In a bid to escape those cloying ads imploring you to understand the importance of your friends, I was watching the news over dinner tonight,not that I escaped them completely. But, I happened to watch portions of ‘The Big Fight’ on NDTV with the issue in question being that of the death penalty. That set a train of thought in motion and hence this post.
I was recently reading a John Grisham novel titled ‘The Confession’, which revolves around the same subject. Although it might not be his best work yet ,it did raise some relevant issues regarding the death penalty. His main concern with the awarding of the death penalty, and he puts it quite explicitly, is that a person shouldn’t be put on death row until and unless it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is a deserved punishment. Of course, the ethical question of the death penalty even being a legal resort of justice is another issue in itself . Although I might not be a staunch anti-capital punishment supporter like Grisham, I cannot argue against the point he makes, purely because it is a matter of common sense. To put in current perspective, a person like Kasab who is undeniably guilty, purely based on all the evidence in the form of video footage and eye-witness accounts, deserves the absolute worst punishment, which today is seen as the death penalty considering the magnitude of ,for the want of a better word, ‘crime’ committed. By the same logic, a person like Afzal Guru, shouldn’t get the death penalty, because of the allegations of evidence tampering having been committed by the police. Till the allegations are investigated and proven wrong, there is still ‘reasonable doubt’. If you’ve watched ’12 Angry Men’, you’d realize that no case is water-tight and there’s always room for ‘reasonable doubt’. In its essence, these two cases present a study in contrast. The magnitude of the ‘crimes’ they have been accused of committing are equipollent, but one deserves the absolute worst punishment and the other doesn’t (till more evidence comes to the front).
Now to the ethics of capital punishment. Watching tonight’s episode of ‘The Big Fight’, I realized, and quite alarmingly, that the audience was so partisan in its view that capital punishment is the ultimate form of justice, that there wasn’t even one dissenting voice in their midst. In times of mass hysteria, like the Lokpal episode, I feel dissenting voices are the voices of reason. But today, the nation which was founded by a man who once famously said that ‘ an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’, is hellbent on implementing capital punishment. Honestly, you can’t blame them. Given the frequency of terror attacks and the resultant paranoia, you expect such a reaction. They are hoping for closure and capital punishment might be the means to an end. But I sincerely doubt, if the question of euthanasia was put forward to them, would it have evoked such a lopsided response? Why such double standards then? I know that euthanasia has its own quagmire of moral and ethical issues, but essentially both euthanasia and capital punishment boils down to the act of committing ‘legal murder’. And purely on the basis of that, I believe any state which allows capital punishment should also allow euthanasia.
Interestingly enough on the show tonight, there was a survivor of the Mumbai attacks who was against capital punishment, even for Kasab. And oddly enough, his argument made sense. Why is capital punishment viewed as the ultimate form of justice? Even if the Supreme Court passes a judgment (pardon my legal knowledge and correct me if I am wrong) that a life imprisonment sentence means imprisonment until natural death without the possibility of parole (evidently in India you can get parole after serving 14 years of a life imprisonment sentence), it would still seem meek to the Indian populace. It would seem that they’ve been stood up by justice. Capital punishment today, and I quote the gentleman from the show ‘sells an illusion of justice’ and that’s the only thing the people are willing to buy.
On the other hand, the family of Vijay Salaskar, who had been slain in the Mumbai attacks, were on the show and understandably for them, this issue is not polemic. It has only one solution, the implementation of the capital punishment. They deserve closure,as do thousands of others affected by terrorism throughout the country. If I had been affected, perhaps this wouldn’t have been a calm narrative.
Whose side am I on? For once in my life, I honestly can’t say. Whenever an issue is raised, I stand by the side of reason. But when it comes to something as primal as avenging murder in equal measure and kind, I honestly can’t choose. Maybe this is why this issue has been eternally debated. It is too dynamic to put your finger on one solution and cry ‘Eureka’. I prefer to tread with caution. While the issue gets politicized and plays out dramatically on our TV sets over the coming weeks, since Omar Abdullah has already caused a storm in a teacup with his tweets, it is important to realize the dynamics of the issue and not be overtly prejudiced about the issue. Capital punishment might be a strong response to terrorism for some, for others we are stooping to the level of terrorism.