Open Access Research Article
White Black Legal – International Law Journal · ISSN 2581-8503
Death Penalty in Comparative Jurisprudence: A Study of India, The United States and The United Kingdom
Read the Full Research Paper
Access the complete open-access article in PDF format. No login is required.
Abstract
DEATH PENALTY IN
COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE: A STUDY OF INDIA, THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED
KINGDOM
AUTHORED BY - PRITI SOMNATH DHERE
Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune
ABSTRACT
The
death penalty remains one of the most difficult issues in criminal
jurisprudence because it combines the State’s power to punish with the
individual’s right to life and dignity. Different legal systems have responded
to this issue in different ways. India retains capital punishment but treats it
as an exceptional sentence. The United States continues to permit it in a
number of jurisdictions subject to constitutional restrictions, while the
United Kingdom has abolished it for murder and moved towards a non-capital
model of punishment. This article examines these three approaches from a
comparative jurisprudential perspective. It uses doctrinal and comparative
legal research, drawing on legislation, constitutional provisions, judicial
decisions, international human-rights instruments, reports and academic
literature. The study focuses on the legal basis of capital punishment,
judicial safeguards, arbitrariness, wrongful conviction, deterrence and human
dignity. The comparison shows that the status of capital punishment is shaped
not by one principle alone, but by constitutional structure, judicial
interpretation, human-rights commitments and changing ideas about punishment.
The paper concludes that comparative study is useful for understanding why
democracies may retain, restrict or abolish the same form of punishment.
Keywords: Abolition; Capital Punishment; Comparative
Jurisprudence; Constitutional
Law; Death Penalty; Human Rights; Rarest of Rare
1. INTRODUCTION
The
death penalty is the most severe punishment available in a criminal justice
system because its final effect is the permanent taking of a convicted person’s
life.[1]
It
also raises questions about the purpose of punishment, the limits of State
authority, individual dignity and the possibility of error in criminal
adjudication.
For
this reason, capital punishment continues to receive attention from courts,
legislatures, jurists and human-rights institutions.
The
traditional justification for the death penalty is usually connected with
retribution and deterrence.
The
retributive view treats punishment as a response to serious wrongdoing, while
the deterrent view looks at punishment as a means of discouraging future
offences.
In
contrast, reformative approaches emphasize rehabilitation, and human-rights
approaches question whether the State should permanently take a person’s life
when other severe punishments are available.
A
comparison of India, the United States and the United Kingdom is particularly
useful because the three systems have adopted different legal positions.
India
continues to recognize capital punishment, but judicial decisions have limited
its application to exceptional cases.
The
United States also retains capital punishment in a number of jurisdictions, but
constitutional decisions have imposed important procedural and substantive
restrictions.
The
United Kingdom has taken a different path by abolishing the death penalty for
murder and replacing it with life imprisonment.
The
purpose of this article is not simply to classify the three countries as
retentionist or abolitionist.[4]
It
is to examine the reasoning and legal safeguards that have produced their
different positions.[5]
Such
a comparison also helps in understanding the relationship between criminal
punishment and constitutional values.
1.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM
The
central problem examined in this study is whether capital punishment can be
justified within modern constitutional democracies that place increasing
importance on human dignity, fairness and the protection of life.
The
problem becomes more serious because an error resulting in imprisonment may be
corrected, whereas an execution cannot be reversed.
Questions
of unequal sentencing, access to competent legal representation, judicial
discretion, quality of evidence and the possibility of wrongful conviction are
therefore central to the death penalty debate.
The
existence of these concerns does not by itself establish that capital
punishment is unlawful in every legal system.
It
does, however, require close examination of the safeguards used when the State
seeks to impose an irreversible punishment.
1.2
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.
What are the
historical and jurisprudential foundations of the death penalty?
2.
How is capital
punishment regulated in India, the United States and the United Kingdom?
3.
What
similarities and differences exist in the constitutional and judicial
approaches of these jurisdictions?
4.
How do human
rights, judicial safeguards, wrongful conviction and deterrence affect the
death penalty debate?
5.
