INDIA'S DEATH PENALTY: A TALE OF TWO NARRATIVES - JUDICIAL

RESTRAINT VS. LEGISLATIVE EXPANSION

The death penalty, deeply ingrained in jurisprudence and ethics, triggers global philosophical
debates. The clash between abolitionist and retentionist perspectives, rooted in justice,
retribution, and human rights theories, has evolved over centuries. Abolitionists argue for its
necessity as a deterrent and just retribution, while retentionist see it as a cruel, inhuman
punishment violating the right to life and dignity. This discourse, influenced by diverse
historical and political contexts, has significantly impacted legal systems worldwide. In India,
the relationship between philosophy, legislation, and judicial practice reveals a nuanced
approach to capital punishment. While the judiciary has endeavoured to restrict its application
by imposing stringent criteria, legislative actions, like amendments to the POCSO Act and the
Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2018, have expanded its scope, creating a paradoxical
scenario. By analysing how the judiciary has restricted the application of the death penalty
while legislative acts have broadened its scope, the article delve into the apparent dichotomy
within the Indian stance on capital punishment. Examining this paradox, drawing from Judith
Butler's "Cruelty" and the Lok Sabha Secretariat's Report on the Death Penalty, the article
proposes a practical reform.

ABOLITIONIST VS RETENTIONIST

Abolitionists assert that the death penalty violates human dignity, contravening principles of
justice, human rights, and democracy. Cesare Beccaria (1764) argued in "On Crimes and
Punishments" that it's ineffective and unjust.1 Jeremy Bentham (1789) contended in "An
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation" that it lacks proportionality.2 John
Stuart Mill (1859) in "On Liberty" deemed it a violation of the right to life, applied unfairly,
and prone to errors.3 They also argue that the death penalty does not deter crime, and that it can
be applied in error.

1
Zhigang Yu and Charlotte Hu, 'The Abolitionist and Retentionist Debate', in Bin Liang, and Hong Lu
(eds), The Death Penalty in China: Policy, Practice, and Reform (New York, NY, 2015; online edn, Columbia
Scholarship Online, 19 May 2016).
2
Tracey L Meares, Dan M Kahan and Neal Kumar Katyal, “Updating the study of punishment” (2004) 56
Stanford Law Review 1171
3
David W Tarbet, Michael Foucault and Alan Sheridan, “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison” (1978)
11 Eighteenth-Century Studies 509.

1
In contrast, retentionists argue the death penalty is just and proportionate, serving justice,
retribution, and deterrence. Thomas Aquinas (1485) in “Summa Theologica” justified it for
certain cases.4 Immanuel Kant (1797) in “The Metaphysics of Morals” saw it as necessary to
protect innocent life.5 John Rawls (1971) in “A Theory of Justice” argued for its deterrent
effect, providing closure, and as a crucial component of the criminal justice system.6 They also
argue that the death penalty is a necessary part of the criminal justice system.

However, in the contemporary era, abolitionist philosophers emphasize the fallibility of the
criminal justice system, citing cases of wrongful convictions and systemic biases.7 They argue
that the death penalty is inconsistent with a society that values human life and rehabilitation
over vengeance.8 However retentionist often stress its potential deterrent effect, particularly in
preventing the most extreme crimes.9 From a global perspective, abolitionist philosophers in
countries where the death penalty has been abolished often stress the importance of joining the
global movement toward human rights and away from cruel and unusual punishment. In some
regions, cultural and political contexts shape retentionist philosophies, with arguments
grounded in tradition, deterrence, and the perceived need for strict punishment.

INDIA’S APPROACH TO DEATH PENALTY

The history of death sentencing in India dates back to the 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure for
British India. Originally, Section 367(5) made death the default punishment for murder, with
life imprisonment as an exception. In 1955, an amendment removed Section 367(5) entirely,
suggesting a shift away from considering the death penalty as the norm. This change implied a
legislative neutrality between life imprisonment and the death penalty.

