Death Penalty And Life Imprisonment In Norway
In 1979, the capital punishment was abolished in Norway. The constitution of Norway was amended in 2014. It states ‘Every person has the right to life. No one can be sentenced to death.’ The maximum life sentence in Norway is 21 years and this can be extended indefinitely after every five years if the prisoner poses a threat of repeating the offence. This caters to the incapacitation rationale of punishment.
The incarceration rate in Norway is 75/1, 00,000. The country relies on the concept of restorative justice which includes repairing the harm rather than punishing the criminal. The Halden and the Bastoy prisons at Norway are designed to provide all amenities to the prisoners. The intention is to only curtail the freedom and not the right of a dignified life.Garland labels it as ‘penal welfarism’. The policy of open prisons is a part of the Nordic culture. Such prisons do not depend on giving physical restraints but confer a sense of responsibility on the prisoners, thereby supporting their self esteem.
The scholars have described the Norwegian Penal norms to be ‘an exceptional penal policy.’ It thrives on the principles of reformation, devoid of retribution and vengeance.
Some regard the high employment rate, low income inequality, low poverty rate to be the reason for the low crime rate and hence low rates for sentencing people to imprisonment. However, these are not the only factors. The events that take place in a country also play an important role. For instance, the 9/11 bombings in USA, 26/11 bombings in India. Such events result in public outrage.
The Oslo bombings of Norway are one similar event. It claimed the lives of 77 innocent people. The people of Norway were satisfied with the fact that the accused was a Norwegian, born and brought up in Norway. The sympathy condones the public outrage. However such solidarity is only for their own people.
However such sympathy showing attitude is absent in countries like India which has a vast extent of social, cultural and religious diversity.
One pertinent question that erupts here is the fact that how a life term of 21 years can satisfy public outrage, cater to victim rights and rights of indirect victims. After the court’s sentence was passed, a poll was conducted in Norway. 80% supported the court’s judgement and the victim’s families were satisfied. Also the gunman did not prefer an appeal and showed faith in the judicial system. According to the European Social Survey, Norway is a country displaying remarkable trust in its criminal justice system.
One third crimes in Norway are property related crimes and the victims get compensation via state insurance. The police is not pressurised. The victim is not shown sympathy. The crimes in Norway carry such approach because of the public provision of welfare. In countries like India and China, the victim can be compensated only by filing a civil suit.
Green compared the media coverage and noticed and noticed that the same crime in England was reported with the focus on cursing the criminal justice system while in Norway the focus was on rehabilitation of the criminal. The coverage is more bent towards rationality and knowledge. It should not be sentiment based but on a professional front. A mother whose daughter was one of the 77 people killed said that she did not want the convict to be hanged. Revenge is not an option.
However there were opposite reactions as well. Another event is worth mentioning. The murder of a 16 year old girl – she was reported missing before she was found murdered. There was extraordinary public support in finding her, no public outrage and no pressure on police.
Hence it can be included that there are three important ingredients of the criminal justice system in Norway.(1) rationality is embedded in their behaviour (2) the homogeneity of Norway’s population (3) sympathy towards the offender.
In a country like Norway with less population the aim of the criminal justice system of a civilised country is not to satisfy the feelings of vengeance and revenge of those affected.
Death Penalty And Life Imprisonment In India
Both death penalty and life imprisonment have been provided as punishments in the Indian Penal Code and also sanctioned by Article 21 of the constitution of India.
Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in India
In Jagmohan Singh v. State of U. P, it was argued that the death penalty violated Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. And also that the law did not provide a procedure for the consideration of circumstances crucial for making the choice between capital punishment and imprisonment for life. The court held that the death penalty was a permissible punishment, and did not violate the Constitution and the exercise of judicial discretion on well-recognized principles is the safest possible safeguard for the accused.
In the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the death penalty was challenged on the grounds of irreversibility, cruelty.. The Court adopted the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine that allowed for the imposition of death penalty only in exceptional cases.
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab the Supreme Court by 4:1 majority has overruled its earlier Judgment pronounced in Rajendra Prasad’s case and held that death it must be reasonably imposed and not arbitrary; it should be imposed in most serious crimes. In this case the Court held that: Judges should not be blood thirsty.
Life Imprisonment Without Remission
According to the case of Swamy Shraddananda, the matter may be looked at from a slightly different angle. The issue of sentencing has two aspects. A sentence may be excessive and unduly harsh or it may be highly disproportionately inadequate. When an appellant comes to this court carrying a death sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, this Court may find, as in the present appeal that the case just falls short of the rarest of the rare category and may feel somewhat reluctant in endorsing the death sentence.
But at the same time, having regard to the nature of the crime, the Court may strongly feel that a sentence of life imprisonment that subject to remission normally works out to a term of 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. If the Court's option is limited only to two punishments, one a sentence of imprisonment, for all intents and purposes, of not more than 14 years and the other death, the court may feel tempted and find itself nudged into endorsing the death penalty. Such a course would indeed be disastrous.
In the case of Sriharan v union of India ( Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case) The way in which remission is actually allowed in cases of life imprisonment make out a very strong case to make a special category for the very few cases where the death penalty might be substituted by the punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term in excess of fourteen years and to put that category beyond the application of remission.
It can be concluded from these cases that Due to the irrevocable nature of death penalty and also by placing reliance on the report of amnesty international, lethal lottery, which highlighted the arbitrary way in which the remissions are granted , the court felt a strong need to introduce this type of punishment. Also, the unsound way in which remissions are granted due to which the life imprisonment usually amounts to 14 years in practicality, it cannot be used as a substitute to death penalty. The court held that by introducing this the category of life imprisonment without remission it would satisfy what was said in the case of bachan singh and death penalty would only be awarded in rarest of the rare case .
Conclusion
On a comparative analysis of India and Norway it is clear that there is a stark contrast between the penal policy of India and Norway. The justification for punishment in Norway is rehabilitation coupled with incapacitation. While that in India is deterrence and retribution.
The researcher believes that keeping the socio economic conditions of India in mind, death penalty cannot be abolished however; substituting it with life imprisonment without remission is highly condemned. The rationale behind Norway’s policy shall be adopted and the hope of release shall never expire. India must balance punishment and human rights according the standards of international community.
Written By:
- Mahima Chowdhary - 3rd year students of Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi University and
- Trisha Gupta - 3rd year students of Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi University
