Punishment & Society http://pun.sagepub.com

Views on the death penalty among college students in India Eric G. Lambert, Sudershan Pasupuleti, Shanhe Jiang, K. Jaishankar and Jagadish V. Bhimarasetty Punishment Society 2008; 10; 207 DOI: 10.1177/1462474507087199 The online version of this article can be found at: http://pun.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/2/207

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Punishment & Society can be found at: Email Alerts: http://pun.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://pun.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 10 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://pun.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/10/2/207

Downloaded from http://pun.sagepub.com by Jaishankar Karuppannan on May 22, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Copyright © SAGE Publications Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore. www.sagepublications.com 1462-4745; Vol 10(2): 207–218 DOI: 10.1177/1462474507087199 PUNISHMENT & SOCIETY

Views on the death penalty among college students in India ERIC G. LAMBERT, SUDERSHAN PASUPULETI, AND SHANHE JIANG University of Toledo, USA K. JAISHANKAR Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, India JAGADISH V. BHIMARASETTY R.M. College of Social Work, India

Abstract While research abounds on attitudes toward capital punishment in the United States, such work has been lacking in non-western nations – particularly in India, the world’s largest democracy. Data recently collected have revealed variance in levels of support for the death penalty among Indian college students: 44 percent express some degree of opposition, 13 percent are uncertain, and 43 percent express some degree of support. Reasons for support or opposition also exhibited variance. According to a multivariate analysis, statistically significant reasons for support included retribution, instrumentalist goals, and incapacitation; while significant reasons for opposition included morality and the belief that deterrence could be achieved by imposing sentences of life without parole. Key Words capital punishment • death penalty support • death penalty views • India

INDIAN VIEWS ON THE DEATH PENALTY

In the past 30 years, the number of countries implementing the death penalty has dropped considerably. As of 2003, 80 of the world’s 195 nations had taken an abolitionist stance on capital punishment. Twelve nations had instituted capital punishment only for extraordinary crimes, such as treason or war crimes; another 41 had instituted capital punishment but had not used it for a decade (i.e. they were de facto abolitionists). Thus, only 62 nations in the world use capital punishment for civilian crimes (Hill, 2005). 207 Downloaded from http://pun.sagepub.com by Jaishankar Karuppannan on May 22, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

PUNISHMENT & SOCIETY 10(2)

India is a retentionist nation. Yet little has been published, at least in western journals, on the Indian population’s views on the death penalty. In fact, no published study examining death penalty support in India could be located in any major database of western literature. Hence, with an eye to illuminating the factors underlying support or opposition to the death penalty, namely by providing heretofore lacking insight into non-western views, this research note examines the attitudes of Indian college students toward capital punishment.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Capital punishment in India has a long history. The execution of offenders was common in ancient India (Raghavan, 2004), and the legal system was influenced by the Hindu concept of dharma, or the rules of right conduct (Raghavan, 2004). India’s contemporary government and legal system are also heavily influenced by its more recent past as a British colony. In 1947, India obtained independence and became a sovereign nation (Raghavan, 2004), but the current criminal justice system is still based mainly on the English common law system, which allowed for capital punishment (Raghavan, 2004). For the crime of murder, Indian judges in the early 20th century could impose a sentence of death or of life in prison. A written justification was required for sentences of life in prison, but not for death sentences (Batra, 2004); hence, death sentences were more commonly imposed. In 1955, the 26th Amending Act changed this requirement. In 1973, the India Supreme Court ruled in Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973, 1 SCC 20) to further narrow the use of capital punishment, and it reaffirmed in Asgar v. State of U.P. (AIR 1977 SC 2000) that the death penalty, though constitutional, should be used only in exceptional cases (Batra, 2004). In 1980, the India Supreme Court further ruled in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 898) that capital punishment should be restricted to the rarest of rare cases (Batra, 2004). Although current law permits judges to interpret these rulings, it also requires them to explain in the record why a person was sentenced to death rather than to life in prison (Batra, 2004; Gupta, 2006). Both the Indian Constitution and the current Indian Penal Code authorize the use of capital punishment. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that a person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty only in accordance with legally established procedures (Batra, 2004), and Section 53 of the Penal Code permits capital punishment as a form of punishment (Batra, 2004). In India, the death penalty can be imposed for the following crimes: murder; waging of war against the State (including terrorism); mutiny; sacrificial killing of widows; a second conviction for drug-trafficking; abetting of the suicide of a child, or of a person who is insane, incompetent, or intoxicated; and attempted murder while serving a life sentence (Commission of Sati Prevention Act 1987; Raghavan, 2004). In India, murder is punishable by either death or a life sentence; however, after 14 years, a person sentenced to life can be released (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, 2006). Persons 16 or older can to be sentenced to death – in spite of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India ratified in 1979, and which prohibits the death sentence for persons under 18. Persons sentenced to death are allowed different levels of appellate review, which in many cases results in the commuting of the death sentence to life imprisonment or release. 208 Downloaded from http://pun.sagepub.com by Jaishankar Karuppannan on May 22, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

