SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Hang 'em high...

Most of us don't, but people who do give Justice a thought are divided into those for and those against the death penalty. At one end are the right-wingers, hawks and jingoists like yours sincerely; at the other are the liberals, doves and bleeding hearts like you-know-who. The debate hinges on one's attitude towards what constitutes Civilisation. For, capital punishment is tagged as barbaric by its critics.

I find that odd, since civilisation can be examined through its ancient and modern varieties (eg, Aztec and Bolshevik), and again, by region (Egyptian and Indus Valley), and yet again, on the basis of religious doctrines (Christian and Islamic). For instance, the term "the Dark Ages" covers the period from 400 AD to 1300 AD. In that era, China, under the Tangs, saw its greatest age of poetry; India saw the formation of village panchayats and the construction of Ellora; and the Arab nation sailed to Spain, leaving Saracenic architecture in its wake. What was lost to Christendom during this time, was *not* lost to Civilisation.

Today, it seems that only Western civilisation *is* civilisation. Few of us stop to think that we may be yoking civilisation to economic might, that our oh-so-compassionate attitude could be the slavishness instilled by centuries of colonisation, that it may be the imperialism of Western culture, that Christian values of mercy and reform may not be the final word in every nation's concept of civilisation...

The only factor common to all civilisations at any time is the checking of not-so-nice human impulse by instilling in individuals values and morals that invoke prudence, or if you like, conscience. When that fails, the anti-social act is labled as criminal and is dealt with through laws. Thereafter, we enter the swamp of the purpose of such laws: Are they to rehabilitate criminals or to punish them?

Let's assume that the system of trial and imprisonment under "civilised" laws is meant for reforming offenders. Then, has the system been effective in halting or even reducing crime? Do malefactors come out of jails as exemplary citizens? In fact, while in jail, exposure to hard-boiled criminals makes a first- timer a harder nut to crack. Whatever social activists may say, the efficacy of corrective detention is a myth: Incarceration is merely a punishment sanctioned by society.

Next, the debate hinges on how extreme should punishment be. Imprisonment is sufficient where misdemeanours and infractions of civil laws are concerned, and for felonies like theft, arson, wounding and even rape. However, homicide is another cup of tea: While manslaughter is an unlawful slaying without malice aforethought, murder is a premeditated, calculated killing of a human being; 'assassination' has an overtone of political justification about it, and 'execution' has an implication of death by legal sentence. Whatever the subtle differences, they all mean the taking of a human life.

Islamic civilisation forwards the ordinance of Qisas and Diyat: the former is defined as equal punishment for the crime committed; the latter is compensation payable to, if accepted by, victims or their legal heirs. The Manu Smruti (which lists the highly debatable "codes" of Hinduism) also advocates equal punishment -- but without loopholes.

However, Christianity, though thou-shall-not-killing, doesn't say what's to be done by mere mortals on its occurrence... Man cannot be naturally evil; only God has the right to avenge; sin is due to ignorance alone; and one must forgive sinners "for they know not what they do." From this idiotic bundle of Christian thought stems the Western liberal's denial of the death penalty.

In the US (whence we import our liberal stances), the legal system has been turned into a mockery by loopholes in laws. Obvious offenders are absolved on the basis of mere technicalities, and plea-bargaining, where the prosecutor agrees to a lesser charge just to save the court's time, is deemed ethical. Even so, many American states still retain the death penalty.

In India, capital punishment is restricted, the Supreme Court having ruled a decade ago that it's to be given only "in the rarest of the rare" type of killing: It later defined such cases to include exceptionally brutal murders. Also, since we don't follow the jury system, it's up to the judges to decide what constitutes exceptional brutality.

In March 1996, the Supreme Court commuted the Mumbai high court's death sentence to life imprisonment for one Ravindra Choutmal: He had throttled his eight-months pregnant wife while three members of his family held her down, beheaded and hacked her body into nine pieces, and dumped the torso in a train and the limbs at various sites. All for a not-forthcoming dowry of Rs 25,000.

In its judgment, the court said, "We have given considered thought to the question and have not been able to place this case in that category which merits the extreme penalty... to halt the rising graph of dowry deaths, we at one point thought to maintain the death sentence, but we entertain doubts about the deterrent effect of a death penalty."

This year, on March 6, the Supreme Court commuted to life imprisonment the trial court's death sentences passed on Nitin Swargey, Ronald James Alwaris and Santosh Balkrishna Desai who were convicted for killing a family of three in Pune. The three men killed Mohan Dhol, gang-raped and killed his wife Ruhi, and slew their 17-year-old son Rohan. Nitin, a nephew of Mohan Dhol, and his cohorts enjoyed the hospitality of the family and later butchered them.