What does the
comparison reveal about changing approaches to punishment?[6]
1.3 OBJECTIVES[7]
The
study aims to examine the historical and jurisprudential foundations of capital
punishment; analyze its constitutional and statutory position in India, the
United States and the United Kingdom; compare the role of courts and safeguards
in the three systems; examine concerns of arbitrariness, inequality, wrongful
conviction and deterrence; and assess the influence of human-rights principles
on contemporary death penalty jurisprudence.
1.4 HYPOTHESIS
The
differing approaches of India, the United States and the United Kingdom
demonstrate that the legitimacy and application of capital punishment are
shaped by constitutional principles, judicial safeguards, human-rights
standards, and changing approaches to punishment.
1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This
study adopts a doctrinal and comparative legal research method.[8]
Primary
legal materials include constitutional provisions, statutes and judicial
decisions.[9]
Secondary
materials include books, scholarly writings, international instruments and
institutional reports relating to capital punishment.
The
comparative method is used because the legal status of the death penalty
differs substantially among the three jurisdictions.
India
is examined as a retentionist system with strict judicial limitations; the
United States is examined as a retentionist system with federal constitutional
restrictions and significant state-level variation; and the United Kingdom is
examined as an abolitionist system.
The
comparison therefore focuses on legal principles and institutional approaches
rather than on a simple numerical comparison of executions.
1.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
The
paper is limited to the legal and jurisprudential aspects of capital punishment
in India, the United States and the United Kingdom.
It
concentrates mainly on the punishment for serious offences, especially murder,
and considers constitutional safeguards, judicial interpretation, human-rights
principles and practical concerns surrounding capital sentencing.
The
study does not attempt to provide an exhaustive account of every state law in
the United States or every historical development in the United Kingdom.
2. HISTORICAL AND JURISPRUDENTIAL
FOUNDATIONS
Capital
punishment has existed in many legal systems for centuries.[10]
Earlier
criminal justice systems often used execution for a wider range of offences
than modern systems.[11]
The
gradual development of constitutional government and human-rights thinking has
contributed to a narrowing of the circumstances in which the death penalty is
used.
The
history of capital punishment also reflects changing ideas about the purpose of
punishment.
When
punishment was primarily understood as retaliation, execution could be viewed
as a natural response to grave wrongdoing.
With
the growth of deterrent and reformative theories, however, questions arose
about whether punishment should primarily inflict suffering, prevent future
crime or attempt to reform the offender.
Modern
jurisprudence therefore considers the death penalty through several competing
principles rather than through one theory alone.
2.1 RETRIBUTIVE THEORY
Retribution
is based on the idea that serious wrongdoing deserves a proportionate response.
Immanuel
Kant’s philosophy is commonly associated with a strong retributive
justification of punishment.
On
this approach, punishment is connected with justice for the offence already
committed rather than only with future social benefits.
Applied
to capital punishment, the retributive argument suggests that certain
exceptionally grave offences may justify the highest possible punishment.
At
the same time, the principle of proportionality creates a further question:
whether execution is necessary to express society’s condemnation when life
imprisonment can also impose a very severe deprivation of liberty.
2.2 DETERRENCE THEORY[12]
The
deterrence theory views punishment as a means of discouraging criminal conduct.[13]
Supporters
of capital punishment sometimes argue that the possibility of execution creates
a particularly strong disincentive to commit serious crimes.
The
difficulty is that the severity of a punishment and its actual preventive
effect are not necessarily the same thing.
A
criminal justice system may deter crime through the certainty and promptness of
detection and punishment rather than by relying only on the maximum severity of
punishment.
The
deterrence argument therefore requires careful examination of evidence and
cannot be assumed merely from the existence of the death penalty.
2.3 REFORMATIVE THEORY
The
reformative theory places emphasis on the possibility that an offender may
change.
Capital
punishment presents an obvious difficulty for this approach because execution
permanently ends the possibility of rehabilitation.
Life
imprisonment can provide an alternative that protects society while retaining
the possibility of review, correction and, where legally appropriate,
rehabilitation.
