It was black irony on 14th august 2004 when Dhananjoy Chaterjee was executed at the Alipore Correctional facility. It was sad that India’s ‘correctional principles’ involved the termination of life. Seven years later we are preparing for another correction. This time it will be Murugan, China Santhan and Perarivalan, the men who were allegedly involved in the assassination of our former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
This is not a defense for Dhananjoy Chaterjee or the three young men being prepared for the gallows. It is a candid, soul searching look ,at the rights of a civilized society to take away life- any life. Baying for revenge is a natural emotive reaction to a terrible deed.
It took twenty years of deliberation and prevarication to say that these men must be punished with death. Perarivalan whose crime was obtaining two nine volt batteries that detonated the bomb that killed Rajiv Gandhi must have been less than twenty years old at the time of his crime. The criminal justice system had enough time to think and deliberate with detached pragmatism. At the end it was irrational hate and revenge that prevailed. The men must have already died a thousand deaths- waiting for the state to decide.
In analyzing the rationale for legitimate governments to kill legally we must try to answer a fundamental question.
What do you do with criminals?
Criminologists, social scientists, human rights activists and judicial experts are more or less agreed that reformation should be the ultimate aim. It explains the use of the term ‘correctional’. The other two aims of punishment are deterrence and isolation from society. Deterrence certainly has its place in criminal reformation. However death as a form of deterrence has never really worked. The Sri Lankans and the Pakistanis and the Sikh separatists had their own agenda- and they were willing to die for it. How can a death sentence be a deterrent? It is only inviting the Indian Republic to be like a primeval society and take revenge? Is that what the father of our Nation would have wanted? Study after study from around the world has conclusively proved that death penalty has and never will be a deterrent even for the habitual criminal. It is hard for us to believe this because it appears like common sense that the promise of a strong punishment will frighten the criminal. In fact many well-conducted studies have shown that the certainty rather than the severity of punishment, serves as a deterrent. Canada, which abolished death penalty in 1976, has had a decrease in capital crimes by 40% from 1976 to 2002. In America, the southern states with the largest number of people on death row, continues to have a much larger incidence of capital crimes like murder and rape compared to the northern states. Many States in the USA have actually seen a decrease in crime rates after abolishing the death penalty and the introduction of life imprisonment without hope of a parole. Justice should not only be certain but also speedy. These statistics have been reproduced in numerous countries, which chose to scrap the death penalty. Today almost all the countries, including the European Union, South America and many states in the USA have abolished death penalty or do not have it as a government policy. The countries, which chose to retain the death penalty, have abysmal human rights records. The countries which do not have respect for human rights, like Saudi Arabia, have laws that are hardly worth emulating. India needs to decide what kind of example it must adopt as its social and judicial policy. The choice is between that of Europe with its high standard of fairness and Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan and the republic of Congo where even juveniles are punished with death penalty.
The answer to the dangers of allowing hardcore criminals into society may lie in the laws of commutation. It needs to be restructured to ensure that an incorrigible criminal will never go back to society. A life sentence for murder must be ‘for life’. Many ask why the taxpayer’s money should be used to keep them alive. The criminal will have to be accepted by society as a deviant mind, which is the product of his genetic disposition or the ill effects of the socio-political environment. We cannot eliminate them just as we do not eliminate mentally and physically deranged patients or non-productive senior citizens. The welfare state has to take some responsibilities. The only reason for supporting ‘death for the killer’ is a revengeful and barbaric emotion that cannot be a state policy- at least not in our country which has pledged itself as a welfare democracy based on the principles of ‘ahimsa’ propounded by the father of our nation- Mahatma Gandhi.
The Australian Council Against Death Penalty (ACADP) says this about capital punishment:
The most premeditated of all murders.
The only thing it accomplishes is death.
There is no justice or redemption for the criminal.
There is no restitution for the family of the victim.
There is only a dead body.-Another dead body and another group of innocent victims.
