Question Description
The capital sentencing framework in India developed in Bachan Singh sought to guide the discretionary power of judges in choosing between life imprisonment and a death sentence. The resulting ‘rarest of rare’ framework mandates sentencing courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the offence and the offender, while also considering probability of reformation, and the suitability of the alternative option of life imprisonment. Contrary to the special emphasis on the role of mitigating circumstances of the offender in Bachan Singh, the report found that trial courts across the three states had little regard for it. Trial courts were heavily driven by a crime–centric approach and did not consider mitigating circumstances in 51% of the total cases.Closely tied to the non–consideration of mitigating circumstances by trial courts is the duration between conviction and sentencing hearing. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) under Section 235(2) provides for a bifurcated trial with separate conviction and sentencing hearings, to allow sufficient time to the defence lawyer to collect and present relevant mitigating evidence. However, the report found that in 44% of the cases, sentencing hearings took place on the same day as conviction. This also explains the dismal quality of sentencing arguments made by defence lawyers.Which of the following statements highlight(s) the problems with death penalty adjudication by courts, in the backdrop of the above passage? I. There is lack of clarity about sentencing factors. II. There are no constitutional thresholds in place for a sentencing hearing and no remedies for deficient sentencing hearings. III. Crime centric approach is the right approach and the courts must not look into mitigating factors."a)Only Ib)I and IIc)II and IIId)I, II and IIICorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The capital sentencing framework in India developed in Bachan Singh sought to guide the discretionary power of judges in choosing between life imprisonment and a death sentence. The resulting ‘rarest of rare’ framework mandates sentencing courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the offence and the offender, while also considering probability of reformation, and the suitability of the alternative option of life imprisonment. Contrary to the special emphasis on the role of mitigating circumstances of the offender in Bachan Singh, the report found that trial courts across the three states had little regard for it. Trial courts were heavily driven by a crime–centric approach and did not consider mitigating circumstances in 51% of the total cases.Closely tied to the non–consideration of mitigating circumstances by trial courts is the duration between conviction and sentencing hearing. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) under Section 235(2) provides for a bifurcated trial with separate conviction and sentencing hearings, to allow sufficient time to the defence lawyer to collect and present relevant mitigating evidence. However, the report found that in 44% of the cases, sentencing hearings took place on the same day as conviction. This also explains the dismal quality of sentencing arguments made by defence lawyers.Which of the following statements highlight(s) the problems with death penalty adjudication by courts, in the backdrop of the above passage? I. There is lack of clarity about sentencing factors. II. There are no constitutional thresholds in place for a sentencing hearing and no remedies for deficient sentencing hearings. III. Crime centric approach is the right approach and the courts must not look into mitigating factors."a)Only Ib)I and IIc)II and IIId)I, II and IIICorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The capital sentencing framework in India developed in Bachan Singh sought to guide the discretionary power of judges in choosing between life imprisonment and a death sentence. The resulting ‘rarest of rare’ framework mandates sentencing courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the offence and the offender, while also considering probability of reformation, and the suitability of the alternative option of life imprisonment. Contrary to the special emphasis on the role of mitigating circumstances of the offender in Bachan Singh, the report found that trial courts across the three states had little regard for it. Trial courts were heavily driven by a crime–centric approach and did not consider mitigating circumstances in 51% of the total cases.Closely tied to the non–consideration of mitigating circumstances by trial courts is the duration between conviction and sentencing hearing. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) under Section 235(2) provides for a bifurcated trial with separate conviction and sentencing hearings, to allow sufficient time to the defence lawyer to collect and present relevant mitigating evidence. However, the report found that in 44% of the cases, sentencing hearings took place on the same day as conviction. This also explains the dismal quality of sentencing arguments made by defence lawyers.Which of the following statements highlight(s) the problems with death penalty adjudication by courts, in the backdrop of the above passage? I. There is lack of clarity about sentencing factors. II. There are no constitutional thresholds in place for a sentencing hearing and no remedies for deficient sentencing hearings. III. Crime centric approach is the right approach and the courts must not look into mitigating factors."a)Only Ib)I and IIc)II and IIId)I, II and IIICorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The