India and Bangladesh share a common history, and each has developed somewhat similarly since partition. However, while both countries now have relatively low murder rates, India has seen a decline in the rate of executions, while Bangladesh continues to impose death sentences and carry out executions at a higher rate. There have been challenges to the death penalty in India, restricting its use to exceptional cases. The same has not occurred in Bangladesh. Yet in both countries, systemic flaws in the criminal process are evident. This article draws on two original empirical research projects that explored judges’ opinions on the retention and administration of capital punishment in India and Bangladesh. The data expose justice systems marred by corruption, incompetence, abuses of due process, and arbitrary and inconsistent treatment of defendants from arrest through to conviction and sentencing. It shows that those with the power to sentence to death have little faith in the integrity of the criminal process. Yet, a startling paradox emerges from these studies; despite personal knowledge of its flaws, judges have trust in the death penalty to deter crime and to realise other sentencing aims and feel retention benefits society. This is explained by reference to utilitarian values. Not only did our judges express strongly utilitarian justifications for sentencing people to death, in terms of their erroneous belief in its deterrent effect, but some also articulated utilitarian justifications for misconduct in pre-trial processes, suggesting that it was necessary to break the rules to secure convictions when the system was dysfunctional and ineffective.

中文翻译：

---

印度和孟加拉国对死刑的司法支持的矛盾：功利主义理由

印度和孟加拉有着共同的历史，自分治以来，各自的发展都有些相似。然而，虽然现在两国的谋杀率都相对较低，但印度的处决率有所下降，而孟加拉国继续判处死刑并以更高的速度执行死刑。印度的死刑面临挑战，将其使用限制在特殊情况下。孟加拉国没有发生同样的情况。然而，在这两个国家，刑事诉讼程序的系统性缺陷是显而易见的。本文借鉴了两个原创的实证研究项目，探讨了印度和孟加拉国法官对保留和执行死刑的看法。数据暴露了腐败、无能、滥用正当程序、从逮捕到定罪和量刑，对被告的任意和不一致的对待。这表明有权判处死刑的人对刑事诉讼的完整性缺乏信心。然而，这些研究出现了一个惊人的悖论。尽管个人知道其缺陷，但法官相信死刑可以威慑犯罪并实现其他量刑目标，并认为保留对社会有益。这是通过参考功利主义价值观来解释的。我们的法官不仅对判处死刑的人具有强烈的功利主义理由，因为他们错误地相信死刑具有威慑作用，而且有些法官还阐明了对审前程序中的不当行为的功利主义理由，