The capital punishment is a subject of great debate not only in India, but also across the world. While some countries have abolished this practice terming it inhuman and degrading, others have retained it as a means of deterrence. In India, the death penalty continues to be in practice. The author in this book argues that the death penalty be abolished in India. She strengthens her argument with the help of a personal narrative recounting her experience as a lawyer in arguing a case in the Supreme Court, in which four young men had been sentenced to death by the trial court. The sentence of death delivered by the trial court was upheld by the Bombay High Court. The author, however, along with her senior successfully defended the accused in the Supreme Court, and got their death penalty converted to life imprisonment. To further supplement her position against the death penalty, the author critically analyses the landmark cases, which have shaped the law on the capital punishment in India, and interprets the views of experts on the subject. She also examines a few foreign jurisdictions, and provides a comparative perspective on the issue of the death penalty.

Why is the Catholic Church against the death penalty? This second edition of Brugger's classic work "Capital Punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition" traces the doctrinal path the Church has taken over the centuries to its present position as the world's largest and most outspoken opponent of capital punishment. The pontificate of John Paul II marked a watershed in Catholic thinking. The pope taught that the death penalty is and can only be rightly assessed as a form of self-defense. But what does this mean? What are its implications for the Church's traditional retribution-based model of lethal punishment? How does it square with what the Church has historically taught? Brugger argues that the implications of this historic turn have yet to be fully understood.
In his new preface, Brugger examines the contribution of the great Polish pope's closest collaborator and successor in the Chair of Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, to Catholic thinking on the death penalty. He argues that Pope Benedict maintained the doctrinal status quo of his predecessor's teaching on capital punishment as self-defense, with detectable points of reluctance to draw attention to nontraditional implications of that teaching.

As a punishment for our most serious crime-the intentional killing of a victim in an egregious way-the death penalty naturally attracts opposing moral views. One view says that the state should never execute a criminal no matter what the crime may be. The other view requires execution as justice is sought for the victim. This book considers a third possible view: capital punishment should be judged by its pragmatic value to society. Does the prospect of possible execution save lives by deterring the act of murder? Heilbrun presents evidence concerning whether state death penalties demonstrate the two necessary properties of a true deterrent: a reduction in intentional killing when present and an increase when removed. The Case for Capital Punishment contains an analysis of rarely-considered factors that influence the deterrence of murder and a discussion of the common criticisms of capital punishment.

In his first book since the Pulitzer Prize-winning Polio: An American Story, renowned historian David Oshinsky takes a new and closer look at the Supreme Court's controversial and much-debated stances on capital punishment-in the landmark case of Furman v. Georgia.

Career criminal William Furman shot and killed a homeowner during a 1967 burglary in Savannah, Georgia. Because it was a "black-on-white" crime in the racially troubled South, it also was an open-and-shut case. The trial took less than a day, and the nearly all-white jury rendered a death sentence. Aided by the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, Furman's African-American attorney, Bobby Mayfield, doggedly appealed the verdict all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1972 overturned Furman's sentence by a narrow 5-4 vote, ruling that Georgia's capital punishment statute, and by implication all other state death-penalty laws, was so arbitrary and capricious as to violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment."

Furman effectively, if temporarily, halted capital punishment in the United States. Every death row inmate across the nation was resentenced to life in prison. The decision, however, did not rule the death penalty per se to be unconstitutional; rather, it struck down the laws that currently governed its application, leaving the states free to devise new ones that the Court might find acceptable. And this is exactly what happened. In the coming years, the Supreme Court would uphold an avalanche of state legislation endorsing the death penalty. Capital punishment would return stronger than ever, with many more defendants sentenced to death and eventually executed.

Oshinsky demonstrates the troubling roles played by race and class and region in capital punishment. And he concludes by considering the most recent Supreme Court death-penalty cases involving minors and the mentally ill, as well as the impact of international opinion. Compact and engaging, Oshinsky's masterful study reflects a gift for empathy, an eye for the telling anecdote and portrait, and a talent for clarifying the complex and often confusing legal issues surrounding capital punishment.

The U.S. death penalty is a peculiar institution, and a uniquely American one. Despite its comprehensive abolition elsewhere in the Western world, capital punishment continues in dozens of American states- a fact that is frequently discussed but rarely understood. The same puzzlement surrounds the peculiar form that American capital punishment now takes, with its uneven application, its seemingly endless delays, and the uncertainty of its ever being carried out in individual cases, none of which seem conducive to effective crime control or criminal justice. In a brilliantly provocative study, David Garland explains this tenacity and shows how death penalty practice has come to bear the distinctive hallmarks of America's political institutions and cultural conflicts. America's radical federalism and local democracy, as well as its legacy of violence and racism, account for our divergence from the rest of the West. Whereas the elites of other nations were able to impose nationwide abolition from above despite public objections, American elites are unable- and unwilling- to end a punishment that has the support of local majorities and a storied place in popular culture. In the course of hundreds of decisions, federal courts sought to rationalize and civilize an institution that too often resembled a lynching, producing layers of legal process but also delays and reversals. Yet the Supreme Court insists that the issue is to be decided by local political actors and public opinion. So the death penalty continues to respond to popular will, enhancing the power of criminal justice professionals, providing drama for the media, and bringing pleasure to a public audience who consumes its chilling tales. Garland brings a new clarity to our understanding of this peculiar institution- and a new challenge to supporters and opponents alike.