capital sentencing framework in India developed in Bachan Singh sought to guide the discretionary power of judges in choosing between life imprisonment and a death sentence. The resulting ‘rarest of rare’ framework mandates sentencing courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the offence and the offender, while also considering probability of reformation, and the suitability of the alternative option of life imprisonment. Contrary to the special emphasis on the role of mitigating circumstances of the offender in Bachan Singh, the report found that trial courts across the three states had little regard for it. Trial courts were heavily driven by a crime–centric approach and did not consider mitigating circumstances in 51% of the total cases.Closely tied to the non–consideration of mitigating circumstances by trial courts is the duration between conviction and sentencing hearing. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) under Section 235(2) provides for a bifurcated trial with separate conviction and sentencing hearings, to allow sufficient time to the defence lawyer to collect and present relevant mitigating evidence. However, the report found that in 44% of the cases, sentencing hearings took place on the same day as conviction. This also explains the dismal quality of sentencing arguments made by defence lawyers.Which of the following statements highlight(s) the problems with death penalty adjudication by courts, in the backdrop of the above passage? I. There is lack of clarity about sentencing factors. II. There are no constitutional thresholds in place for a sentencing hearing and no remedies for deficient sentencing hearings. III. Crime centric approach is the right approach and the courts must not look into mitigating factors."a)Only Ib)I and IIc)II and IIId)I, II and IIICorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The capital sentencing framework in India developed in Bachan Singh sought to guide the discretionary power of judges in choosing between life imprisonment and a death sentence. The resulting ‘rarest of rare’ framework mandates sentencing courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the offence and the offender, while also considering probability of reformation, and the suitability of the alternative option of life imprisonment. Contrary to the special emphasis on the role of mitigating circumstances of the offender in Bachan Singh, the report found that trial courts across the three states had little regard for it. Trial courts were heavily driven by a crime–centric approach and did not consider mitigating circumstances in 51% of the total cases.Closely tied to the non–consideration of mitigating circumstances by trial courts is the duration between conviction and sentencing hearing. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) under Section 235(2) provides for a bifurcated trial with separate conviction and sentencing hearings, to allow sufficient time to the defence lawyer to collect and present relevant mitigating evidence. However, the report found that in 44% of the cases, sentencing hearings took place on the same day as conviction. This also explains the dismal quality of sentencing arguments made by defence lawyers.Which of the following statements highlight(s) the problems with death penalty adjudication by courts, in the backdrop of the above passage? I. There is lack of clarity about sentencing factors. II. There are no constitutional thresholds in place for a sentencing hearing and no remedies for deficient sentencing hearings. III. Crime centric approach is the right approach and the courts must not look into mitigating factors."a)Only Ib)I and IIc)II and IIId)I, II and IIICorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The capital sentencing framework in India developed in Bachan Singh sought to guide the discretionary power of judges in choosing between life imprisonment and a death sentence. The resulting ‘rarest of rare’ framework mandates sentencing courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the offence and the offender, while also considering probability of reformation, and the suitability of the alternative option of life imprisonment. Contrary to the special emphasis on the role of mitigating circumstances of the offender in Bachan Singh, the report found that trial courts across the three states had little regard for it. Trial courts were heavily driven by a crime–centric approach and did not consider mitigating circumstances in 51% of the total cases.Closely tied to the non–consideration of mitigating circumstances by trial courts is the duration between conviction and sentencing hearing. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) under Section 235(2) provides for a bifurcated trial with separate conviction and sentencing hearings, to allow sufficient time to the defence lawyer to collect and present relevant mitigating evidence. However, the report found that in 44% of the cases, sentencing hearings took place on the same day as conviction. This also explains the dismal quality of sentencing arguments made by defence lawyers.Which of the following statements highlight(s) the problems with death penalty adjudication by courts, in the backdrop of the above passage? I. There is lack of clarity about sentencing factors. II. There are no constitutional thresholds in place for a sentencing hearing and no remedies for deficient sentencing hearings. III. Crime centric approach is the right approach and the courts must not look into mitigating factors."a)Only Ib)I and IIc)II and IIId)I, II and IIICorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The