LAMBERT ET AL. Views on the death penalty among college students in India

Additionally, the President has the power to issue pardons (Hands Off Cain, 2006). Hanging is the sole method of execution (Raghavan, 2004). Unlike the USA, India does not release official death penalty statistics, such as the numbers of those executed and those awaiting execution (Hands Off Cain, 2006). In response to demands for such figures, the Deputy Director of the Prisons recently stated that the release of such information was not in the public interest (Amnesty International, 2005). However, it has been estimated that 3000 to 4000 executions occurred between 1950 and 1980 (Batra, 2004). Information on the numbers of persons sentenced to death and executed from 1980 to the mid-1990s is harder to estimate. According to Raghavan (2004), two or three persons are hanged per year. Since 2000, the number of death sentences appears to have increased (Majumder, 2005). In March of 2004, an estimated 160 individuals were on death row in India (Hands Off Cain, 2006). Like many retentionist countries, India has been the site of much death penalty-related controversy, which has led to several unsuccessful attempts to outlaw capital punishment (Blackshield, 1979). Additionally, as in the USA, perceptions exist among Indian citizens that the death penalty is unfairly administered. Indeed, most of those executed in India are ‘illiterate, poor, and vulnerable’ (Gupta, 2006: 2). Caste status and economic status, which are closely interrelated, are probably important factors in death penalty decisions in India. Dhananjoy Chatterjee, prior to his recent execution in India, remarked: ‘I would like to be reborn as a rich man as justice favours only the rich’ (Gupta, 2006: 1). In particular, the death penalty debate has been affected by the case of Mohammad Afzal, a Muslim, who received the death sentence after his conviction for conspiracy in the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament. His execution has been postponed due to allegations that he did not receive a fair trial, as well as due to the social and political ramifications that may result from his death (Wikipedia, 2007). Religious affiliations may also influence levels of death penalty support. The vast majority of Indians are Hindus. It is conceivable that non-Hindu minority members of Indian society may feel subject to unfair treatment by government institutions and, as such, may be more likely to oppose the death penalty. Such a situation exists in the USA, where Black persons are less supportive of capital punishment than are White persons (Lambert et al., 2004). At this time, it is not known if Hindu persons are more supportive of the death penalty than are non-Hindu persons; however, there is an intensifying debate in India over whether law enforcement institutions exhibit bias along socioeconomic lines, particularly in imposing the death penalty. The perception exists among Indians that the wealthy and politically connected receive a different form of justice than the poor and disenfranchised (Amnesty International, 2005). No known research to date, though, has specifically investigated the major rationales invoked for supporting or opposing the death penalty in India. The bulk of such research has focused on western nations, particularly the USA. In the USA, the four major reasons for support cited by death penalty proponents are retribution, deterrence, an instrumental perspective, and incapacitation. Retribution, the most commonly cited rationale (Lambert and Clarke, 2001), is arguably also the most emotionally based and tends to represent a desire for vengeance (Radelet and Borg, 2000). Deterrence is invoked by some death penalty proponents who argue that executing criminals may prevent others from committing serious offenses (Whitehead and Blankenship, 2000). According to the instrumental perspective, the death 209 Downloaded from http://pun.sagepub.com by Jaishankar Karuppannan on May 22, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