To understand the premeditated process of killing, one needs to examine the protocols that are followed. The prisoner knows the date and time and spends it in isolation, while his lawyers make last ditch efforts. There is a death watch to make sure that the prisoner does not kill himself (and thus deprive the state of the privilege). He is asked what he wants to dine on. Dhananjoy’s last meal was two extra pieces of fish, some curd and sweets. It was a small luxury- a few hours before he was to be hanged. Contrary to popular belief most people don’t get anything more than a cheese burger, fries and a soft drink (in the USA). The prison manual in India allows a vegetarian meal (unlimited I am told). Doctors examine and weigh them to make sure they are healthy. In India they are weighed to make sure the rope will hold. If the rope breaks, the prisoner might break his legs, you see. In the USA they are given diapers lest they void and embarrass themselves in the course of dying. They even swab the skin with a disinfectant before administering lethal injection. There is something sick and eerie about the methodical process of planned killing. No wonder the majority of countries with a conscience have done away with capital punishment.
In India there is yet another dimension. Race and religion. Many Tamils do not want the Sri Lankans killed. Many Muslims do not want Afzal Guru killed. Many Sikhs do not want Bhullar killed. I cannot differentiate one from the other. If Ajmal Kasab had killed randomly in Mumbai or Afzal Guru had played a role in threatening the Parliament then Murugan and others are involved in the murder of a former Prime minister and numerous others. To me these are as heinous as the hundreds of murders that have gone with lighter punishment including the murder of Graeme Staines and his children!! Why is there a double standard in political circles? The Hindi belt is unconcerned about the Sri Lankans. The Hindu fundamentalists are baying for the death of only the Muslim terrorists. Many Sikhs are interested only in the pardon of Bhullar. It is high time that India reconciled itself to the fact that it must stand with the civilized world on the matter of state sponsored murder and have an equal stand on capital punishment. No more killings by the state! Lock away the criminals and throw away the keys if you must. No more Killings!
George Paul.
This is not a defense for Dhananjoy Chaterjee or the three young men being prepared for the gallows. It is a candid, soul searching look ,at the rights of a civilized society to take away life- any life. Baying for revenge is a natural emotive reaction to a terrible deed.
It took twenty years of deliberation and prevarication to say that these men must be punished with death. Perarivalan whose crime was obtaining two nine volt batteries that detonated the bomb that killed Rajiv Gandhi must have been less than twenty years old at the time of his crime. The criminal justice system had enough time to think and deliberate with detached pragmatism. At the end it was irrational hate and revenge that prevailed. The men must have already died a thousand deaths- waiting for the state to decide.
In analyzing the rationale for legitimate governments to kill legally we must try to answer a fundamental question.
What do you do with criminals?
Criminologists, social scientists, human rights activists and judicial experts are more or less agreed that reformation should be the ultimate aim. It explains the use of the term ‘correctional’. The other two aims of punishment are deterrence and isolation from society. Deterrence certainly has its place in criminal reformation. However death as a form of deterrence has never really worked. The Sri Lankans and the Pakistanis and the Sikh separatists had their own agenda- and they were willing to die for it. How can a death sentence be a deterrent? It is only inviting the Indian Republic to be like a primeval society and take revenge? Is that what the father of our Nation would have wanted? Study after study from around the world has conclusively proved that death penalty has and never will be a deterrent even for the habitual criminal. It is hard for us to believe this because it appears like common sense that the promise of a strong punishment will frighten the criminal. In fact many well-conducted studies have shown that the certainty rather than the severity of punishment, serves as a deterrent. Canada, which abolished death penalty in 1976, has had a decrease in capital crimes by 40% from 1976 to 2002. In America, the southern states with the largest number of people on death row, continues to have a much larger incidence of capital crimes like murder and rape compared to the northern states. Many States in the USA have actually seen a decrease in crime rates after abolishing the death penalty and the introduction of life imprisonment without hope of a parole. Justice should not only be certain but also speedy. These statistics have been reproduced in numerous countries, which chose to scrap the death penalty. Today almost all the countries, including the European Union, South America and many states in the USA have abolished death penalty or do not have it as a government policy. The countries, which chose to retain the death penalty, have abysmal human rights records. The countries which do not have respect for human rights, like Saudi Arabia, have laws that are hardly worth emulating. India needs to decide what kind of example it must adopt as its social and judicial policy. The choice is between that of Europe with its high standard of fairness and Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan and the republic of Congo where even juveniles are punished with death penalty.
