Capital Punishment: A Discussion.
Yakub Menon's death penalty and its execution has raised more question on our justice system than positive indication of our resolve to fight terrorism.
The different point of heated debate are.
1. Capital punishment is a killing by state and is to be condemned.
2. Capital punishment is no deterrent for criminals.
3. Justice is different -different for different people based on
i. Political Backing.
ii. Money Power.
iii. Religion of Accused.
iv. Caste of Accused.
4. Decision are affected by constituents of bench of court.
Many more points of debate / discussion are possible but basically they will be offshoot of above points.
Let us take one by one.
1.It is argued that capital punishment should not be given because if you are not able to give life to any one you do not have right to take it. Even state do not have this right. This is barbaric and civil society has no place for such thing.Further,it is irreversible and it is found that if appeal is made, in 95 % of cases High Court/ Supreme have reversed the trial court judgement. Counter is - what should be highest punishment ?. Many countries ( of Europe) who had abolished this are now considering reintroducing it in the wake of rising terrorism. The human right activist who advocate right of accused forget rights of victim. And so on.
2. Second -Capital punishment is no deterrent. Yes I agree, it is specially true when person has been completely brainwashed in the name of religion or patriotism. Perpetrator of such crime know in advance, what are the consequence of their action.
But if this argument is logically extended, no punishment is deterrent for any criminal. Punishment has not stopped any crime. Even pickpocket-er knows in advance what are consequences, but does it. What is more, many are busy in crime (specially white crime) as profession and does not feel any guilt. Under the circumstances should state abandon whole justice/ punishment system ?.
We are confused with the role of punishment. In most cases it is solace to victim of justice than deterrent to criminal. And that is acceptable role of punishment.
So far arguments are academic and do not rouse passion or divide society. But point number 3 & 4 are most divisive and needs serious discussion if we want to survive as united society and wish to maintain credibility of our justice system including Supreme Court. As per Constitution ruling of SC are law of land and their is no appeal against it. Even criticizing (any ) court rulings can invite contempt of court proceeding.
But admitting that this is man made arrangement and considering the number of ruling of HC overturned by SC or reprimanded for poor reasoning. Is it not possible to argue that in a hypothetical situation where there is court above SC, many of its ruling will be overturned or criticized by upper court as discriminatory ?.
Take the ruling that " delay in considering mercy petition is ground for cancelling death penalty". Can higher court not question " If normal is not defined how delay is there". Poor reasoning or an intellectual argument to rationalize or justify the decision taken?. Take another example ( out of context), of Sahara Group chairman's detention. In my view had this step been taken by lower court,SC would have over ruled it on the ground of fundamental right of liberty. It seems, it has more to do with SC v/s Sahara than SEBI/ Investor v/s Sahara. In last 70 years we have not been able to to decide when justice process ends ?. With SC ruling or Mercy petition with President? If President has rejected can Governor take up and rule on mercy petition differently ?. Question are many and that led to hearing of Yakub case at midnight.
It is being termed as independence of justice system. But look from other perception, it is just abuse of system by wealthy and mighty. Justice is perceived to be purchased than given. That is why 80-90 % of convicts are poor and from weaker section of society.
Agreed all system are operated by human being and subjectivity can not be ruled out. Even contemporary LAW of land is product of balance of power between different stake holders. As balance of power changes LAW changes.Take example of different law on gay rights and right to death in different countries.Why a person should suffer because he is born at wrong time and in wrong country?
So it is important that all players of system develop empathy and do not take advantage of their strong position in terms of Money, Political clout and so on.
Else it is bad sign for peace and unity of society, country and world at large.
Yakub Menon's death penalty and its execution has raised more question on our justice system than positive indication of our resolve to fight terrorism.
The different point of heated debate are.
1. Capital punishment is a killing by state and is to be condemned.
2. Capital punishment is no deterrent for criminals.
3. Justice is different -different for different people based on
i. Political Backing.
ii. Money Power.
iii. Religion of Accused.
iv. Caste of Accused.
4. Decision are affected by constituents of bench of court.
Many more points of debate / discussion are possible but basically they will be offshoot of above points.
Let us take one by one.
1.It is argued that capital punishment should not be given because if you are not able to give life to any one you do not have right to take it. Even state do not have this right. This is barbaric and civil society has no place for such thing.Further,it is irreversible and it is found that if appeal is made, in 95 % of cases High Court/ Supreme have reversed the trial court judgement. Counter is - what should be highest punishment ?. Many countries ( of Europe) who had abolished this are now considering reintroducing it in the wake of rising terrorism. The human right activist who advocate right of accused forget rights of victim. And so on.
2. Second -Capital punishment is no deterrent. Yes I agree, it is specially true when person has been completely brainwashed in the name of religion or patriotism. Perpetrator of such crime know in advance, what are the consequence of their action.
But if this argument is logically extended, no punishment is deterrent for any criminal. Punishment has not stopped any crime. Even pickpocket-er knows in advance what are consequences, but does it. What is more, many are busy in crime (specially white crime) as profession and does not feel any guilt. Under the circumstances should state abandon whole justice/ punishment system ?.
We are confused with the role of punishment. In most cases it is solace to victim of justice than deterrent to criminal. And that is acceptable role of punishment.
So far arguments are academic and do not rouse passion or divide society. But point number 3 & 4 are most divisive and needs serious discussion if we want to survive as united society and wish to maintain credibility of our justice system including Supreme Court. As per Constitution ruling of SC are law of land and their is no appeal against it. Even criticizing (any ) court rulings can invite contempt of court proceeding.
But admitting that this is man made arrangement and considering the number of ruling of HC overturned by SC or reprimanded for poor reasoning. Is it not possible to argue that in a hypothetical situation where there is court above SC, many of its ruling will be overturned or criticized by upper court as discriminatory ?.
Take the ruling that " delay in considering mercy petition is ground for cancelling death penalty". Can higher court not question " If normal is not defined how delay is there". Poor reasoning or an intellectual argument to rationalize or justify the decision taken?. Take another example ( out of context), of Sahara Group chairman's detention. In my view had this step been taken by lower court,SC would have over ruled it on the ground of fundamental right of liberty. It seems, it has more to do with SC v/s Sahara than SEBI/ Investor v/s Sahara. In last 70 years we have not been able to to decide when justice process ends ?. With SC ruling or Mercy petition with President? If President has rejected can Governor take up and rule on mercy petition differently ?. Question are many and that led to hearing of Yakub case at midnight.
It is being termed as independence of justice system. But look from other perception, it is just abuse of system by wealthy and mighty. Justice is perceived to be purchased than given. That is why 80-90 % of convicts are poor and from weaker section of society.
Agreed all system are operated by human being and subjectivity can not be ruled out. Even contemporary LAW of land is product of balance of power between different stake holders. As balance of power changes LAW changes.Take example of different law on gay rights and right to death in different countries.Why a person should suffer because he is born at wrong time and in wrong country?
So it is important that all players of system develop empathy and do not take advantage of their strong position in terms of Money, Political clout and so on.
Else it is bad sign for peace and unity of society, country and world at large.
No comments:
Post a Comment