| Abstract: | Capital Punishment continues to be a contested and debated issue in the realms of moral, religious, political and legal discourse. This article presents an attempt to critically examine capital punishment through the theoretical lens of the four major theories of justice: deterrence, retributive, restorative, and reformative theories, with the aim of understanding their conceptual foundations, practical applications, and limitations. It is found that no single theory provides a coherent and consistent rationale for the application of the death penalty in modern constitutional democracies. It also brings into light the inherent ambiguity and subjectivity in categorising a crime as ‘rarest of the rare’ and ‘heinous crime’, which may result in inconsistency and arbitrariness in sentencing. These challenges call for an in-depth and all-encompassing reflection on the questions of equality before law, natural justice, and the rationale of deterrence associated with capital punishment. In response to these challenges, the article proposes a normative framework called the ‘Madhyamapratipad’ of capital punishment, which seeks to synthesise the strengths of the aforementioned four major theories of justice, while mitigating their weaknesses. This normative framework calls for the need to limit subjectivity in judicial interpretation while giving greater weight to reformative and restorative justice, alongside a strengthened focus on victim compensation and proportional accountability. The article concludes by suggesting that a moderate, integrative approach to punishment may provide a more balanced and constitutionally grounded way of engaging with the question of capital punishment. |
