有“未来危险”这种东西吗?安尼尔·安东尼之后的印度死刑量刑法理考察

IF 0.4 Q2 Social Sciences
M. Mehta
{"title":"有“未来危险”这种东西吗?安尼尔·安东尼之后的印度死刑量刑法理考察","authors":"M. Mehta","doi":"10.1525/NCLR.2019.22.2.200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court of India in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, listed “future dangerousness” of the accused as one of the factors the court must consider when awarding the death sentence. The burden of proof lies on the State to prove the same. This standard has been inconsistently applied in Indian capital sentencing jurisprudence. In Anil Anthony, the most recent decision on this issue, the Supreme Court held that determination of future dangerousness cannot be based on the facts of the case. However, in earlier decisions such as Gurdev Singh, the court concluded that the brutality of the crime ruled out the possibility of reform.\n This article argues, drawing on a comparative analysis with the United States, that though future dangerousness is an inevitable “fact in issue” for judges, the evidence that may be adduced does not meet the standards required for the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, future dangerousness as a determining factor during sentencing is a ground for challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. In the interim, Anil Anthony is a better standard to apply, as compared to both Bachan Singh and Gurdev Singh, in principle as well as in practice.","PeriodicalId":44796,"journal":{"name":"New Criminal Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is There Such a Thing as “Future Dangerousness”? Examining Capital Sentencing Jurisprudence in India After Anil Anthony\",\"authors\":\"M. Mehta\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/NCLR.2019.22.2.200\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Supreme Court of India in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, listed “future dangerousness” of the accused as one of the factors the court must consider when awarding the death sentence. The burden of proof lies on the State to prove the same. This standard has been inconsistently applied in Indian capital sentencing jurisprudence. In Anil Anthony, the most recent decision on this issue, the Supreme Court held that determination of future dangerousness cannot be based on the facts of the case. However, in earlier decisions such as Gurdev Singh, the court concluded that the brutality of the crime ruled out the possibility of reform.\\n This article argues, drawing on a comparative analysis with the United States, that though future dangerousness is an inevitable “fact in issue” for judges, the evidence that may be adduced does not meet the standards required for the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, future dangerousness as a determining factor during sentencing is a ground for challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. In the interim, Anil Anthony is a better standard to apply, as compared to both Bachan Singh and Gurdev Singh, in principle as well as in practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Criminal Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Criminal Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/NCLR.2019.22.2.200\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Criminal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/NCLR.2019.22.2.200","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在Bachan Singh诉旁遮普邦案中,印度最高法院将被告的"未来危险性"列为法院在判处死刑时必须考虑的因素之一。国家有举证责任证明这一点。这一标准在印度死刑量刑法理中一直存在着不一致的适用。在安尼尔·安东尼案(Anil Anthony)中,最高法院认为,对未来危险性的判定不能基于案件的事实。然而,在Gurdev Singh案等较早的判决中,法院得出的结论是,犯罪的残暴程度排除了改革的可能性。本文通过与美国的比较分析认为,尽管对法官来说,未来危险是一个不可避免的"争议事实",但可能引用的证据不符合判处死刑所需的标准。因此,将未来的危险性作为量刑时的决定因素,是对死刑本身的合宪性提出质疑的理由。在此期间,与巴尚·辛格和古尔德夫·辛格相比,阿尼尔·安东尼在原则上和实践中都是一个更好的标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is There Such a Thing as “Future Dangerousness”? Examining Capital Sentencing Jurisprudence in India After Anil Anthony
The Supreme Court of India in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, listed “future dangerousness” of the accused as one of the factors the court must consider when awarding the death sentence. The burden of proof lies on the State to prove the same. This standard has been inconsistently applied in Indian capital sentencing jurisprudence. In Anil Anthony, the most recent decision on this issue, the Supreme Court held that determination of future dangerousness cannot be based on the facts of the case. However, in earlier decisions such as Gurdev Singh, the court concluded that the brutality of the crime ruled out the possibility of reform. This article argues, drawing on a comparative analysis with the United States, that though future dangerousness is an inevitable “fact in issue” for judges, the evidence that may be adduced does not meet the standards required for the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, future dangerousness as a determining factor during sentencing is a ground for challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. In the interim, Anil Anthony is a better standard to apply, as compared to both Bachan Singh and Gurdev Singh, in principle as well as in practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Focused on examinations of crime and punishment in domestic, transnational, and international contexts, New Criminal Law Review provides timely, innovative commentary and in-depth scholarly analyses on a wide range of criminal law topics. The journal encourages a variety of methodological and theoretical approaches and is a crucial resource for criminal law professionals in both academia and the criminal justice system. The journal publishes thematic forum sections and special issues, full-length peer-reviewed articles, book reviews, and occasional correspondence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信