capital sentencing framework in India developed in Bachan Singh sought to guide the discretionary power of judges in choosing between life imprisonment and a death sentence. The resulting ‘rarest of rare’ framework mandates sentencing courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the offence and the offender, while also considering probability of reformation, and the suitability of the alternative option of life imprisonment. Contrary to the special emphasis on the role of mitigating circumstances of the offender in Bachan Singh, the report found that trial courts across the three states had little regard for it. Trial courts were heavily driven by a crime–centric approach and did not consider mitigating circumstances in 51% of the total cases.Closely tied to the non–consideration of mitigating circumstances by trial courts is the duration between conviction and sentencing hearing. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) under Section 235(2) provides for a bifurcated trial with separate conviction and sentencing hearings, to allow sufficient time to the defence lawyer to collect and present relevant mitigating evidence. However, the report found that in 44% of the cases, sentencing hearings took place on the same day as conviction. This also explains the dismal quality of sentencing arguments made by defence lawyers.Which of the following statements highlight(s) the problems with death penalty adjudication by courts, in the backdrop of the above passage? I. There is lack of clarity about sentencing factors. II. There are no constitutional thresholds in place for a sentencing hearing and no remedies for deficient sentencing hearings. III. Crime centric approach is the right approach and the courts must not look into mitigating factors."a)Only Ib)I and IIc)II and IIId)I, II and IIICorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The capital sentencing framework in India developed in Bachan Singh sought to guide the discretionary power of judges in choosing between life imprisonment and a death sentence. The resulting ‘rarest of rare’ framework mandates sentencing courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the offence and the offender, while also considering probability of reformation, and the suitability of the alternative option of life imprisonment. Contrary to the special emphasis on the role of mitigating circumstances of the offender in Bachan Singh, the report found that trial courts across the three states had little regard for it. Trial courts were heavily driven by a crime–centric approach and did not consider mitigating circumstances in 51% of the total cases.Closely tied to the non–consideration of mitigating circumstances by trial courts is the duration between conviction and sentencing hearing. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) under Section 235(2) provides for a bifurcated trial with separate conviction and sentencing hearings, to allow sufficient time to the defence lawyer to collect and present relevant mitigating evidence. However, the report found that in 44% of the cases, sentencing hearings took place on the same day as conviction. This also explains the dismal quality of sentencing arguments made by defence lawyers.Which of the following statements highlight(s) the problems with death penalty adjudication by courts, in the backdrop of the above passage? I. There is lack of clarity about sentencing factors. II. There are no constitutional thresholds in place for a sentencing hearing and no remedies for deficient sentencing hearings. III. Crime centric approach is the right approach and the courts must not look into mitigating factors."a)Only Ib)I and IIc)II and IIId)I, II and IIICorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The capital sentencing framework in India developed in Bachan Singh sought to guide the discretionary power of judges in choosing between life imprisonment and a death sentence. The resulting ‘rarest of rare’ framework mandates sentencing courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the offence and the offender, while also considering probability of reformation, and the suitability of the alternative option of life imprisonment. Contrary to the special emphasis on the role of mitigating circumstances of the offender in Bachan Singh, the report found that trial courts across the three states had little regard for it. Trial courts were heavily driven by a crime–centric approach and did not consider mitigating circumstances in 51% of the total cases.Closely tied to the non–consideration of mitigating circumstances by trial courts is the duration between conviction and sentencing hearing. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) under Section 235(2) provides for a bifurcated trial with separate conviction and sentencing hearings, to allow sufficient time to the defence lawyer to collect and present relevant mitigating evidence. However, the report found that in 44% of the cases, sentencing hearings took place on the same day as conviction. This also explains the dismal quality of sentencing arguments made by defence lawyers.Which of the following statements highlight(s) the problems with death penalty adjudication by courts, in the backdrop of the above passage? I. There is lack of clarity about sentencing factors. II. There are no constitutional thresholds in place for a sentencing hearing and no remedies for deficient sentencing hearings. III. Crime centric approach is the right approach and the courts must not look into mitigating factors."a)Only Ib)I and IIc)II and IIId)I, II and IIICorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.