2.4 HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH
The
modern debate is also closely connected with the right to life and human
dignity.[14]
Article
6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights regulates the use
of the death penalty while establishing a broader international framework for
the protection of life.[15]
The Second Optional
Protocol to the ICCPR represents an international commitment towards abolition.
The
human-rights approach does not depend only on whether an offender deserves
punishment. It also asks whether the State should possess an irreversible power
to take life and what safeguards are necessary where that power remains.
2.5 NEED FOR COMPARATIVE STUDY
India,
the United States and the United Kingdom provide three useful models for
comparison.
India
retains capital punishment but restricts its use through judicial doctrine.
The
United States retains it within a constitutional framework, while individual
states differ considerably in their policies and practices.
The
United Kingdom has abolished the death penalty for murder.
The
comparison is significant because the same criminal justice
objective—responding to serious crime—can be pursued through different legal
models.
A
comparative approach allows the researcher to identify the role of
constitutional interpretation, legislation, judicial review and human-rights
commitments in shaping those models.
3. COMPARATIVE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 INDIA
Capital
punishment remains part of Indian criminal law.
Section
103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides death or imprisonment for
life for murder.[16]
The
present statutory framework therefore continues to recognize the death penalty
as a possible sentence for the gravest offences.
The
constitutional position is shaped principally by Article 21 of the
Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.[17]
The
Supreme Court has considered the compatibility of capital punishment with
constitutional guarantees and has accepted its validity subject to strict
limitations.
The
most important principle is the “rarest of rare” doctrine developed in Bachan
Singh v.
State
of Punjab.[18]
The
Court treated life imprisonment as the ordinary punishment and death as an
exceptional punishment, requiring careful consideration of both aggravating and
mitigating circumstances.
Machhi
Singh v. State of Punjab subsequently discussed factors relevant to identifying
cases in which the death sentence may be considered.[19]
Indian
death penalty jurisprudence has therefore moved away from treating execution as
an automatic consequence of murder and towards individualized sentencing and
heightened judicial scrutiny.
3.2 UNITED STATES
The
United States has a constitutional and federal structure in which capital
punishment has developed through both federal law and state law.
The
Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, and the Supreme Court
has repeatedly examined whether capital sentencing procedures satisfy
constitutional standards.[20]
In
Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court invalidated the death sentences before it
because the existing system allowed the punishment to be imposed in an
arbitrary manner.[21]
The
decision produced major changes in American capital sentencing.
In
Gregg v. Georgia, the Court later upheld revised procedures designed to provide
greater structure to the sentencing process.[22]
The
American experience therefore illustrates that the retention of capital
punishment is accompanied by constitutional requirements concerning the manner
in which death sentences are imposed.
The
United States cannot, however, be treated as a completely uniform capital
punishment system.[23]
State-level
differences have produced substantial variation in whether and how executions
are used.
This
makes the American model different from both the more centralized Indian
approach and the abolitionist approach of the United Kingdom.
3.3 UNITED KINGDOM
The
United Kingdom represents the abolitionist approach in this comparison.[24]
The
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 abolished capital punishment for
murder in Great Britain and substituted life imprisonment.
The
abolitionist position was later reinforced by the development of the domestic
human-rights framework and the United Kingdom’s participation in international
human-rights instruments.[25]
The
legal system therefore no longer uses execution as a punishment for murder.
The
British position is significant for comparative jurisprudence because it
demonstrates that serious criminality can be addressed through severe custodial
punishment without retaining the State’s power to execute an offender.
4. COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENTIAL
ANALYSIS
4.1 CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION
The
constitutional treatment of capital punishment differs in the three
jurisdictions.
India
permits the death penalty but subjects its use to constitutional safeguards and
judicially developed standards.
The
United States subjects capital punishment to the Eighth Amendment and extensive
Supreme Court review.
The
United Kingdom has moved from regulation towards abolition through legislation
and human-rights commitments.
These
differences show that constitutional democracies do not necessarily reach the
same result when dealing with capital punishment.
Their
institutional histories and interpretations of rights influence the legal
position.