PUNISHMENT & SOCIETY 10(2)

penalty is necessary to ensure law and order in society; without it, violence would proliferate and lead to chaos (Maxwell and Rivera-Vazquez, 1998). The last major reason cited is incapacitation: execution is seen as the ultimate way to curtail a person’s ability to commit further violence (Lambert et al., 2004). In western societies, including the USA, major reasons cited by abolitionists for opposing capital punishment are morality/mercy, the need to avoid promoting violence (i.e., via the brutalization effect), life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) as an effective deterrent, and the risk of executing innocent persons. Many abolitionists contend that the death penalty is immoral, uncivilized, and cruel (Radelet and Borg, 2000). According to Hood (2001), for instance, it violates civilized standards of human dignity and undermines society’s moral claim that killing is wrong. Some argue that capital punishment does not deter violence but rather leads to increased violence – that is, it has a brutalization effect (Thomson, 1997). Additionally, it is sometimes argued that LWOP is an effective deterrent of serious violent crimes, including murder (Lambert et al., 2004). Finally, some oppose capital punishment based on the real risk of executing innocent persons. As abolitionists may emphasize, many innocent persons have been sentenced to death and then exonerated in the USA (Radelet and Borg, 2000). Generally, death penalty support in the USA has been correlated with gender, age, educational level, and religion. Support tends to be higher among men, older persons, less educated individuals, frequent church attendees, and persons who rank religion as highly important to their lives (i.e. persons who report high religious salience) than among women, younger individuals, more highly educated persons, persons who do not attend church frequently, and persons reporting lower religious salience (Bohm, 1987; Grasmick and McGill, 1994).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study focused on three research questions. First, it examined levels of support for the death penalty among students at a large Indian university. Second, it examined the major reasons cited by students for supporting or opposing capital punishment. Third, it examined the impact of these reasons on levels of support or opposition. Indexes for the major reasons cited were entered into a multivariate analysis, with support for the death penalty as the dependent variable, in order to determine which reasons best predicted levels of support.

METHODOLOGY Sample

A convenience sample was conducted of students enrolled in 20 undergraduate classes required of all majors, at a very large (over 100,000 students) metropolitan public university in the state of Andhra Pradesh in southern India. College students were deemed appropriate subjects because this was an exploratory study, and because many of these students after graduating will help shape India’s social policies. The survey was written in English, which was the language spoken at the university, though not necessarily the respondents’ native language. Students took the survey 210 Downloaded from http://pun.sagepub.com by Jaishankar Karuppannan on May 22, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

LAMBERT ET AL. Views on the death penalty among college students in India

during a meeting time of the selected courses. It was emphasized both verbally and in writing that the survey was voluntary, and students were asked not to complete the survey if they had done so in another class. About 450 students were present when the surveys were administered, and 434 surveys were returned (about a 95 percent response rate). The gender makeup of the sample was 43 percent female and 57 percent male. Ages ranged from 17 to 47, with a median of 20 and a mean of 20.99, with a standard deviation of 3.42. As for academic level, 43 percent were freshmen, 22 percent sophomores, 26 percent juniors, and 8 percent seniors. About 75 percent indicated that they were Hindu, 5 percent Muslim, 10 percent Christian, and 10 percent members of other religions or without religious affiliation. Measures

Support for the death penalty

Some death penalty attitudinal research collapses responses into a dichotomy of support and opposition. We feel this method fails to capture subtle but important differences in degrees of support and opposition. Hence, in this study, respondents used a sevenitem response category (see Table 1) to report the degree to which they supported or opposed the death penalty. Reasons to support or oppose the death penalty

The respondents read a series of statements presenting reasons for supporting or opposing capital punishment, to which they responded using a five-point Likert type of scale that ranged from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ (see Table 2 for the specific statements). Additional multivariate variables

Gender, age, academic level, and importance of religion were used in multivariate analysis. Gender was measured as a dichotomous variable representing male or female identity. Age was measured in continuous years. Academic level was an ordinal variable coded as 1 = freshman, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior, and 4 = senior. Importance of religion was gauged by asking respondents the extent to which religion played a role in their lives. About 28 percent indicated not at all (coded as 1), 37 percent not much (coded TABLE 1 Support for the death penalty

DEGREE OF SUPPORT

FREQUENCY

VALID PERCENTAGE

Very strongly opposed Strongly opposed Somewhat opposed Uncertain Somewhat favor Strongly favor Very strongly favor

70 35 66 52 56 45 70

18% 9% 17% 13% 14% 11% 18%

Note. N = 434, with 40 missing responses. 211 Downloaded from http://pun.sagepub.com by Jaishankar Karuppannan on May 22, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