The answer to the dangers of allowing hardcore criminals into society may lie in the laws of commutation. It needs to be restructured to ensure that an incorrigible criminal will never go back to society. A life sentence for murder must be ‘for life’. Many ask why the taxpayer’s money should be used to keep them alive. The criminal will have to be accepted by society as a deviant mind, which is the product of his genetic disposition or the ill effects of the socio-political environment. We cannot eliminate them just as we do not eliminate mentally and physically deranged patients or non-productive senior citizens. The welfare state has to take some responsibilities. The only reason for supporting ‘death for the killer’ is a revengeful and barbaric emotion that cannot be a state policy- at least not in our country which has pledged itself as a welfare democracy based on the principles of ‘ahimsa’ propounded by the father of our nation- Mahatma Gandhi.
The Australian Council Against Death Penalty (ACADP) says this about capital punishment:
The most premeditated of all murders.
The only thing it accomplishes is death.
There is no justice or redemption for the criminal.
There is no restitution for the family of the victim.
There is only a dead body.-Another dead body and another group of innocent victims.
To understand the premeditated process of killing, one needs to examine the protocols that are followed. The prisoner knows the date and time and spends it in isolation, while his lawyers make last ditch efforts. There is a death watch to make sure that the prisoner does not kill himself (and thus deprive the state of the privilege). He is asked what he wants to dine on. Dhananjoy’s last meal was two extra pieces of fish, some curd and sweets. It was a small luxury- a few hours before he was to be hanged. Contrary to popular belief most people don’t get anything more than a cheese burger, fries and a soft drink (in the USA). The prison manual in India allows a vegetarian meal (unlimited I am told). Doctors examine and weigh them to make sure they are healthy. In India they are weighed to make sure the rope will hold. If the rope breaks, the prisoner might break his legs, you see. In the USA they are given diapers lest they void and embarrass themselves in the course of dying. They even swab the skin with a disinfectant before administering lethal injection. There is something sick and eerie about the methodical process of planned killing. No wonder the majority of countries with a conscience have done away with capital punishment.
In India there is yet another dimension. Race and religion. Many Tamils do not want the Sri Lankans killed. Many Muslims do not want Afzal Guru killed. Many Sikhs do not want Bhullar killed. I cannot differentiate one from the other. If Ajmal Kasab had killed randomly in Mumbai or Afzal Guru had played a role in threatening the Parliament then Murugan and others are involved in the murder of a former Prime minister and numerous others. To me these are as heinous as the hundreds of murders that have gone with lighter punishment including the murder of Graeme Staines and his children!! Why is there a double standard in political circles? The Hindi belt is unconcerned about the Sri Lankans. The Hindu fundamentalists are baying for the death of only the Muslim terrorists. Many Sikhs are interested only in the pardon of Bhullar. It is high time that India reconciled itself to the fact that it must stand with the civilized world on the matter of state sponsored murder and have an equal stand on capital punishment. No more killings by the state! Lock away the criminals and throw away the keys if you must. No more Killings!
George Paul.
1 comment:
sir it 's truely amazing to think how much time you took to collect ,assimilate this much information. you have given it in a simple form so that every one could understand all nuances regarding this matter.i accept ypour views and you have solved many questions arised in my mind in this article.the crime happens in two ways one is by accident and the other one is planned.for planned or organised crime there should a punsihment which should really deter the others to repeat the same.terrorists who are ready to die are those who knowingly doing inhuman activities to further their agends which are un acceptable to governments and social soceities.in that situation they may be equated with animals.in these days even animals some sort of humanism but these animal humans should be puished severly.
Post a Comment