4
John Liu and Clarence Darrow, “History of Capital Punishment,” Springer eBooks (2014)
5
Sabine Hildebrandt, “Capital Punishment and Anatomy: History and Ethics of an Ongoing Association” (2007)
21 Clinical Anatomy 5
6
Isaac Ehrlich, “The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death,” Routledge eBooks
(2008)
7
Alastair McClure, “Killing in the Name Of? Capital Punishment in Colonial and Postcolonial India” (2022) 41
Law and History Review 365
8
ibid
9
ibid

2
Court Approach: Limiting the application of Death Penalty

The Supreme Court of India in Jagmohan Singh v State of UP upheld the constitutionality of
the death penalty stating it is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or excessive, as it was prescribed by
the law, and subject to judicial review and executive clemency.10 In handing over the death
sentence the Supreme Court evolved with the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’ crimes in Bachan
Singh v State of Punjab in 1980. The case held that the death penalty should be awarded only
when the alternative option of life imprisonment is ‘unquestionably foreclosed’.11 The court
has to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of each cases and give special
reasons for imposing the death penalty.12 In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) the
Supreme Court elaborated on the “rarest of rare” doctrine, and identified five categories of
cases that may fall under this category.13 The extreme penalty of death should be only given in
the gravest cases of extreme culpability; the circumstance of the ‘offender’ should be taken
into consideration along with the circumstances of the ‘crime’, life imprisonment is the rule
and death sentence an exception; and that a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances should be drawn up along with its mitigating circumstances.14 It further said that
the crime had to disturb the ‘collective conscience’ of the society.15

However, the Court’s decision in Bachan Singh was premised upon the perceived utility of the
death penalty, but at the same time acknowledged the need to limit its application and infuse
consistency into its sentencing through a sentencing framework. It is imperative to note here
the court’s crucial direction to sentencing judges to ensure that mitigating factors “receive a
liberal and expansive construction”. Notably, no such prescription was made for aggravating
16
factors. Finally, in the event of aggravating factors outweighing mitigating factors, despite
the latter being constructed ‘liberally and expansively’, the court provided for a final leg of
enquiry.17 This was the determination into whether all the sentencing options, alternative to
death, stood ‘unquestionably foreclosed’. If the answer to this final enquiry were to be in the

10
Jagmohan Singh v State of UP (1973) AIR 947
11
Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 24
12
ibid
13
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) AIR 957
14
ibid
15
ibid
16
Rajgopal Saikumar, “To Shock the Conscience: Rhetoric in Death Penalty Judgements of the Supreme Court
of India” (2019) 42 Journal of South Asian Studies 694
17
ibid

3
affirmative, then the case was to fall under the category of ‘rarest of rare’, meriting the award
of the death sentence. It would thus seem that the sentencing framework evolved in Bachan
Singh seemingly sets an extremely high threshold for applying the death penalty. The decision
in Bachan Singh is an attempt by the Court to limit the application of the death penalty to only
the most extreme cases.

Legislative Approach: Expanding the Scope of the Death Penalty

Despite the Judicial efforts to limit the application of the death penalty, the Indian legislature
has expanded the scope of the offence punishable by death. In recent years, the legislature has
amended the Indian Penal Code and other laws to include more offenses that carry the death
penalty, such as certain provisions under the POCSO Act and the Criminal Law Amendment
Act of 2018. The first expansion of death penalty provisions in India followed the 2012 Delhi
gang rape, leading to the formation of the Justice Verma Committee. Despite the committee
opposing death penalty for sexual offenses, the 2013 Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill was
introduced, debated and passed by both houses of parliament within three days. The Bill
contained two new capital offences—rape causing death or resulting in a permanent vegetative
state of the victim (s.376A) and the repeat offence of rape (s.376E). The next major legislative
expansion to the death penalty occurred in 2018 after widespread public protests in the
aftermath of the rape and murder of a minor in Kathua (Jammu and Kashmir). The amendments
to the IPC introduced two new capital offences: Sections 376AB (rape of a woman under 12)
and Section 376DB (gang rape of a woman under 12). Soon after the 2018 amendment to
criminal law, POCSO was amended (by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(Amendment Act 2019) to make aggravated penetrative sexual assault a capital offence
(POCSO s.6). The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill invokes satisfaction of
collective conscience and deterrence as arguments in favour of this amendment.18 This
expansion reflects the legislature's concern about the prevalence of heinous crimes, particularly
those involving violence against children and women. The legislature believes that capital
punishment is a necessary deterrent to such crimes and a means of providing justice to victims
and their families.

