Capital punishment in India is meant to be applicable in the 'rarest of rare' cases. In reality there have been only four hangings in India since 1995. Clearly the definition of 'rarest of rare' is very rare indeed. As it stands today, the death penalty can hardly be considered a deterrent. The likelihood of being hanged, no matter what you do, is so low that I doubt if any perpetrator of a heinous crime stops to think that he may be hanged if he is caught and found guilty.
Voices against the death penalty hinge on two arguments:
By soft pedaling on implementation of the death penalty we have give free reign to a variety of malcontents. India has the dubious distinction to having the highest number of murders in the world. The figure for 2011 was 42,923. For punishment to be effective, it has to be a deterrent. Apart from punishing the perpetrator of the crime it should set a frightening example of what can happen to someone else who wishes to break the law. It is here that the Indian state has failed to deliver. Even if we apply the 'rarest of rare' criteria to such a large figure one may argue that at least 1% of murders may fall into this category. By that logic the Indian state should have hanged 400 murderers in any given year. Certainly at that level the fear of being hanged for one's wrongdoings would have a significant deterrent value. As of today, there is no such thing.
Apart from the extent of capital punishment the other deterrent is the speed at which punishment is carried out. As of now if a criminal is found guilty of murder and awarded a death penalty by the lower court there is every chance that he will not be hanged for a very long time. Rajiv Gandhi's killers and Afzal Guru are a case in point. It would be useful to set a time limit for carrying out an execution after all appeals have been exhausted from the point of being found guilty initially. If the state is unable to operate within that period it would be fair to commute the sentence to life imprisonment.
The purpose of this post is not to make a case for a blood thirsty or arbitrary legal system. I am sure most of us would agree that the degree of lawlessness in India is increasing day by day and the spate of rapes and murders have shaken civic society. There is a need for stern, swift and uncompromising justice. Increasing the focus on the death penalty will go some way towards achieving that objective.
Check out my book - Journey to the Hills and other Stories.
“Beautiful depiction of Hills & life in North India in the ‘60s” – Chandra Srivastava
Voices against the death penalty hinge on two arguments:
- In the event that there has been a miscarriage of justice an innocent person would have lost his life due to a mistake.
- The death penalty is inhuman and out of step with modern society.
By soft pedaling on implementation of the death penalty we have give free reign to a variety of malcontents. India has the dubious distinction to having the highest number of murders in the world. The figure for 2011 was 42,923. For punishment to be effective, it has to be a deterrent. Apart from punishing the perpetrator of the crime it should set a frightening example of what can happen to someone else who wishes to break the law. It is here that the Indian state has failed to deliver. Even if we apply the 'rarest of rare' criteria to such a large figure one may argue that at least 1% of murders may fall into this category. By that logic the Indian state should have hanged 400 murderers in any given year. Certainly at that level the fear of being hanged for one's wrongdoings would have a significant deterrent value. As of today, there is no such thing.
Apart from the extent of capital punishment the other deterrent is the speed at which punishment is carried out. As of now if a criminal is found guilty of murder and awarded a death penalty by the lower court there is every chance that he will not be hanged for a very long time. Rajiv Gandhi's killers and Afzal Guru are a case in point. It would be useful to set a time limit for carrying out an execution after all appeals have been exhausted from the point of being found guilty initially. If the state is unable to operate within that period it would be fair to commute the sentence to life imprisonment.
The purpose of this post is not to make a case for a blood thirsty or arbitrary legal system. I am sure most of us would agree that the degree of lawlessness in India is increasing day by day and the spate of rapes and murders have shaken civic society. There is a need for stern, swift and uncompromising justice. Increasing the focus on the death penalty will go some way towards achieving that objective.
Check out my book - Journey to the Hills and other Stories.
“Beautiful depiction of Hills & life in North India in the ‘60s” – Chandra Srivastava
“The story flow was as smooth as silk and the narration so vivid, real and engrossing that I couldn't put it down....I finished the book in one sitting” – KK Sridhar
Debu - this topic generates passionate debate. Clearly a heinous crime like what happened in Delhi, makes us want to punish those criminals with death penalty - the ultimate punishment! This question was asked during one of the presidential debates, and it is claimed that Mike Dukakis's stand against death penalty for a crime against his wife 'finished' hm.
ReplyDeleteIt is unclear if the objective of crime prevention/deterrent can be achieved by death penalty (at least statistics dont support it). Society needs to get a message that you cannot get away after committing a crime by the law enforcement agencies. The law enforcement clearly needs more attention. How would you prevent crimes for fun & passion with total disregard for moral/ethical values (which is what Delhi rape case was about)?
I used to feel like you do, Debu, until I read this excellently researched article in the New Yorker - http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann
Deletewhere an innocent man was executed despite a proper trial and numerous appeals. Even the best justice systems in the world are far from perfect and have incarcerated several innocent people. In the US, where these things are well documented, several men have been wrongly convicted of rape because of misidentification by the victim (they were later cleared by DNA analysis). The death penalty simply makes these errors permanent.
