To Kill or Not to Kill

To kill or not to kill, that is the question. It is a centuries old debate, with every new generation having a different opinion. So, should the death penalty be abolished or not? Should executions be banned? Should life imprisonments be the maximum/highest punishment awarded to criminals? There are two sides to every coin and it is likely that many of you will disagree with me here. That's fine. Leave your views below and maybe we could have a healthy debate. Read on...

_________________________________________________ 

"It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life." 

- Edward Koch 

There has been much controversy over capital punishment since ancient times, and it still remains a ‘hot’ and controversial topic. Should a person who has committed a heinous crime be sentenced to death, or imprisoned for life? In my opinion, I feel that retaining the death penalty is definitely a better choice than abolishing it.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, clearly segregates the two highest forms of punishments: Death by hanging, and Life Imprisonment. According to the IPC, the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases are to be awarded with capital punishment only. Thus it is clear that even the makers of our Constitution felt that the death penalty should be present to weed out the muck from society.

Though many would feel otherwise, there are a number of reasons why capital punishment is a good option. The first and most obvious reason is deterrence. Deterrence is the belief that society can stop crime by making punishment more severe than the benefits gained from criminal acts. There are two advantages of this – one, by executing a hardened criminal, you prevent him from committing a similar crime in future. Executing a person is the ultimate form of incapacitation. He can no longer prey on innocent citizens, victimize other inmates, or escape. Many argue that killing dangerous, violent offenders ensures that they will not harm others in future.

The other, is that it acts as an example to society at large, and to future offenders. If they realize that the government will act swiftly and execute them, they will probably think twice before committing dreadful crimes. It brings about law and order by instilling fear into the minds of criminals. Thus, a death sentence is a far more effective deterrent than life imprisonment.

Then there is the angle of security. If a criminal is imprisoned and put into prison, the situation opens up a whole new can of worms. The tight security inconveniences those who live in and around the prison to a great extent. Take the infamous case of Ajmal Amir Kasab. He has been lodged at the Arthur Road Prison for more than two years now. The constant security cordons and naakabandi by the police is a real nightmare for residents of the area, who cannot even park their vehicles in their own buildings and are subject to scrutiny by the police every minute.

It is also a great security hazard to keep a known terrorist in prison, as he can operate from jail and smuggle out information to his colleagues. Also, his colleagues may try to free him from captivity, thereby putting the entire nation at risk. So, to protect the sovereignty of the country, it is imperative to kill these criminals as soon as possible.

We all know about the Kandahar hijack by the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen in 1999. The terrorists hijacked a plane from Kathmandu to Delhi, and the hostages were set free only after the government gave in to the jihadists’ demands and handed over three militants, one of them Maulana Masood Azhar, who founded the deadly Jaish-e-Mohammed and later masterminded the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai that resulted in the death of thousands of harmless citizens. If the government had acted in a timely fashion and executed him, this problem would not have arisen.

Another reason in support of death penalty is cost. It takes a great deal of money to maintain a criminal in jail. Let us once again take the case of Kasab. Crores of our taxpayer’s money is being pumped into Kasab’s upkeep. We provided him with a lawyer so that he could be fairly tried. He is kept in a high security prison where he has a designated food taster. He is, without a doubt, safer than most people on the streets today. Another example is Afzal Guru, the terrorist who was convicted in the dastardly attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001, and who is still languishing in jail. This money could instead be used to develop and rehabilitate so many homeless people.

Another very popular and intuitive reason in support of the death penalty is retribution. Many people confuse retribution with revenge but the two are very different. Revenge is the act of paying back someone because of some personal vendetta, whereas retribution is punishment that is deserved and appropriate to the crime committed.

This ideology of retribution is founded on the principle of lex talionis, i.e. the wrong-doer must not only be punished, but the punishment should be proportionate to his crime. It would appear as if the Bible itself supports capital punishment. It states, “And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. And if a man causes a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth ... .”

In a society frustrated with criminality, there has been an upsurge of support for the death penalty due to reasons of justice. Support under this ideology is based on punitive reasons. If someone takes a life, it is only obvious that he should be told to give up his life in exchange. Even in literature, the villain always gets his ‘just desserts’, whether it is Shylock in ‘The Merchant of Venice’, Cassius in ‘Julius Caesar’, or Gabbar in ‘Sholay’.