18
Abhishek Gupta, ‘Decoding Deterrence: A critique of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2018’ (2018) ILI
Law Review 136

4
India’s position: A comparative critical analysis

India has faced criticism from Human Rights groups and International bodies for its use of the
death penalty. In December 2022, at the UN General Assembly, 125 countries voted in favour
of a moratorium on the death penalty, but India voted against it. Amnesty International called
the death penalty in India a “lethal lottery” as it is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently and
often violates fair trial standards.19 The article stands with this criticism and the following are
the reasons for the position.

Firstly, no clear or uniform criteria for determining the ‘special reasons’ for imposing death
penalty, and the judges often having to rely on their personal opinions or emotions. The
Supreme Court in Machi Singh introduced the test of ‘collective conscience of the society being
shocked’ as the basis of imposing of death penalty. This test has been a deviation from the
Bachan Singh framework, as the existence of ‘collective conscience being shocked’ has often
been the cause of complete non-consideration of mitigating factor.20 In over 126 cases in which
collective conscience was a factor influencing death sentencing, no mitigating factors were
considered at all in roughly 56% of the cases.21 This is a disturbing deviation from the Bachan
Singh sentencing framework, which not only mandates weighing of both aggravating and
mitigating factors, but also requires mitigating factors to be constructed expansively and
liberally. This repeated use of ‘collective conscience’, however, should not obscure this
criteria’s explicit exclusion, and lack of fit, in respect of the Bachan Singh sentencing
framework which requires judges to consider only the circumstances unique to the crime and
the criminal.22 The Bachan Singh sentencing framework and the principle of individualised
sentencing remain at the core of the judiciary. By introducing the concept of ‘collective
conscience’, the judiciary aimed to clarify the meaning of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine. However,
this neglected the other aspect of the Bachan Singh framework, which was to assess the
aggravating and mitigating factors. Although the courts are applying the ‘collective conscience’
principle from Machi Singh, the ‘rarest of rare case’ test from Bachan Singh is still relevant.

19
KI Vibhute, “Choice between Death and Life for Convicts” (2017) 59 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 221
20
Pranav Verman, ‘The inevitable inconsistency of the Death Penalty in India’ (2021) 6(2) Cambridge Law
Review 27
21
ibid
22
Arushi Sharma, “Capital Punishment - State-Sponsored Murder or a Deterrent? Critical Analysis of
Retributivism as an Element in Capital Punishment” (2022) 4 Indian J.L. & Legal Rsch 1.

5
Nevertheless, these two tests are diverging in different directions, creating ambiguity in the
law.

Secondly, due to the above reason the application has been arbitrary, inconsistent and
discriminatory where death penalty has not been imposed for similar cases and commuted to
life imprisonment. This problem was illustrated by Dr.S.Muralidhar’s analysis of Supreme
Court’s decision in Harbans Singh v State of UP AIR 1982. The study highlighted how the
appeals of three convicts arising from the same crime were treated differently as each appeal
got to be heard by three different benches each of the Supreme Court.23 One accused had his
appeal dismissed and was subsequently executed; the second accused’s death sentence was
commuted; while both the appeal and the mercy petition of the third accused were dismissed,
but ultimately his sentence was commuted by the Court.24 He remarks on the instances of
disparate outcome on similar facts that “the gnawing uneasiness that the same case if heard by
a different set of judges may have resulted in a different punishment will always rankle in the
minds of those unsuccessful death row convicts facing the noose”.25 Also the death penalty in
India is inconsistent and biased against the poor and the minorities. The Law Commission of
India has noted in the application of death penalty, assumptions relating to caste and class have
often been made, rendering the death sentence to operate in the larger context of persistent
social prejudice.26 This view is echoed in Bhagwati J’s dissent in Bachan Singh when he held
“death sentence has certain class complexion or class bias in as much as it is largely the poor
and downtrodden who become victims of this extreme penalty. We would hardly find a rich or
affluent person going to the gallows”.27 The evidence of this criticism is found in statistics.
The Death Penalty India Report (published in 2016), notes from the prisoners in India who
were sentenced to death between July 2013 and January 2015, a staggering 76% belonged to a
economically backward classes and religious minorities.28 In 2015 a study was conducted from
a total of 111 prisoners on death sentence, in that 53% worked as daily wage workers or casual
labourers.29 The reason behind this arbitrary fashion is the ‘rarest of rare’ guidelines. The

