’t believe that with my whole heart.”

Yager’s argument differs from the supporters inside the Tennessee Legislature, where Republican House Majority Leader William Lamberth has conceded that even though Tennessee previously allowed convicted child rapists to face the death penalty, the Supreme Court ultimately nullified that law with its 2008 decision.

Other lawmakers compared their goal to the decades long effort that it took overturn Roe v. Wade , the landmark 1973 case that legalized abortion nationwide but was eventually overruled in 2022.

“Maybe the atmosphere is different on the Supreme Court,” said Republican Sen. Janice Bowling. “We’re simply challenging a ruling.”

Democrats countered that the bill would instill more fear into child rape victims about whether to speak out knowing that doing so could potentially result in an execution. Others warned that predators could be incentivized to kill their victims in order to avoid a harsher punishment.

Execution law in the U.S. dictates that crimes must involve a victim’s death or treason against the government to be eligible for the death penalty. The Supreme Court ruled nearly 40 years ago that execution is too harsh a punishment for sexual assault, and justices made a similar decision in 2008 in a case involving the rape of a child.

Currently, all executions in Tennessee are on hold as state officials review changes to its lethal injection process. Gov. Lee issued the pause after a blistering 2022 report detailed multiple flaws in how Tennessee inmates were put to death.

No timeline has been provided on when those changes will be completed. And while the state Supreme Court is free to issue death warrants for death row inmates, it has so far not done so.