When they are unable to execute the convicts, why they awarded death penalty?Remember the horrific Nirbhaya rape case? It took place six years ago and 4 of the convicts were awarded death penalties. In July, the apex court rejected their pleas of review and upheld the judgement of the Delhi High Court as well as the Trial Court that awarded death penalty to those 4 convicts. Capital punishment for these heinous crimes works as a deterrent and I am surprised by the reaction of the top court on a plea seeking execution of the convicts at the earliest.
I am quoting the justices of that bench, who said "What kind of prayer you are making?", "you want us to go around Delhi and execute these people?".
Well, nobody wants that. It is not the job of the court to go around places and carry out the execution. A simple order from the bench to carry out the process is enough to hang them. When the punishment to the convicts of a horrific rape and murder case cannot be carried out even after six years, then I don't think there is any requirement of keeping the provision of death penalty as a form of punishment in the constitution. The judges are awarding a punishment, even the top court is approving it, but when it comes to carrying out the process they prefer to linger on the issue. Members, what is your take on this issue?