23
Dr S Muralidhar, “Hang them now, hang them not: India’s travails with the death penalty” (1998) 40 Journal
of Indian Law Institute 143
24
ibid
25
ibid
26
National Law University Delhi, “Death Penalty India report” (National Law University, Delhi Press 2016)
978-93-84272-06–7 <https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2016/05/Death-Penalty-India-Report-
Volume-1.pdf> accessed November 25, 2023.
27
Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898
28
ibid 21
29
ibid 21

6
criterion of ‘rarest of the rare’ case, which determines the imposition of the death penalty, lacks
a precise and consistent definition. The strength of the prosecution’s argument relies on the
degree of brutality of the crime, as evidenced by the charge sheet. Moreover, the application of
the test is subject to the discretion and interpretation of the judges. Hence, the quality of legal
representation becomes a crucial factor, rather than the law itself. Thereby death sentences
often exhibit class bias, disproportionately affecting the poor.

Moreover, collective conscience lacks uniformity when seeking justice for violated individuals
or groups. Those who demanded justice for Nirbhaya failed to do the same for Suzette Jordan
or the Dalit mother and daughter in Khairlanji, Maharashtra (2006).30 The mother and the
daughter were stripped, paraded naked, beaten black and blue with bicycle chains, axes, and
bullock cart pokers in public.31 They were publicly gang raped until they died. Some raped
them even after that and finally, sticks and rods were shoved into their genitals.32 This reason
why President of South Africa Arthur Chaskalson in abolishing the death penalty emphasised
“Public opinion may have some relevance to the enquiry, but it is no substitute for the duty
vested in the Courts to interpret the Constitution and to uphold its provisions without fear or
favour. If public opinion were to be decisive, there would be no need for constitutional
adjudication”.33 The judiciary may be swayed by the public sentiment, outrage, and media
coverage when applying the ‘collective conscience’ test, resulting in an inconsistent
application. Therefore, death penalty has given rise to more disturbances in society, and it
undermines the democratic process.

However, this probably is the reason that the judiciary is limiting the application of the death
penalty as the system is aware of its shortcomings. The convicted person has right to appeal to
Supreme Court, and exhausting all legal avenues, the convicted individual may seek clemency
from the governor or President of India. In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) the
Supreme Court commuted the death sentences of 15 death row convicts, on the ground of delay
in disposing of their mercy petitions by the President.34 The court held that undue, inordinate,
and unreasonable delay in deciding the mercy petitions amounted to torture and violated the

30
Renna Mary George, ‘Death Penalty: A paradox in a democracy’ (2017) 1 Journal of Public Affairs and
Change
31
ibid
32
ibid
33
ibid
34
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1

7
right to life and dignity of the convicts.35 While, on the one hand, the judiciary has
predominantly deferred to the wisdom of the legislature on matters relating to the
constitutionality of capital offences, the last decade has witnessed massive strides in the
expansion of the safeguards available to prisoners sentenced to death as well as attempts to
recognise and address the arbitrariness in capital sentencing.36 Consequently, the judiciary
encounters a predicament in the realm of capital punishment and human rights, as it does not
have a clear and precise conception of the consequence of the death penalty law, which leads
to frequent commutations of the sentences. Thus, neither the justice for the victim or the family
is fulfilled by the commuted sentences, nor the objective of the death penalty is achieved.

Contrarily, the legislature's expansion of the scope of the death penalty, despite uncertainties in
its application and guidelines and the judiciary's tendency to limit its use, is perplexing.
The question arises regarding how the judiciary will apply the law and fulfil legislative intent
without first addressing uncertainties in the test and establishing a clear, definite framework.
Therefore, the expansion of the scope by the legislature is rendered ineffective.