4.2 JUDICIAL SAFEGUARDS
Judicial
safeguards are particularly important in retentionist systems because of the
irreversible nature of execution.[26]
In
India, the rarest-of-rare doctrine requires courts to examine the circumstances
of the offence as well as the circumstances of the offender.[27][28]
The
sentencing decision is therefore not supposed to depend only on the seriousness
of the crime.
In the United States, the
post-Furman framework emphasized structured sentencing procedures and judicial
review.
The
American cases show that constitutional regulation can require safeguards even
where capital punishment itself remains permissible.
The
United Kingdom does not require a comparable capital sentencing framework
because execution has been abolished.
4.3 ARBITRARINESS AND INEQUALITY
A
major concern surrounding capital punishment is the possibility that similar
offenders may receive different sentences because of differences in judicial
discretion, legal representation or social circumstances.
This
concern becomes more serious when the punishment is irreversible.
In
India, continuing discussion about consistency in applying the rarest-of-rare
standard shows the difficulty of translating broad judicial principles into
uniform sentencing outcomes.
In
the United States, concerns about geography, resources and access to legal
representation have also formed part of the broader capital punishment debate.
These
concerns do not automatically determine the legality of capital punishment, but
they demonstrate why procedural fairness is essential.
4.4 WRONGFUL CONVICTION
The
possibility of wrongful conviction is one of the strongest objections to an
irreversible punishment.[29]
A
wrongful imprisonment can, at least in principle, be corrected through appeal,
review or exoneration.[30]
An
execution cannot be undone.
This
makes capital cases especially dependent upon reliable investigation, accurate
evidence, competent legal representation and careful appellate review.
The
concern is not limited to any one country.
It
arises wherever the legal system retains a punishment that cannot be corrected
after it has been carried out.
4.5 HUMAN DIGNITY AND RIGHT TO LIFE
Human
dignity has become increasingly important in discussions of capital punishment.
The
right to life is recognized in international human-rights law, while domestic
constitutional systems provide different levels of protection.
India
attempts to balance the retention of capital punishment with Article 21 and
judicial safeguards.
The
United States approaches the issue through constitutional limitations on
punishment.
The
United Kingdom has taken the further step of abolition.
The
international movement towards abolition also demonstrates the changing
understanding of punishment.
The
Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR reflects an international commitment to
ending capital punishment, although countries continue to differ in their legal
positions.
4.6 DETERRENCE
Deterrence
remains one of the principal arguments advanced in support of capital
punishment.[31]
The
argument assumes that the threat of execution may discourage potential
offenders from committing serious crimes.[32]
The
opposing position questions whether the death penalty has a demonstrated
advantage over other severe punishments.[33]
The
comparative experience does not provide a simple answer.
India
retains capital punishment for exceptional cases, the United States continues
to debate and apply it differently across jurisdictions, and the United Kingdom
has abolished it.
The
continued disagreement indicates that deterrence remains a contested issue
rather than a settled justification.
4.7 ROLE OF PUBLIC POLICY AND SOCIAL
CHANGE
Capital
punishment is not shaped by legal doctrine alone.
Public
attitudes, legislative policy, criminal justice priorities and changing social
values can influence the direction of punishment law.
At
the same time, courts operate within constitutional limits and cannot simply
treat public demand as a substitute for legal standards.
The
history of the three jurisdictions shows this interaction.
India
has retained capital punishment while narrowing its judicial application.
The
United States has experienced significant constitutional intervention in
capital sentencing while leaving substantial room for state-level policy
choices.
The
United Kingdom has moved towards abolition.
4.8 PRESENT LEGAL POSITION:
COMPARATIVE VIEW
India
may therefore be described as a retentionist system with strong judicial
restrictions.[34][35]
The
United States represents a retentionist system in which constitutional review
operates alongside substantial state-level variation.[36]
The
United Kingdom represents an abolitionist model.
The
comparison is important because it shows that the death penalty question is not
simply a choice between punishment and no punishment.
It
involves decisions about proportionality, dignity, reliability, deterrence,
judicial responsibility and the acceptable limits of State power.
5. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 MAJOR FINDINGS
First,
capital punishment has moved from being a widely accepted punishment towards
greater restriction or abolition in many legal systems.