In their defence, Nitin pleaded factors like having a 4-year-old son and aged parents; Ronald pleaded that no one could look after his wife and four children; and Santosh pleaded that he was only 27 and that his father was unwell... Though the Dhol family was unarmed and the crime was committed to rob the family, the court concluded that it was not possible to say whose case falls within "the rarest of rare" case. The division bench comprising Justice M K Mukherjee and Justice Syed Mohammed Quadri held that though the heinous crime was pre-planned, "the possibility of reform and rehabilitation cannot be ruled out."

On March 12, the Sessions Court in Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, sentenced to double life-imprisonment John David, an adult medical student, for murdering Pon Navarasu during a ragging stint. Since the victim refused to submit to indignities like licking footwear, John David killed him, dismembered his limbs and decapitated him. The murderer later disposed of the severed parts -- the torso in a bus and the head in a canal on the campus.

Judge S R Singaravelu stated, "Although the offence was primitive and gruesome in nature, due consideration had to be given for this *unfortunate* youth who has not only entangled himself in the heinous crime due to egotism and petty-mindedness, but also made his parents... undergo eternal agony."

So I ask you again: since the system of imprisonment has not been a deterrent to theft, should it be scrapped? By the same coin, does the impotency of capital punishment justify its phasing out? We do not live in More's Utopia where there are no locks on the doors and where gold is held in contempt. Like any other crime, murder will recur -- no human law ran fully deter Evil. But, the primeval fear of death administered by the State can't be denied as a factor which discourages the proliferation of murder cases.

The liberal view is that the State has no right to take a life, that though sanctioned by law, it is murder nonetheless. Which is curious, indeed. For, such liberals are the first to reap the benefits from a nation secured by the "murders" committed by the military at its borders...

Advocacy of the death penalty is based on vengeance and the need to rid society of its despicable elements. It's noble to preach mercy -- but can it be pursued when one's own kin are turned into steaks? However primitive a reaction revenge may be, it is the force that generates punishment; and if allowed no outlet, can be ruinous. Since a life sentence does not mean imprisonment till death, and with the possibility of parole always present, what's the guarantee that a murderer will not repeat his act on release? And, even if in jail, why should he continue to live at all?!

To prevent a relative of the victim from being his own judge, jury and executioner, his grievance is taken up by the State. And the State is asked by groups uninvolved with the sliced-up victim to go easy on the butcher! What, pray, are the ethics in that? The South Asia Human Rights Group says: "Capital punishment is a cruel, inhuman and degrading form of punishment." Does that mean that punishment should be kind, gentle and exalting? The cold- blooded, savage and merciless act committed by a murderer is of no consequence... How sublime...

Take the case of the 37-year-old Ram Shri who, along with her father and brother, was sentenced to be hanged on April 6 by the Allahabad high court for murdering her uncle, aunt and their child over a land dispute. The National Commission for Women is agitating against the sentence because Ram Shri has a 2-year-old child. And what about the child she killed...?

The Pioneer says, "Claiming that Ram Shri was not a hardened criminal who had committed a premeditated murder, (NCW Chairperson Mohini) Giri offered the excuse that women are often victims of circumstances. The courts should, therefore, look into 'the provocation' for their acts, especially in case of first-time offenders." I do *not* get it. The murderer should be pardoned just because she is a woman???

The liberals' demand for mercy and humanity has caused havoc in the "civilised" West: Gun-toting vigilante groups flourish all over America. In New York, Bernhard Goetz shoots four thieves, getting acquittal and sympathy. Fundamental rights, equality, liberty are all very well, but the quality of life ultimately depends on law and order. As in Singapore -- where even drug- traffickers are hanged.

In India, human rights are imported concepts anyway, fully understood and even experienced only by the gentry. If the judiciary yields to the pressure of theoretic abolitionists, given our ethos, an unequal punishment for murder may lead to conditions far worse than in the US. In such an eventuality, most of us would lose respect for the law and find our own ways to mete out natural justice; I know I would.

I forgot to mention: the chopped-up Mohan Dhol's young daughter is alive and "well." For she was in Bombay on that fateful day when her mother was gang-raped and killed. And former Madras University vice-chancellor, PK Ponnusamy, who was waiting for his son Navarasu to turn up for Diwali, will have to wait no more... I wonder, in their stead, what would a Sicilian or an Afghan do when the murderers of their loved ones are released...?

The pathological decency of abolitionists makes me retch. But India's judiciary is increasingly toeing the leniency line -- all for the appeasement of, as usual, the vociferous few with too much time on their hands, and specious charity in their hypocritical hearts.

Varsha Bhosle

Should the Death Penalty be abolished? Take the REDIFF POLL