Additionally, the Indian law does not fully align with either the abolitionist or the retentionist
philosophies of death penalty, but rather tries to balance the competing interests of justice,
deterrence, retribution, and human rights. The courts' restrictive approach, guided by the "rarest
of the rare" doctrine, aligns with the abolitionist principle of limiting capital punishment to
exceptional cases. Additionally, India's ratification of various international human rights
treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, further reinforces
its theoretical commitment to human rights and the protection of the right to life. However, in
practice, India's position on the death penalty is more nuanced. The legislature's willingness to
expand the scope of offenses punishable by death suggests a retentionist tendency, influenced
by concerns about crime, public safety, and the need for deterrence. This expansionary
approach contradicts the abolitionist ideal of gradually phasing out capital punishment. This
inconsistency between theory and practice highlights India's struggle to reconcile the moral
implications of the death penalty with the practical challenges of crime and public safety.

35
ibid
36
Anup Surendranath and Manulshree Pathak, ‘Legislative Expansive and Judicial consideration: uncertain
trajectories of the death penalty in India’ (2022) 11 (3) International Journal of crime, justice and social
democracy

8
However, it is clear the current position of Indian law is not producing any deterrent effect on
the criminals to think twice before committing serious crime. The total number of rape cases
reported in 2019 is 32033, and there has been increase in this data every year as in 2018 one
rape case was reported every 16 minutes, which in 2019 went to one case reported every 15
minutes.37 Philosopher Judith Butler has written extensively on the moral implications of
punishment, particularly in the context of the death penalty. In her work on cruelty, she argues
that the distinction between perpetrator and victim often becomes blurred in the context of
capital punishment, as the state itself becomes an agent of violence.38 She questions the use of
cruelty to achieve justice, suggesting that it may only perpetuate a cycle of violence.39 The Lok
Sabha Secretariat's Report on Death Penalty, titled "Capital Punishment in India," was
published in 2016, wherein the findings of the report it was stated the death penalty should be
abolished in India.40 In lieu of the death penalty, life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole should be the maximum punishment for all crimes.41 Therefore, it is time for India to
reform the legal framework as the currently law is applied unfairly, that it is more likely to be
applied to people of colour and the poor and does not deter crime. Considering the statistics of
arbitrary application and no fruitful effect of maintain the death penalty law in India, it would
be better to abolish death penalty and alternatively sanction life imprisonment without parole,
wherein the convict does face the punishment of their wrongful but without cruelty and
violence.

CONCLUSION:

The Indian law stands somewhere between the abolitionist and retentionist philosophies of
death penalty, as it has not completely abolished nor consistently applied the death penalty. The
death penalty in India is a flawed and unjust system that violates human rights and international
norms. The article supports its position by highlighting the lack of clear and uniform criteria

37
Surabi Shaurya “One Rape Every 16 Minutes in India, NCRB Data Highlights Country’s Deteriorated Law &
Order” (Latest News, Breaking News, LIVE News, Top News Headlines, Viral Video, Cricket LIVE, Sports,
Entertainment, Business, Health, Lifestyle and Utility News | India.Com, October 2, 2020)
<https://www.india.com/news/india/no-country-for-women-one-rape-every-16-minutes-in-india-ncrb-data-
highlights-countrys-deteriorated-law-order-4159540/> accessed November 20, 2023
38
Judith Butler, “Judith Butler · On Cruelty: The Death Penalty” (London Review of Books, November 7, 2019)
<https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n14/judith-butler/on-cruelty> accessed November 20, 2023
39
ibid
40
Lok Sabha Secretariat, “Capital Punishment in India” (2014) No. 27/RN/Ref./October/2015
<https://www.academia.edu/36464508/LOK_SABHA_SECRETARIAT_CAPITAL_PUNISHMENT_IN_INDI
A> accessed November 20, 2023.
41
ibid

9
for imposing death penalty, the arbitrary and inconsistent application of death penalty across
cases and courts, and the discriminatory and prejudicial impact of death penalty on the poor
and the minorities. Therefore, the article advocates for reform or abolition of the death penalty
in India, citing its inconsistent application, lack of deterrence, and potential for cruelty. The
suggestion to replace it with life imprisonment without parole aligns with international trends
and aims for a more humane and just legal framework. As the nation grapples with the moral
implications and practical challenges of capital punishment, the call for reform becomes
increasingly urgent.