PUNISHMENT & SOCIETY 10(2)

TABLE 2 Death penalty views (in percentages)

SD D

U

A

SA

Reasons to support Retribution I become angry when a convicted murderer does not receive the death penalty 12 20 13 29 25 I believe in the idea of an ‘eye for an eye, a life for a life’ 27 32 14 16 10 16-year olds convicted of first degree murder deserve the death penalty 27 40 14 13 6 Murderers deserve the death penalty since they look a life 11 25 21 28 15 Deterrence The death penalty is a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment I feel that the death penalty deters others from committing crimes The death penalty punishment is a powerful deterrent to crime The death penalty will deter people from committing murder Executions should be aired on TV Executions should be presented on the Internet

18 6 10 12 13 15

Incapacitation Most convicted murderers would kill again if given the opportunity Death is the ultimate incapacitation of a violent criminal

6 21 22 38 13 11 30 22 28 10

Instrumental Without the death penalty, violent crime would increase The death penalty is necessary to maintain law and order

10 19 20 29 23 12 25 14 26 22

Reasons to oppose Morality Showing mercy is more important than seeking revenge It saddens me when a person is executed, regardless of the crime they committed The death penalty serves little purpose other than to demonstrate society’s cruelty When society executes an individual for a violent crime, it is responding to violence with violence

26 19 23 25 17 22

18 20 20 20 14 20

22 34 30 30 31 31

16 21 17 13 25 12

6 11 10 44 28 6 17 24 35 18 3 20 25 39 14 3 16 26 40 15

Brutalization Executions set a violent example that leads to further violence in society

6 29 24 30 11

LWOP Life in prison without the possibility of parole will deter people from committing murder

8 24 23 33 12

Innocence Innocent people are sometimes sentenced to death I do not support the death penalty because there is the chance an innocent person will be executed

3

6 10 49 31

5 10 14 38 33

Note: Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding. SD = Strongly Disagree; (N = 434), D = Disagree, U = Uncertain, A = Agree, and SA = Strongly Agree. 212 Downloaded from http://pun.sagepub.com by Jaishankar Karuppannan on May 22, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

LAMBERT ET AL. Views on the death penalty among college students in India

as 2), 18 percent a fair amount (coded as 3), and 17 percent a great deal (coded as 4). Religious affiliation was measured as a dichotomous variable representing whether or not the respondent was a Hindu.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the results for support or opposition regarding the death penalty question. Collapsing the responses into categories of support, uncertainty, and opposition, we found that 43 percent supported the death penalty, 13 percent were uncertain, and 44 percent opposed it. Based on an independent t-test, men were more supportive than women (t = 6.85, d.f. = 377, p ≤ .001). Neither age nor academic level bore a significant correlation with levels of support. Based on the One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test, the importance of religion in a person’s life bore a significant relationship to support for the death penalty (F = 3.24, p = 0.02). Based on a Chi-squared test, a nonsignificant difference existed in levels of support for the death penalty between Hindu and non-Hindu respondents (χ 2 = 11.70, d.f. = 6, p = .07). Respondents reported their views on major reasons for supporting or opposing the death penalty; Table 2 presents the percentage responses. The majority did not feel capital punishment was necessary for retributive purposes. There was greater support for deterrence, and there was some agreement that the death penalty was an effective means of incapacitation. Many felt that the death penalty was necessary for instrumental reasons. Reasons for opposition likewise exhibited variation. Most thought showing mercy was more important than seeking revenge, felt sad when a person was executed, believed that innocent persons had been sentenced to death in India, and believed that the death penalty demonstrated society’s cruelty to offenders. However, less than half thought capital punishment led to further violence in society. An Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression model was estimated to determine the impact of major reasons for support or opposition on actual levels of support or opposition. The dependent variable was the degree of support for the death penalty as measured by the seven-point scale. The independent variables were gender, age, academic level, importance of religion, Hindu identity, and the major reasons cited for supporting or opposing the death penalty. The four retribution items were summed together to form an index (alpha = 0.61), as were the six deterrence items (alpha = 0.62), two instrumental items (alpha = 0.61), and four morality items (alpha = 0.73), respectively. Because the two incapacitation items had a low alpha value (0.42), they were left as separate item measures. Reasons based on the brutalization effect and the deterrent potential of life without parole, respectively, were measured using single items. Because the alpha was low for the two innocence items (0.33), the first innocence item (based on the risk of executing innocent people) was used. Table 3 presents the OLS results. Based on the Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor statistics, there was no issue with multi-collinearity. The r-square for the OLS regression model was 0.46 (i.e. the independent variables explained 46 percent of the observed variance in the support variable). Gender, age, academic level, importance of religion if respondent was Hindu, the deterrence index, the first incapacitation measure (fear of recidivism), the brutalization effect measure, and the innocence measure all had nonsignificant effects. The retribution index, the 213 Downloaded from http://pun.sagepub.com by Jaishankar Karuppannan on May 22, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

