century despotism”. It was this individualist trend that was supported by Kant when he described man as a “free agent whose actions must be determined by aims of his own choice”. Sir Henry Maine of England saw “changes in substantive laws and in the machinery and modes of legal enforcement and growth as moving in pace with certain recognizable stages in social growth from the primitive, semi-organised society to the mature, complex, commercial and industrial societies of Europe”. The laws related to economic rights were modified. Kar Renner in 1929 was concerned that the legal conception of ownership, with the energy of the new economic system, alienated through the laws of property and contract into private hands the great portion of what should have been in the hands of the public. But the concern had no takers. White, in the 20th century, was frank enough to identify the approach to history as not merely the chronicles of the battles and monarchs but rather as a product of underlying economic forces. The sociological school of law continued to develop in the 20th century and it was mainly responsible for the growth of a legal system that seemed to be perfect in appearance but had in fact paralysed the justice. Someone rightly quipped that “the sociological school was like a big orchestra constantly tuning it instrument but never actually playing”.
The laws were also changed in order to take full control of the labour process. Henry Bravernan says: “That this was not understood from the beginning is attested by the fact that guild and apprenticeship rules and the legal restraints common to feudal and guild modes of productions all persisted for a period and had to be gradually stripped away as the capitalist consolidated his powers in society and demolished the judicial features of pre-capitalist social transformations. It was pretty for this reason that early manufacturing tended to gravitate to new towns which were free of guild and feudal regulations and traditions. In time however, law and custom were reshaped to reflect the predominance of the "free" contract between buyer and seller under which the capitalist gained the virtually unrestricted power to determine the technical modes of labour."
The industrialists had already decided that the laws of punishment would have to be softened in letter and spirit as well as in application. However, a plan had to be charted so that a successful onslaught against capital punishment could be launched. The line of the arguments was contemplated in detail and the elements that would assist in that battle were short-listed. The campaign began. Capital punishment was labelled as' inhuman unworthy of continuation in the developing world. The argument vehemently put forward was that society had no right to take the life of a human being whatever the nature and severity of his crime even if he had put to death another human being. But because there was still a forceful, often belligerent advocacy by a sizeable segment of society in favour of the continuation of death sentence, at least in the cases of murder, the argument was restructured a little: death sentence could be given but only in rare cases. These rare cases included murders that were cruel beyond tolerance. Hanging started losing popularity in one country after the other. The amazing scientific and technological achievements of the Western world and its recurring political and military triumphs had impressed the people all over the world, and they looked with positive interest for any theories that had their origin in the West. The campaign against capital punishment gained momentum. This rose to great heights in the twentieth century. The states began to amend their constitutions in order to abolish death sentence. Hanging and beheading of murderers and adulterates became rarer with the advance of time. As if ‘’rare ‘’ was not enough, it was soon converted into ‘’rarest of rare cases ‘’.
Another reason stated against death sentence was that there always remained a possibility of an innocent being sent to the gallows owing to the possibility of false evidence having been produced in the court of law or a wrong verdict given by the presiding judge. A humanist colour was given by the logic that ten murderers could be freed but one innocent could not be hanged. The seemingly compassionate argument won a great number of converts among the intellectuals with whom it had become almost a habit to reject whatever belonged to the past. The newer trends have always excited the philosophically inclined, and the capital punishment became a popular hunting ground for writers, thinkers and reformists. The movement was so astutely organised and so laboriously sustained that people developed greater sympathy for the offender rather than the offended. There were always efforts, overt or covert, to save the lives of the criminals, but nobody had tears for the amount of pain which the deceased might have been subjected to at the time of his murder. And nobody had any time for the travails of the grief-stricken family that lost its sole bread-earner or one of its heirs. None had time to think about their future; nobody had the heart to feel their sentiments and anguish. In some legal systems, like Islam, the heirs of the deceased had the satisfaction of deciding the fate of their detractors. The duty of the judge was merely to decide whether the evidence against the accused was conclusive. The judge would then pronounce the maximum permissible punishment for that crime. The heirs still had the right to refuse the appeals of mercy and let him be hanged or to pardon him in return or not of any compensation they asked for. The new legal developments either completely seized or diluted all the rights of the offended party. Instead the culprits were bestowed upon ever-increasing rights and time and space for their successful defence in the court of law.
The relative mildness of punishment coupled with progressively lengthening procedures in trial before the pronouncement of the final verdict had presumable effects. The rate of murders and other crimes began to show an upward trend. It continues unabated till now in almost all the countries that have followed the western legal system because the criminals have a remarkably reduced fear of being caught and virtually none for their being executed if their crime is established in the court. Furthermore, they have the advantage of using the latest technologies and advanced weapons which make it simpler and easier for them to pounce upon their victim without leaving a trace of evidence. If somehow suspected and charged with murder, they have multiple ways to save themselves from the gallows. They have at their disposal the services of competent lawyers who have mastered the art of subverting evidences and producing astonishing, mostly fallacious arguments. If required, they would bribe the police officers, medical experts or judges. Many of the criminals are often professionals who kill others not out of personal enmity but for their money-masters. They have therefore no dearth of money required for successful combat in the court. If ultimately convicted the most likely course of event is that they would go to the prison for a few years. During this period, their families if any will be duly looked after by the 'masters'. As soon as they are freed, they would waste no time in rejoining the profession. This time however, they would take greater precautions and money to hit the given target.
The more the organised business gained ground, the more the criminals were produced. The procedures of trial have continued to become technically superior. But the effectiveness of judicial system in lowering the rate of crime has drastically diminished. With the overwhelming involvement of money, the legal profession has become increasingly popular. Law has now become a big industry involving trillions of dollars. Police, counsellors, courts, prisons –all these involve huge turnaround of money. The more the crimes are committed and the longer the trial prolongs the more the commercial turn over. The advocates have become pettifoggers eager to serve their clients offering them huge sums as fees rather than assist the cause of justice. The ethical code of the profession has unequivocally laid down the principle that the lawyer’s obligation is to look after the interest of his client and it is the duty of the presiding officer to arrive at the truth. The advocates have therefore in effect become the white-collared, legally recognised agents of the offenders of law. They use all possible means including their golden tongue to subvert justice. The judges have been left with no direct method to come to a reasonable and just conclusion; they have no option but to rely on the evidence a
nd arguments presented by the contending lawyers. The advocacy has been reduced to a foul play of words and logic. Yet, it is presumed that the net effect of the falsehood of the two contending parties of lawyers would unfold the truth. What a travesty of judicial reasoning! The net effect, in reality, is that the malefactors are having heyday. The lawyers grow in riches; the weak, the poor and the oppressed are the sufferers.
The magnanimity of the law for the criminals did not stop here. The modernised legal system had almost guaranteed that they would not be guillotined whatever the nature and severity of their crime. The procedural wrangles and the brilliance of lawyers, assisted by the free flow of cash and kind, had considerably brightened the prospects of their protection against conviction. But these were not enough for their satisfaction. The fear of imprisonment still loomed large before them. The hardships of jails were not acceptable to killers, rapists and dacoits. Their masters then exhorted the “humanists” to campaign for