10
BIBLOGRAPHY:

Abhishek Gupta, ‘Decoding Deterrence: A critique of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act
2018’ (2018) ILI Law Review 136

Alastair McClure, “Killing in the Name Of? Capital Punishment in Colonial and Postcolonial
India” (2022) 41 Law and History Review 365

Anup Surendranath and Manulshree Pathak, ‘Legislative Expansive and Judicial consideration:
uncertain trajectories of the death penalty in India’ (2022) 11 (3) International Journal of crime,
justice and social democracy

Arushi Sharma, “Capital Punishment - State-Sponsored Murder or a Deterrent? Critical

Analysis of Retributivism as an Element in Capital Punishment” (2022) 4 Indian J.L. & Legal
Rsch 1.

David W Tarbet, Michael Foucault and Alan Sheridan, “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of
the Prison” (1978) 11 Eighteenth-Century Studies 509.

Dr S Muralidhar, “Hang them now, hang them not: India’s travails with the death penalty”
(1998) 40 Journal of Indian Law Institute 143

Isaac Ehrlich, “The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death,”
Routledge eBooks (2008)

John Liu and Clarence Darrow, “History of Capital Punishment,” Springer eBooks (2014)

Judith Butler, “Judith Butler · On Cruelty: The Death Penalty” (London Review of Books,
November 7, 2019) <https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n14/judith-butler/on-cruelty>
accessed November 20, 2023

KI Vibhute, “Choice between Death and Life for Convicts” (2017) 59 Journal of the Indian
Law Institute 221

Lok Sabha Secretariat, “Capital Punishment in India” (2014) No. 27/RN/Ref./October/2015

<https://www.academia.edu/36464508/LOK_SABHA_SECRETARIAT_CAPITAL_PUNISH
MENT_IN_INDIA> accessed November 20, 2023

National Law University Delhi, “Death Penalty India report” (National Law University, Delhi
Press 2016) 978-93-84272-06–
<https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2016/05/Death-Penalty-India-Report-
Volume-1.pdf> accessed November 25, 2023.

Pranav Verman, ‘The inevitable inconsistency of the Death Penalty in India’ (2021) 6(2)
Cambridge Law Review 27

Rajgopal Saikumar, “To Shock the Conscience: Rhetoric in Death Penalty Judgements of the
Supreme Court of India” (2019) 42 Journal of South Asian Studies 694

11
Renna Mary George, ‘Death Penalty: A paradox in a democracy’ (2017) 1 Journal of Public
Affairs and Change

Sabine Hildebrandt, “Capital Punishment and Anatomy: History and Ethics of an Ongoing
Association” (2007) 21 Clinical Anatomy 5

Surabi Shaurya “One Rape Every 16 Minutes in India, NCRB Data Highlights Country’s
Deteriorated Law & Order” (Latest News, Breaking News, LIVE News, Top News Headlines,
Viral Video, Cricket LIVE, Sports, Entertainment, Business, Health, Lifestyle and Utility News
| India.Com, October 2, 2020) <https://www.india.com/news/india/no-country-for-women-
one-rape-every-16-minutes-in-india-ncrb-data-highlights-countrys-deteriorated-law-order-
4159540/> accessed November 20, 2023

Tracey L Meares, Dan M Kahan and Neal Kumar Katyal, “Updating the study of punishment”
(2004) 56 Stanford Law Review 1171

Zhigang Yu and Charlotte Hu, 'The Abolitionist and Retentionist Debate', in Bin Liang, and
Hong Lu (eds), The Death Penalty in China: Policy, Practice, and Reform (New York,
NY, 2015; online edn, Columbia Scholarship Online, 19 May 2016).

12