PUNISHMENT & SOCIETY 10(2)

TABLE 3 OLS regression results with support for the death penalty as the dependent variable

VARIABLE

B

β

Gender Age College level Importance of religion Hindu

0.28 –0.02 0.04 0.18 0.38

0.07 –0.03 0.02 0.09 0.09

Reasons to support Retribution index Deterrence index Incapacitation 1 Incapacitation 2 Instrumental perspective index

0.17 0.04 –0.01 0.22 0.14

0.29** 0.09 –0.01 0.13* 0.18**

Reasons to oppose Morality index Brutalization Life in prison (LWOP) Innocence

–0.09 –0.15 0.18 –0.10

–0.11* –0.08 0.11* –0.10

R-squared

0.46**

Note. B represents the unstandardized regression slope and β represents the standardized regression slope. The dependent variable measured the degree of support for the death penalty and was coded as 1 = very strongly opposed, 2 = strongly opposed, 3 = somewhat opposed, 4 = uncertain, 5 = somewhat in favor, 6 = strongly in favor, and 7 = very strongly in favor. Gender was measured as 0 = female and 1 = male. Age was measured in continuous years. College level was measured as 1 = freshman, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior, and 4 = senior. Importance of religion was the degree religion played in a person’s life and was measured as 1 = not at all, 2 = not too much, 3 = a fair amount, and 4 = a great deal. Retribution was a four item indicator index with α = 0.61. Hindu represented whether the respondent self-identified as being a member of the Hindu faith (coded as 1) or identified with another religious faith or no religious preferences (coded as 0). Deterrence was a six item index with α = 0.62. Incapacitation 1 was a single item asking if murderers will kill again if given the chance. Incapacitation 2 was a single item asking if the death penalty was the ultimate form of incapacitation. Morality was a four item index with α = 0.73. Brutalization was a single measure measuring if the death penalty caused additional violence. Life in prison without parole was a single item asking if life in prison without parole deterred people from committing murder. Finally, innocence was a single item asking if the person opposed the death penalty due to the risk of executing an innocent person. * p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01.

second incapacitation measure (view of execution as the ultimate incapacitation), the instrumental perspective, and the LWOP measure all had significant positive relationships with support for the death penalty. The morality index was the only variable to bear a significant negative association with support for the death penalty. Based on standardized regression coefficients, the retribution index had the greatest impact on levels of support, followed by the instrumental perspective, the second incapacitation measure, the LWOP measure, and the morality index. 214 Downloaded from http://pun.sagepub.com by Jaishankar Karuppannan on May 22, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