Art is nothing but a reflection of society, and hence it is fair to put to death a criminal who has taken scores of lives and has no regret at all. In my opinion, even the mere thought of debating Murugan, Santhan, Perarivalan (Rajiv Gandhi’s killers) and Afzal Guru’s clemency plea in Parliament is revolting. They say a man is innocent till proven guilty, but in the case of the above, there is overwhelming evidence of their atrocious crimes and massacres. Why then, are they not being executed? The answer eludes me.

The philosophy of retribution also gives a sense of closure to the victim’s family; and relieves, if not lessens, their anger and hurt. Alexander Pope said, to err is human, to forgive divine. But even though we are human, those who commit such gruesome crimes are more animal than human and need to be treated differently from others. Those who do not bat an eyelid, but instead savour the torture and helplessness of others, deserve no mercy or forgiveness. The only punishment for them should be death. There no second chances for the victim, why then should the murderer deserve the same?

Some might feel that a person who has taken a life can and will reform. Well, the truth does not confirm this theory. For every twenty-four hours, there are six more murders to be investigated. On an average, that is one for every four hours.

Let us take the case of a famous American serial killer Robert Hansen, who was accused of killing at least seventeen prostitutes with either a hunting knife or a rifle, after he had paid for their services. When he was asked about his motive for murder he said, “I hate women because they always stand aloof from me only for my awful appearance; they should pay for their rudeness and their depreciation toward me.” He was arrested and spent one year out of his designated five in prison. Just a few weeks after his early release, he killed again.

Another example occurred in Korea. In 2004, Yung-Che Liu was arrested for killing more than twenty harmless massagists, especially rich old men. Before the court, he expressed, “If I was not caught, I would keep killing more people.” Thus, we can see that it is very rare for a criminal to reform. Having killed once, serial killers and rapists will continue to kill and harm others in society.

Many feel that if the death penalty is enforced, a few innocent people may also be wrongfully declared guilty. The solution to this is vigilance, and the judicial process to be followed before administering capital punishment will have to establish guilt and circumstances beyond any reasonable doubt. In fact, by administering this laborious process, it is also possible that many guilty will be let off, but that is a risk we have to be ready to take.

Detractors of capital punishment argue that taking the life of anyone, even a criminal, is morally incorrect. Many human rights activists feel that we, as humans, have no right to take away the life given to us by God. But then again, what right did the criminals have to take the life of others? Shouldn’t the rule apply to them as well? What ‘moral code’ is being followed in atrocious, cold-blooded and pre-planned crimes like rape, murder, dowry deaths, fake encounters and hired killings? Others feel that there is uncertainty over this ‘moral question’, but then if the state ceases to act, or takes ages to act each time there is moral ambiguity, there would be chaos.

Thus, we can say that emotional retribution, emotional opposition, morality, and law and order, are the main reasons in favour of retaining the death penalty. Maybe that is why almost fifty-eight countries in the world retain it even today. If we abolish the death penalty, it seems that we indirectly encourage people to kill others because they need not pay for what they have done except by some slight punishment, i.e. going to jail for a while, or doing community service.

Just about a month ago, Supreme Court judges Justices Markandey Katju and C K Prasad - while upholding the death penalty of one Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral, who had allegedly fought with his wife and then poured gallons of oil on his family of four and set them on fire in 2003 – remarked that death penalty in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases is acceptable.

Commenting on this case, Justice Katju said, “In our opinion, this is one such case. (rarest of rare) Burning living persons to death is a horrible act which causes excruciating pain to the victim, and this could not have been unknown to Gujral. A person like Gujral… cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. The balance sheet is heavily loaded against him and accordingly, we uphold the death sentence awarded to him.”

Capital punishment cannot be studied in isolation. Each case is different, each has diverse and sometimes even unique circumstances, so you really cannot club everything under one umbrella and generalise. However, there are definitely some very valid points in favour of the death penalty.

I would like to finally end with a quote from the Babylonian legal code of the 18th Century B.C. called the Code of Hammurabi. It suggests the earliest evidence of favouring the death penalty. “If a man puts out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. If he breaks another man’s bone, his bone shall be broken...”

Thus, after looking at all the arguments, it only reaffirms my belief that capital punishment should be retained for the greater good of society at large.