This
change reflects developments in constitutionalism and human-rights thinking.
Second,
the three jurisdictions studied in this paper do not follow a single model.
India
retains the punishment but restricts it.
The
United States retains it under constitutional constraints and state-level
differences.
The
United Kingdom has abolished it.
Third,
judicial safeguards are particularly important wherever the death penalty
remains available.
A
legal system must ensure that the punishment is not imposed through arbitrary
or inconsistent procedures.
Fourth,
wrongful conviction is a serious concern because execution is irreversible.
This
strengthens the need for accurate evidence, competent representation and
effective appellate review.
The
severity of a punishment cannot by itself establish its effectiveness in
preventing crime.
5.2 HYPOTHESIS ANALYSIS[37]
The
hypothesis proposed in this study is that the differing approaches of India,
the United States and the United Kingdom demonstrate that the legitimacy and
application of capital punishment are shaped by constitutional principles,
judicial safeguards, human-rights standards and changing approaches to
punishment.[38][39].
The
comparison supports this hypothesis.
India
demonstrates the importance of constitutional interpretation and judicial
sentencing standards.
The
United States demonstrates how constitutional review can reshape the
administration of a punishment that remains legally available.
The
United Kingdom demonstrates how legislative abolition and human-rights
commitments can remove capital punishment from ordinary criminal law.
The
comparison therefore suggests that the legal status of capital punishment
cannot be understood only by asking whether a country retains or abolishes it.
The
reasons for retention, restriction or abolition are connected with the
constitutional structure and the broader philosophy of punishment adopted by
each jurisdiction.
5.3 RESEARCH GAP
Existing
discussions of the death penalty often examine individual jurisdictions
separately.
A
comparative approach provides a broader understanding of how constitutional
values and legal institutions influence capital punishment.
Further
research may examine the consistency of death sentencing, the effect of legal
representation, wrongful convictions, socio-economic inequality, public
attitudes, life imprisonment as an alternative and the practical operation of
international human-rights standards.
Fifth,
the deterrence justification remains contested.[40]
6. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS[41]
The
death penalty remains a difficult issue because it combines the State’s
authority to punish with the irreversible loss of life.
The
comparison of India, the United States and the United Kingdom shows that there
is no single legal response to this issue.
India
has retained capital punishment but has developed strong judicial restrictions.
The
United States continues to retain it in several jurisdictions while
constitutional decisions regulate its application.
The
United Kingdom has abolished capital punishment for murder and relies on life
imprisonment.
The
comparison also shows why safeguards matter.
Where
an irreversible punishment is retained, accuracy in investigation, fairness in
trial, competent legal representation, consideration of mitigating
circumstances and meaningful appellate review become particularly important.
6.1 SUGGESTIONS
1. Courts should continue to apply strict safeguards
whenever capital punishment is considered.
2. Persons facing a possible death sentence should
receive effective and competent legal representation.
3. Sentencing principles should be applied consistently
so that similar cases are not treated arbitrarily.
4. Investigating agencies and trial courts should give
particular attention to the reliability of evidence in capital cases.[42][43]
5. Life imprisonment should remain an important
alternative where the purposes of punishment can be achieved without execution.
6. Legislatures and courts should continue to consider
developments in international human-rights law.
7. Further empirical and comparative research should
examine whether capital punishment achieves objectives that cannot be achieved
through other serious punishments.
The
central conclusion of this study is that the death penalty cannot be examined
only as a question of whether a particular offence deserves the harshest
punishment.
It
is also a question of constitutional principle, judicial responsibility, human
dignity and the limits of State power.
The
experience of India, the United States and the United Kingdom demonstrates how
different legal systems can respond differently to the same fundamental
question.
The
hypothesis is therefore supported in the sense that the comparative legal
position is closely connected with constitutional values, judicial safeguards,
human-rights standards and changing theories of punishment.
The
comparison does not produce one universal answer for all legal systems;
instead, it demonstrates the factors that shape each jurisdiction’s approach.
REFERENCES
Books
Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments (1764).
H.L.A.
Hart, Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law (Oxford
Univ. Press 1968).
