Capital punishment as is believed is the most gruesome and direct punishment that the law can award. And from the guilty to the punisher all ears stand as the term visualizes. For the guilty it is the end of his life. For the judge it is a stance of utmost caution, as the punishment must go for the rare of the rare rest crimes. For the public it is a mixed reaction. For some "offering" their hat's off to the judge for the measure it took to award justice, for some it is a gross violation of one's rights.
As a member of public, I naturally find myself concerned about the death penalty. And though people may differ that the provision of awarding death punishment should be continued. My this conclusion rests on two arguments. First the very process awarding death sentence, In recent years as the situations have changed drastically, judiciary has become more and more restrained in awarding death sentence. This instance can be understood by the decision given in case of Swami Sharadhanand v State of Karnataka where hon'ble supreme court itself gave the judgment that death sentence be awarded in only rare of the rarest case. Even the fact that only one execution has taken place since 1995 is sufficient enough to show the ground reality of the death penalty. And as are far as any jurist is concerned then keeping in mind the principles of basic jurisprudence, equity and good conscience. He would agree that death sentences are in consonance with the very idea of justice. My second argument is the need of having a death penalty, the death penalty is not just any other ordinary sentence. It is the last arrow present in the quiver of the judiciary. More than punishing it is the deterrent effect that it possesses.
And if law is denied the privilege of this, then there will be little law can do then to award imprisonment, whether it is any crime. Take the case of Aamir Ajmal Kasab. Would it not be a laughing case when a man guilty of such an act is left without a strict punishment, which would also serve as a lesson for others. Also it might be there that if he is not hanged, then an another IC- 814 is hijacked and the demand that is made is of Kasab. So it is very important to keep the tradition of death sentence continued.
Now to the question as to whether India should continue the death sentence or not. I would definitely say that it would be in the best interest if India continues the death sentence. As the amnesty international itself points out , the record of India while awarding death sentence has been very clean. While in countries like Iran, China and Egypt death sentence is a tool for silencing dissidents and opponents, there is no such case in India. Moreover we are often accused of being soft on terror. Then the abolishment of death sentence if not directly then indirectly will encourage the terrorists to strike at will, for they will be assured that even when they are caught they will be the guests of India and any day one of their accomplice will attack the jail and free them off. Keeping in mind all of these I can say that death sentence should be continued in India.