Read the following information and answer the question that follows.
Protagonists of human rights vehemently oppose capital punishment. Their opposition stems mainly from three reasons. Firstly, man cannot terminate what he cannot generate. Secondly, the function of punishment is to reform the culprit. Thirdly, a culprit should be given an opportunity to repent. Admittedly, death penalty fails on all three counts. However, the defenders argue that a person is punished because he has to pay for his deeds. Reformation or repentance, according to them, is peripheral. Hence, death penalty fails on all three counts. However, the defenders argue that a person is punished because he has to pay for his deeds. Reformation or repentance, according to them , is peripheral. Hence , death penalty is admissible.
Which one of the following is the focus of this debate?

Man's right and privileges

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Nature and purpose of punishment

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

Prevention of crime

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Mercy and revenge

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is D Nature and purpose of punishment
The debate talks about the merits and demerits of capital punishment as a form of punishment . Those who oppose it talk of man's rights and privileges. The defenders talk of punishing the criminal. However, these are reason that both the parties use to put forth their opinion regarding capital punishment. So, option (b) is the correct choice.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

Statement: Should all those who are convicted for heinous crimes like murder or rape, beyond all reasonable doubts be given capital punishment or death penalty?

Arguments:
I. No. The death penalty should be given only in very rare and exceptional cases.
II. Yes. This is the only way to punish such people who take others' lives or indulge in inhuman activities.
III. Yes. Such severe punishments only will make people refrain from such heinous acts and the society will be safer.
IV. No. Those who are repentant for the crime they committed should be given a chance to improve and lead a normal life.

Q. Consider the following statements :
1. Both President and Governor can pardon, reprive, respite, remit, suspend or commute the punishment or sentence.
2. While the President can pardon death penalty, governor can not pardon death penalty.
3. While the President can grant pardon, reprieve, respite, suspension, remission or commutation in respect to punishment or sentence by a court-martial, govenor can not.

Which of the above is/ are true ?

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Suresh harasses his colleague Nimita in the office. Nimita makes a complaint to her employer and also to the police station. Following the recommendations of the departmental committee, the employer terminates the services of Suresh. The police also arrested him and prosecution started. He defended that he cannot be punished twice.
Which of the following options is correct?

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No one can be punished for the same offence twice.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Aditya is accused of harassing his colleague Nimisha. She complains to her superior and a departmental inquiry is initiated against Aditya. Aditya tries to intimidate Nimisha and continues harassing her following which she complains to the police. The departmental inquiry finds him guilty and terminates his services. Later, he is found guilty by a court and is jailed for 2 years. He claims that he has been punished twice.
DECIDE.

Q. Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:

It was a dark autumn night. The old banker was pacing from corner to corner of his study, recalling to his mind the party he gave in the autumn fifteen years before. There were many clever people at the party and much interesting conversation. They talked among other things of capital punishment. The guests, among them not a few scholars and journalists, for the most part disapproved of capital punishment. They found it obsolete as a means of punishment, unfitted to a modern State and immoral. Some of them thought that capital punishment should be replaced universally by life-imprisonment.

"I don't agree with you," said the host. "I myself have experienced neither capital punishment nor life-imprisonment, but if one may judge a priori, then in my opinion capital punishment is more moral and more humane than imprisonment. Execution kills instantly, life-imprisonment kills by degrees. Who is the more humane executioner, one who kills you in a few seconds or one who draws the life out of you incessantly, for years?"

"They're both equally immoral," remarked one of the guests, "because their purpose is the same, to take away life. The State is not God. It has no right to take away that which it cannot give back, if it should so desire."

Among the company was a lawyer, a young man of about twenty-five. On being asked his opinion, he said: "Capital punishment and life-imprisonment are equally immoral; but if I were offered the choice between them, I would certainly choose the second. It's better to live somehow than not to live at all."

There ensued a lively discussion. The banker who was then younger and more nervous suddenly lost his temper, banged his fist on the table, and turning to the young lawyer, cried out: "It's a lie. I bet you two millions you wouldn't stick in a cell even for five years."

"If you mean it seriously," replied the lawyer, "then I bet I'll stay not five but fifteen."

"Fifteen! Done!" cried the banker.

"Gentlemen, I stake two millions."

"Agreed. You stake two millions, I my freedom," said the lawyer.

So this wild, ridiculous bet came to pass. The banker, who at that time had too many millions to count, spoiled and capricious, was beside himself with rapture. At supper he made fun of the young man, and said: "Think better of it, young man, while there is still time. To me two million is a trifle, but you are losing three or four of the best years of your life. I say three or four, because you won't stay longer. Don't forget either, you unhappy man, that voluntary confinement is a great deal harder to bear than compulsory. The thought that you have the right to step out in liberty at any moment will poison your whole existence in prison. I am sorry for you.”

Adapted from ‘The Bet’ by Anton Checkov

Choose the correct option for the questions given below:

Arrange the sequence of events as they happen in the passage.

(i) The banker says it’s a bet for two million if the lawyer can stay for five years in prison
(ii) The company have a discussion on the morality of capital punishment
(iii) The lawyer shares that he prefers to be alive rather than dead
(iv) The bet is settled and the banker reminds the lawyer that voluntary imprisonment is difficult

Join BYJU'S Learning Program