LAMBERT ET AL. Views on the death penalty among college students in India

DISCUSSION

This study yielded several salient observations. First, a majority of respondents neither wholly supported nor wholly opposed the death penalty: specifically, 43 percent reported some manner of support, 13 percent were unsure, and 44 percent reported opposition in differing degrees. The level of support for the death penalty was lower than that found among US citizens, 60 to 70 percent of whom support the death penalty to some degree according to national polls (Death Penalty Information Center, 2006). If the attitudes reported in this study aptly represent those of the general Indian population, this would mean that support for the death penalty in India is not overwhelming and may not reflect the views of the majority. However, as indicated earlier, we could locate no published poll of the Indian public’s views on the death penalty; therefore it is yet unclear how college students’ attitudes toward the death penalty, as observed in this study, would compare to the Indian public overall. It could be that capital punishment is not seen as a pressing social issue in light of the numerous other issues, and in light of the fact that few executions have been occurring in India at this time (Batra, 2004). As Table 2 makes clear, this study upholds the contention that attitudes toward the death penalty are complex, involving the coexistence and interaction of apparently contradictory reasons and sentiments. First, a majority reported becoming angry when a convicted murderer does not receive the death penalty and becoming saddened when any person is executed. Even more curious is that 80 percent believed that death sentences are sometimes imposed on innocent persons, a much higher level than US polls typically find (Death Penalty Information Center, 2006) – yet this view bore no apparent relationship with opposition to the death penalty. It is possible that respondents held fatalistic views of life or perhaps regarded innocent casualties of capital punishment as ‘collateral damage’. (Indeed, in the USA, the threat of terrorism and the public’s desire for domestic security have allowed the federal government, relatively unopposed, to restrict civil liberties and to scrutinize information previously considered private.) Retributive views were the strongest predictor of attitudes toward the death penalty. The second-best predictor was the instrumental perspective, which according to Maxwell and Rivera-Vazquez ‘holds that people’s attitudes toward the death penalty are driven primarily by their desires to reduce crime and protect society, and that the death penalty is a means to achieve this end’ (1998: 337). India faces several major social problems, including ongoing terrorism and an overall growth in crime rates over the past several decades. Some respondents probably hoped that capital punishment would bring order and peace to their society. Notably, LWOP significantly impacted attitudes toward capital punishment despite the fact that LWOP is not currently a possible sentence in India. As stated above, a person serving a life sentence can be released after serving 14 years (deathpenaltyinfo.org, 2006). It will be interesting to see if efforts to legislate LWOP succeed in India, whether the number of death sentences and general support for the death penalty will drop, as has been the case in the USA (Death Penalty Information Center, 2006). LWOP is frequently considered an alternative to capital punishment; however, in this study, support for LWOP was positively associated with support for capital punishment. In other words, proponents of LWOP also supported capital punishment. 215 Downloaded from http://pun.sagepub.com by Jaishankar Karuppannan on May 22, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

PUNISHMENT & SOCIETY 10(2)

The morality index also had a significant effect. Many Indians uphold the value of fairness and the importance of treating persons with respect and dignity. Also worth noting is that in the multivariate analysis, deterrence had no significant effect on support levels. It could be that respondents were aware of findings that capital punishment has had little if any deterrent impact; it is also possible that respondents felt that the death penalty serves retributive and not deterrent purposes. Further, belief in the brutalization effect bore no relationship to support levels, indicating that respondents may have been unaware of research that substantiates this phenomenan. Issues of innocence exhibited no relationship either, suggesting that such concerns are perhaps less salient in India than in the USA, where the sentencing to death of innocents is frequently reported in the news and in the literature (Death Penalty Information Center, 2006). In India, it rarely occurs that persons are released based on the discovery that they have been wrongfully convicted; accordingly, issues of innocence are relatively absent in the public discourse there. Finally, gender, age, academic level, Hindu identity, and religious salience had only nonsignificant effects in the multivariate analysis, probably because proxy measures exist for the reasons behind people’s support or opposition, and the effects of these measures disappear in multivariate analysis when the reasons are added. Beyond this limited study, far more research is needed. It is important to note that a much smaller percentage of the Indian population attends college than in the USA. Besides surveying students at other universities, therefore, future studies should survey the general population, including a representative sample. Another consideration is that most respondents in this study were from the state of Andhra Pradesh, so regional peculiarities may have influenced results. Accordingly, future research might examine whether attitudes toward the death penalty vary along regional lines in India (e.g., rural versus urban areas), as they do in the USA, and whether such attitudes vary among various castes, ethnicities, religious groups, and economic levels. The question of which reasons are invoked for supporting or opposing capital punishment has important theoretical and practical implications for activists, politicians, and social scientists. However, changes in reasons for support or opposition do not necessarily signal changes in levels of support or opposition. Thus, in moving beyond this study, which used several single-item measures, future studies might include multipleitem measures for incapacitation, brutalization, and innocence, as well as measures of other reasons for supporting or opposing the death penalty. Finally, as most research in this area has focused on the USA and other western nations, there is a need to explore a wider range of views, especially among other retentionist countries around the world, to determine why people support or oppose capital punishment. Acknowledgements

The authors thank Janet Lambert for helping proofread and edit the article. The authors also thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. References

Amnesty International (2005) Death penalty news: June 2005. http://web.amnesty.org/ library/print/ENGACT530022005 (accessed 24 February 2006). 216 Downloaded from http://pun.sagepub.com by Jaishankar Karuppannan on May 22, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

