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?
14 comments:
Do u thnk d loss dese ppl hv caused both @ national levl & personal levl(mainly)-a rejection goin to make ny diffrnc to them?
Interesting post. Personally, I'm against the death penalty. I just think killing anyone is wrong, no matter what their crimes.
Hello Sabari Saran. Thanks so much for your comment.
Do you mean the convicted killer making the plea for clemency does not actually want it to be accepted? I don't follow you. If somebody is on death row making a last request to the President to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment or a lesser sentence, why would they make that request frivolously?
Louis to mercy petition.... No, you took me wrong. The ones appealing are convicted for something, probably killers. These convicts have caused a great deal of life of the ones dead and the ones alive (associated with the former). Their mercy plea being accepted or rejected is not going to make a difference to the people. The Indian law and order proves to be weak because there is a provision for such appeals. One reason they are unafraid when committing those crimesPS: My argument may not be strong enough, so if there are points you find hard to digest, please take it as a comment. I'm new you see ;)
You're about the same age I was when I held the same view. Lets talk again in ten or twenty years. :-p
oh, you mean the conviction alone is good enough for the victims? You're saying victims would not care whether the criminal is behind bars for life or killed and consider both equal? Please let me know if this is what you meant.
If this is what you meant, I'm not sure I can agree with you. I can't speak for each victim but surely there are those who would like to see the killer/rapist/terrorist punished to the full extent of the law and that includes the possibility of the death sentence depending on the country.
I'm sorry, I'm finding it hard to answer without knowing exactly what you meant! Would victims prefer life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or death? If victims are indifferent, what does society want? Does society want to remove the death sentence?
Coming to the point about the weaknesses in the judicial system, you're saying that there should be no appeal at all? You consider an appeal process a weakness?
Actually, with this thought, you've reminded me of what I consider to be the strongest argument in opposition to a death penalty anywhere in the world. Mistakes are made. Prosecutors or judges or police may be corrupt. Innocent people are convicted and sent to death row, especially in the absence of DNA. The appeals process is crucial. We hear of spectacular cases all the time where somebody who was about to be executed in a few days is found innocent based on new evidence or DNA or a new look at old evidence.
Despite all this, it is very hard to feel upset at Bin Laden's death at the hands of U.S. Seals.
Well no.. I never meant that they won't 'care' but the fact that what has already been lost to them (victims) should not be understated. Here that matters more...
Their only satisfaction when the convicts would be hanged will probably be the relief that the person will not be alive on the phase of this earth to commit another crime.Again, I don't consider re appealing as a weakness. It's a good tool for the cases as you mentioned of people being wrongly convicted of a crime but if a person is appealing for mercy, it shows he's rightly convicted but wants the mercy and wants his/her term reduced to probably life imprisonment or a few years. Did that convict thought of this so called 'mercy' while killing those innocents? Probably NOT! Then why should we?I feel, the crimes increase because there is no fear of the system. If we see how the convicts are treated for rapes/murders, it will be terrifying. We as a 'democracy' can't have that but sure can attain such class from our present existing judiciary. I partially feel bad for Osama. But don't support it because his path was wrong, but not his ideas.. The US Diplomacy is hated by me and this guy nailed it right through their system. But in his process, innocents were killed (which I do't support at any cost).. So yes! I'm atleast no sad that he died.well, actually, thank YOU for commenting back. To be honest, my knowledge is not at all par with you but what I have written is based more on my ideologies. :) Would love to see you comment back...
*treat ed for rapes/murders in Eastern countries...
Hi Sabari.
Ok, I think I've finally managed to understand your first point which is quite simply, the suffering of the victims of whatever hypothetical heinous crime is to be considered at the time of sentencing. Yes, I believe all judges take into account the nature and context of the crime.
Parole and pardons are granted based on the nature of the crime and the behaviour of the convict in jail. You contradict yourself in your comments on the appeals process.
Regarding the comment on democracy, the political system is not necessarily mixed up with the legal system. Countries that are democracies worldwide both do and do not have the death penalty.
I'll leave the discussion on Al Qaeda, U.S. foreign policy especially towards the middle east and Afghanistan/Pakistan for another time.
Thanks again for your comments. Please do consider sharing this article via facebook and twitter or any other article you like on this blog. I'm always happy to discuss any of the articles from the archive. Have fun reading!
It's a thorny question, and I think I worry more about people who don't sincerely wrestle with it in their own minds. I don't think rehabilitation is always possible, but if I thought a petty thief had no hope of being released from jail without committing the same crime again, would I sentence him to death? No. Of course not. But what about an unrepentant serial killer? What about a rapist? What about a rapist who tortured, raped, and killed a child? What about a mother who killed all her children because her lover didn't want any kids?
Hard call. When you know that it costs more than a citizen's average salary to confine and provide food, clothing, and shelter to one inmate each year, does that affect your answer? What about if the choice were to spend the money on more prisons or on better healthcare for the poor? There isn't an infinite amount of money or resources - would that make a difference, when you're talking about LIFE on either side of the equation?
These are the kinds of questions that SHOULD keep us up at night. Not who's going to win the latest reality show.
What if the criminal accepts the death penalty as fair retribution and does not want to appeal? (This happens.) In the U.S., there are mandatory appeals - even the convict doesn't get to waive them. Why?
Indeed there's a difference between Bin Laden (who claimed credit quite proudly for his crimes) and a convict who has steadfastly maintained his innocence and ought to benefit from any weakness in evidence or the appearance of new evidence that might exonerate him.
Any sorrow I felt at Bin Laden's death had more to do with anyone feeling GLEEFUL or CELEBRATORY over it. It's not cause for celebration, even if it is just.
Yes, suicide bombers certainly fall in the category of killers who accept their own death as fair retribution too, don't they? I don't know what to say to your second point. I just don't know what to do if the convict wants to waive the appeal. Is he sane? Has she/he lost all hope? Can any bright eyed and bushy tailed pro bono lawyer help them with their case, if they would allow it?
Thanks for bringing up the point about the cost of keeping a single person in jail. That point is incredibly relevant in the United States as more and more state prisons get privatized and judges hand out jail sentences like candy at a dentist's.
It's so great to have your thoughtful well informed input on this discussion. You're looking at so many sides of the equation in the questions you raise.
Post a Comment