Immanuel Kant, The Philosophy of Law (1797).
Roger Hood & Carolyn Hoyle, The Death Penalty: A
Worldwide Perspective (5th ed. 2015).
Cases
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
Statutes and Instruments
Constitution of India.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, c. 71
(U.K.).
Human Rights Act 1998, c. 42 (U.K.).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
1966.
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, 1989.
Reports
Law Commission of India, The Death Penalty, Report No.
262 (2015).
[1] U.S. CONST. amend. VIII.
[2] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[3] Cesare Beccaria,
On Crimes and Punishments (1764).
[4] Law Commission of India, The Death
Penalty, Report No. 262 (2015).
[5] International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 6, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
[6] Law Commission of India, The Death
Penalty, Report No. 262 (2015).
[7] International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 6, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
[8] Law Commission of India, The Death
Penalty, Report No. 262 (2015).
[9] International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death
penalty, Dec. 15, 1989, 1642 U.N.T.S. 414.
[10] Immanuel Kant, The Philosophy of
Law (1797).
[11] Roger Hood &
Carolyn Hoyle, The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective (5th ed. 2015).
[12] Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and
Punishments (1764).
[13] Immanuel Kant, The Philosophy of
Law (1797).
[14] International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights art. 6, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
[15] Second Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at
the abolition of the death penalty, Dec. 15, 1989, 1642 U.N.T.S. 414.
[16] Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, § 103(1) (India).
[17] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[18] Bachan Singh v.
State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 (India).
[19] Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1983) 3 SCC 470 (India).
[20] U.S. CONST.
amend. VIII.
[21] Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238,
239–40 (1972).
[22] Gregg v. Georgia,
428 U.S. 153, 206–07 (1976).
[23] Death Penalty
Information Center, State by State,
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/state-by-state (last
visited Sept. 26, 2026).
[24] Murder (Abolition of Death
Penalty) Act 1965, c. 71, § 1 (U.K.).
[25] Human Rights Act 1998, c. 42, sch.
1, pt. 3 (U.K.).
[26] Bachan Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 684.
[27] Furman, 408 U.S.
at 239–40.
[28] Gregg, 428 U.S.
at 206–07.
[29] International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights art. 6, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
[30] Law Commission of
India, The Death Penalty, Report No. 262 (2015).
[31] International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights art. 6, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
[32] Second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition
of the death penalty, Dec. 15, 1989, 1642 U.N.T.S. 414.
[33] Death Penalty
Information Center, State by State,
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/state-by-state (last
visited Sept. 26, 2026).
[34] Murder (Abolition of Death
Penalty) Act 1965, c. 71, § 1 (U.K.).
[35] Human Rights Act
1998, c. 42, sch. 1, pt. 3 (U.K.).
[36] Law Commission of
India, The Death Penalty, Report No. 262 (2015).
[37] Bachan Singh,
(1980) 2 SCC 684.
[38] Furman, 408 U.S. 238.
[39] Gregg, 428 U.S.
153.
[40] Law Commission of India, The Death
Penalty, Report No. 262 (2015).
[41] International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 6, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
[42] Second Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at
the abolition of the death penalty, Dec. 15, 1989, 1642 U.N.T.S. 414.
[43] Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, § 103(1) (India).
How to Cite This Article
PRITI SOMNATH DHERE, Death Penalty in Comparative Jurisprudence: A Study of India, The United States and The United Kingdom., White Black Legal – International Law Journal, ISSN: 2581-8503, Vol. Volume 4, Issue VOLUME 4 ISSUE 2, October 2026, pp. 1345-1362. Available at: https://www.whiteblacklegal.co.in/details/death-penalty-in-comparative-jurisprudence-a-study-of-india-the-united-states-and-the-united-kingdom
Author & Publication Record
Authors: PRITI SOMNATH DHERE
Registration ID: 107212 | Published Paper ID: WBL7212
Year: Oct- 2026 | Volume: 4 | Issue: 2
Approved ISSN: 2581-8503 | Country: Delhi, India
Page No.: 1345-1362
Full Text Preview
Open in New Tab
Copied