The death penalty has been outlawed in most of the world today, however we persist with it here in India, as punishment for the rarest of rare crimes or something like that. Whatever it is, it is a punishment given to those few who have been judged to commit crimes so great, our judiciary feels that this is the only suitable punishment.
The last convict to receive die at the hangmen’s noose (that’s right, no lethal injection here) was that Dhananjay Chatterjee. Convicted of killing and then raping a young schoolgirl, he was hung slightly more than a year ago. Now as the courts begin sentencing those involved those involved in the 93’ Bombay serial blasts, I fully expect at least a few more death penalties to be handed out.
My problem is that I have serious reservations against the concept of a death penalty. Looking at it from the perspective of the relatives of victims and all others affected by a particular crime, you may feel tempted to support the death penalty. However that’s not what it is, is it? Any punishment handed out in court is not merely a court verdict; rather I see it is more as a verdict handed out by society as a whole. Although the judiciary is supposed to be impartial and unmoved by public sentiment, in the end any sentence handed out is eventually sanctioned by society. The concept of the death penalty could not exist without public approval.
My question is that, do we fully understand the implications of handing out this penalty? Or do we see it as merely the ultimate form of punishment that an individual can be subjected to.
What disturbs me about the death penalty is that it requires us as a society to lower ourselves to the level of the criminal whom we are sentencing. It’s a bit like the video piracy ads we see on TV, where a solemn faced presenter asks us; “Would you steal a book? Would you steal a car? Or would you ever steal money? Well, video piracy is also a form of theft, are you a criminal?”
This is an analogous situation, for while many of us would never actually commit murder or be part of a plot to murder, that is exactly what the death penalty is, except on a much larger scale.
My main issue is with the fact that the death penalty involves death. Life other than our own is beyond what I consider acceptable limits of our control. We can’t decide on whether someone has the right to live or not, irrespective of the lack of disregard they show for the life of others. The right to live is in my opinion such a fundamental right for humans that it cannot ever be revoked for someone, no matter what the circumstances. If you are religious than you should not support the death penalty, simply because it involves judging others to a level we humans were never intended to. It involves taking away from an individual something that is not ours to take. For atheists, it is a simple issue of humanism, again taking away what is not ours to take, reducing ourselves to the level of the very criminals that we are trying to protect ourselves against.
Once while discussing the possibility of extra-terrestrial life with someone, it was pointed out to me that any extra-terrestrial civilisation, were it sufficiently advanced to make contact with humans would be a peaceful one, one in which concepts like war and killing would be outdated. Contrast this with our visions of violent aliens, hell-bent on a ‘war of the worlds’ and you see that our fantasies are very much a product of our own conflict-ridden times. Is it surprising that our judicial system then involves elements of that which is so intrinsically part of our nature, the urge to kill.
We as a society are just not advanced or mature enough to prescribe the death penalty and should we ever mature sufficiently; we would see immediately how wrong the whole issue is.
The last convict to receive die at the hangmen’s noose (that’s right, no lethal injection here) was that Dhananjay Chatterjee. Convicted of killing and then raping a young schoolgirl, he was hung slightly more than a year ago. Now as the courts begin sentencing those involved those involved in the 93’ Bombay serial blasts, I fully expect at least a few more death penalties to be handed out.
My problem is that I have serious reservations against the concept of a death penalty. Looking at it from the perspective of the relatives of victims and all others affected by a particular crime, you may feel tempted to support the death penalty. However that’s not what it is, is it? Any punishment handed out in court is not merely a court verdict; rather I see it is more as a verdict handed out by society as a whole. Although the judiciary is supposed to be impartial and unmoved by public sentiment, in the end any sentence handed out is eventually sanctioned by society. The concept of the death penalty could not exist without public approval.
My question is that, do we fully understand the implications of handing out this penalty? Or do we see it as merely the ultimate form of punishment that an individual can be subjected to.
What disturbs me about the death penalty is that it requires us as a society to lower ourselves to the level of the criminal whom we are sentencing. It’s a bit like the video piracy ads we see on TV, where a solemn faced presenter asks us; “Would you steal a book? Would you steal a car? Or would you ever steal money? Well, video piracy is also a form of theft, are you a criminal?”
This is an analogous situation, for while many of us would never actually commit murder or be part of a plot to murder, that is exactly what the death penalty is, except on a much larger scale.
