7:06 PM
Pundit
Image by Getty Images via @daylifeA long, long time ago, in a far-away land not 50 miles from where I sit today, I took a stand at an inter-college group discussion on the death sentence with this line: "The state has no right to take that which it cannot give." The judges took note and sent me through to the next round of the competition. I didn't win in the end; I couldn't speak over the din again. I wasn't assertive and argumentative enough back then.World events since then challenge my position on the death penalty every day. I understand the people who wept at the news of Osama Bin Laden's death not because they support his faith or mission or organization but because they couldn't digest the inhumanity of the apparently ecstatic reaction elsewhere, particularly at Ground Zero that night as the news trickled out. But I can't say I even gave a thought to the man. He was just a high profile name in a high profile news story. Such is the power of the natural disconnection I feel towards those who choose a path of relentless unapologetic violence inflicted on innocents.
So I hardly knew how to react to the latest news that President Pratibha Patil has rejected the mercy petition of a Khalistani terrorist who bombed the Indian Youth Congress office in Delhi killing 9 people in 1993. This is President Patil's second such plea rejection in the same number of months and she looks all set to send other high profile killers such as Afzal Guru to the gallows as well. I guess that's one way to project a strong anti-sexist image.
I suppose my confusion is to be expected. I did just check "agree" with the statement: "Rehabilitation is wasted on some criminals" on the Political Compass test. I feel fairly certain I must have checked "disagree" when I took the test in college.
What do you think, dear reader? Who deserves mercy and who deserves the death penalty? When, if ever, is capital punishment the only appropriate punishment to fit the heinous crime?