LAMBERT ET AL. Views on the death penalty among college students in India

Batra, B. (2004) ‘Sentenced to die, non-unanimously’, India Together. http://www.indiatogether.org/2004/jul/law-deathsent.htm (accessed 15 February 2006). Blackshield, A. (1979) ‘Capital punishment in India’, Journal of the Indian Law Institute 21(April/June): 137–226. Bohm, R. (1987) ‘American death penalty attitudes: A critical examination of recent evidence’, Criminal Justice and Behavior 14(3): 380–96. Death Penalty Information Center (2006) http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ (accessed 8 March 2006). Deathpenaltyinfo.org (2006) News and developments: International. http://www. deathpenalyinfo.org/newsanddev.php?scid=30 (accessed 25 February 2006). Grasmick, H. and A. McGill (1994) ‘Religion, attribution style, and punitiveness toward juvenile offenders’, Criminology 32(1): 23–46. Gupta, D. (2006) ‘Capital punishment and the poor’, Worldpress.org 25 January: 1–5. http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/1932.cfm (accessed 15 February 2006). Hands Off Cain (2006) India – Retentionist. http://www.handsoffcain.org/bancadati/ schedastato.php?idstato=8000000&idcontinente=23 (accessed 16 February 2006). Hill, G. (2005) ‘Capital punishment: An international update’, Corrections Compendium 30(5): 32–5. Hood, R. (2001) ‘Capital punishment: A global perspective’, Punishment and Society 3(3): 331–54. Lambert, E. and A. Clarke (2001) ‘The impact of information on an individual’s support of the death penalty: A test of the Marshall Hypothesis among college students at a Michigan university’, Criminal Justice Policy Review 12: 215–34. Lambert, E., A. Clarke and J. Lambert (2004) ‘Reasons for supporting and opposing capital punishment: A preliminary study’, Internet Journal of Criminology 1–34. http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/ Majumder, S. (2005) ‘India and the death penalty’, BBC News, 4 August. http:// newsvote.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/2586611.stm (accessed 16 February 2006). Maxwell, S. and O. Rivera-Vazquez (1998) ‘Assessing the instrumental and symbolic elements in attitudes toward the death penalty using a sample of Puerto Rican students’, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 22(2): 229–339. Radelet, M. and M. Borg (2000) ‘The changing nature of death penalty debates’, Annual Review of Sociology 26: 43–61. Raghavan, R. (2004) India. World factbook of criminal justice systems. http://nicic.org/ Library/019426 (accessed 16 February 2006). Thomson, E. (1997) ‘Deterrence versus brutalization: The case of Arizona’, Homicide Studies 1(2): 110–28. Whitehead, J. and M. Blankenship (2000) ‘The gender gap in capital punishment attitudes: An analysis of support and opposition’, American Journal of Criminal Justice 25(1): 1–13. Wikipedia (2007) Mohammad Afzal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Afzal (accessed 10 May 2007).

217 Downloaded from http://pun.sagepub.com by Jaishankar Karuppannan on May 22, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

PUNISHMENT & SOCIETY 10(2)

ERIC G. LAMBERT is a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Toledo. He received his PhD from the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Albany. His research interests include criminal justice organizational issues, the evaluation of correctional interventions, death penalty attitudes, attitudes and views of criminal justice employees, and the ethical behavior of criminal justice students and employees. SUDERSHAN PASUPULETI is an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Work at the University of Toledo. He earned a PhD. from Osmania University, India. His research interests include the treatment of minorities by the criminal justice system, social justice issues, and the effectiveness of social interventions. SHANHE JIANG is an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Toledo. He received his PhD in Sociology from the State University of New York at Albany. He has recently published China-related papers on the death penalty, formal and informal crime control, and the issues in cross-cultural survey research. He is writing a book and book chapters about criminological theories in Chinese. He continues to work on comparative views of criminal justice between the United States, China, India, Nigeria, Japan, and Canada. He has also been working on a paper about social support and suicide. K. JAISHANKAR is a faculty member in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in India. His research interests include cyber crime, stalking, and international criminal justice issues. JAGADISH V. BHIMARASETTY is a faculty member in the RM College of Social Work in India. His research revolves around social issues and social justice.

218 Downloaded from http://pun.sagepub.com by Jaishankar Karuppannan on May 22, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.