My main issue is with the fact that the death penalty involves death. Life other than our own is beyond what I consider acceptable limits of our control. We can’t decide on whether someone has the right to live or not, irrespective of the lack of disregard they show for the life of others. The right to live is in my opinion such a fundamental right for humans that it cannot ever be revoked for someone, no matter what the circumstances. If you are religious than you should not support the death penalty, simply because it involves judging others to a level we humans were never intended to. It involves taking away from an individual something that is not ours to take. For atheists, it is a simple issue of humanism, again taking away what is not ours to take, reducing ourselves to the level of the very criminals that we are trying to protect ourselves against.
Once while discussing the possibility of extra-terrestrial life with someone, it was pointed out to me that any extra-terrestrial civilisation, were it sufficiently advanced to make contact with humans would be a peaceful one, one in which concepts like war and killing would be outdated. Contrast this with our visions of violent aliens, hell-bent on a ‘war of the worlds’ and you see that our fantasies are very much a product of our own conflict-ridden times. Is it surprising that our judicial system then involves elements of that which is so intrinsically part of our nature, the urge to kill.
We as a society are just not advanced or mature enough to prescribe the death penalty and should we ever mature sufficiently; we would see immediately how wrong the whole issue is.
7 comments:
quite thought provoking as usual...but then again we can argue al night and day about the act of death penelty being right or wrong...who knows..i think some people need to be put to death but then again thats just my view!
Just as a person does not have the right to take his own life,I believe people don't have the right to kill a person.Thats why we punish murderers.If we give out death penalty,should we not punish ourselves then? Doesn't this remind you of the Mafia,where vendetta rules supreme?
Nothingman,
i know what you mean, i feel the same about a lot of people i know, but that's what i mean by saying that we aren't ready yet as a society to decide on huge issues like the death penalty. Anywho you are right, it does eventually come down to personal opinion.
Anamika,
I couldn't agree with you more, thanks for taking out the time to read my rant and comment on it.
Prometheus disagrees with Kartik's alien race concept. Advancement of technology and that of civilization are not inter alia. They may have technology a bit more advanced than ours. Deep space travel is just a little antimatter away. Advancing beyond war, however, is not. Also, they may have different value systems, where war may not be viewed as evil but as some sort of duty, as in the Kshatriya concept of extending the boundaries of one's lands.
As regards the death penalty, Prometheus feels it may be scrapped if we don't harbor these criminals comfortably and then release them in a few years. The UK was rocked by a case where a released con raped another teenager within hours of his release. Wotsay?
Prometheus, thanks for taking out the time to read and post.
I agree that technological advancement and (lets say) spiritual (for lack of a better word) advancement may not necessarily go hand in hand but I like to think that a civilisation that has made such giant advancements in technology has some sense of morality. But like you say morality is a highly relative term. So point taken.
I'm not too sure about the kshatriya thing since I’m not very well versed in Indian history and mythology so I cant really comment on that aspect.
I do however agree with the last point you raised, that individuals who cannot live by the rules accepted by our society should not be allowed to rejoin it. Life in prison is an excellent alternative here. Though you could argue against it, citing the financial burden that this would imply, however first, not that many people receive the death sentence anyway and more importantly if as a society we want to protect ourselves there will always be a price to pay. The alternatives as they lie are to either take the moral high road and bear the costs or to basically become a mass of murderers (not mass murderers). I prefer the former, what do you think?
Moral high ground, Kartik, is nice. Prometheus, though not a believer of 'an eye for an eye', also thinks its futile to engage in intellectual debate with lowlife scum with half the IQ of a lobotomized roach. In the US, with all their shittiness, they have life terms that actually last the convict's lifetime. He could even get multiple life terms, which are much the same. In India, a life term is 14 years and most people get out in 7. That, my friend, is the problem. In shitty Americanspeak, we need sufficient deterrent to put the fear of God into such craploads as rapists and child molesters. Prometheus wonders if we can add politicians to the list above.
Prometheus, thats what i was talking about when i mentioned life in prision, i meant your whole life in prision, not a life term.
As for the other point you raised, about scaring people away from crime, the thing is that some people are not capable of avoidance learning, they cannot learn to avoid punishment by avoiding crime. You cant keep such people away from from murder and rape and terror. Additionally for those who are aware of the punishment for committing crimes, the death penalty cant really serve as a deterrent since it is handed out so rarely. Seeing the state of indian prisions and the judicial system, just the thought of getting caught and thrown into jail should prove deterrent enough!
A better police force, improving the judicial system are i feel better ways of reducing crime. Because at the end of the day, for every Dhananjay Chatterjee being hung (or is it hanged?) there are a hundred Manu Sharma's going scot free.
I may be willing to reconsider my position if politicians are added to the list of probables for the noose though!
Post a Comment