I agree about needing a deterrent. However, if you think of it, a lifetime (or even 10 years for that matter) in jail is perhaps as bad a deterrent as the death penalty. No one commits a crime thinking "hey, it will be only 10 years/lifetime in jail". The ones who commit crimes with impunity think they can completely get away with it. Others are simply nutcases and will commit a crime regardless of the sentence (Saudi Arabia, for example, routinely stones people to death). A lifetime in prison with good enforcement is sufficient deterrent.
Anand
PS - An aside about your statistic about murders in India. While India may have the highest number of murders in the world, we are far from holding the number one spot for murders per capita (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate).
Anand,
DeleteI know this will sound callous but can a poor country like India really afford to keep 42,000 murderers in jail for the rest of their natural lives? Ajmal Kasab was costing the Government a huge amount of money to keep alive and a cynic might argue that his (relatively) early hanging saved the country a lot of money. There is another point that may appear a bit strange but I do believe that laws and their enforcement have something to do with the country and society that we are talking about. Poor enforcement of virtually any law is endemic in India. My submission is that we need to strengthen the whole system starting from the top (the most heinous crime) first. Admittedly a miscarriage of justice will be a permanent loss - it would be interesting to see how many murderers convicted by lower courts have been set free by the High Court/Supreme Court. That would give us an idea about potential miscarriage of justice.
Your point on the statistics is well taken. We are not the worst country by way of per capita homicide. However, I suspect that if you were to take specific areas like Delhi/NCR we may well be one of the worst for rape and murder.
Kantape,
How to you achieve deterrence? My point is that one of the critical factors is swift, punitive and visible delivery of justice. Included in that thinking is the volume (of justice). Deterrence cannot be achieved by 4 hangings in 17 years! In that case it is a mere rule on the statute book.
Debu,
ReplyDeleteI do enjoy reading your blogs. What I admire is how you take time out from your busy schedule and write these. Course there will be so many like you but so far, I had chanced on only one, my cousin , Gautam Mukherjee, who owns an electrode manufacturing plant at Jamshedpur and can switch on and off between official and personal work. He does manage to watch movies at home, hear music, will watch a cricket match in its entirety, manage his readings - he's very erudite and can switch over instantly to any official work. By the way, he's Rahul Mukherjee ( a year our senior)'s elder brother. As for me, I have to wait for July, whence I retire and then read and hear music to my heart's content.
Keep up the good work, Debu.
Hey thanks 'Banjo'
DeleteDebu, I could not disagree more with you on this topic!
ReplyDeleteYou cite two objections to the death penalty and claim that both are fallacious, yet I find your arguments weak. Re. objection (1), there
is an increasing body of evidence, particularly with modern DNA analysis, that innocent people are sentenced often. Re. (2), your argument rests on a claim that some crimes "deserve" and "need" this punishment; but I find this is argument circular, just a side-step: if it's inhuman, then it can't possibly be "deserved" or "needed".
There are more objections, and equally serious. (3) You're much more likely to suffer the death penalty if you are from a lower economic or ethnically/ racially discriminated bracket, i.e., this justice is very unevenly applied, and therefore not justice at all.
And for me, the most serious objection is one I have not seen cited anywhere: (4) Unless you believe in an after-life and heavenly judgements, the entire suffering of the accused happens BEFORE the sentence (death) is even carried out. I find this to be a true absurdity. It is unique to the death penalty. For all other sentences, I find some comfort in knowing that the criminal is able to consciously reflect on his crime during (and even after) the sentence; not so with the death penalty.
And, just in case you're wondering: No, I would not hand the death penalty to the Delhi rapists, nor Kasab, nor Hitler. No exceptions, under any circumstances.
Nikhil,
ReplyDeleteThere are some flaws in your argument. First, you say that there is increasing evidence that a larger number of innocent people have been sentenced (presumably to death). I have yet to see any concrete evidence on this point at least in India. Further, this argument should also logically apply to all other crimes and punishments as well. It is not unique to the death penalty. I have suggested in my reply to Anand above that we can try to get a directional estimate of how many mistakes happen by looking at convictions by lower courts that are overturned by higher courts. It is a measure of 'mistaken' judgments by the lower courts assuming, of course, that the higher courts are wiser than the lower courts! Again, I have no data on this.
Second, you make a case in the second last para that in a sense the death penalty is actually less severe than long term imprisonment. That a swift and hopefully painless death is less excruciating than long term incarceration. This argument actually runs contrary to the first one. In other words in the event of an actual miscarriage of justice it would have been more merciful to hang the man rather than let him rot in jail!
Regarding the point about the disadvantaged classes having to bear the brunt of punishment, I concede. Yes, unfortunately they do. However, they also die in wars more frequently simply because the rich guys don't take up dangerous jobs. I may be wrong, but it may also be true that rich guys commit fewer murders, simply because they don't need to. OK - don't beat me for that last remark!
The crux of my argument is this. Sadistic, violent crime is increasing rapidly in India. We are a poor country who can't host honored guests like Kasab for too long in high cost jails. We need swift and punitive deterrence. What choice do we have? The death penalty is only the most visible of all punishments. Starting with that we need to enhance enforcement and punishment for all offences.
Re: Statistics and per capita homicide.
ReplyDeleteThere are lies, damned lies and statistics. Case in point Montserrat. With just 1 homicide it lands up in the top bracket of per capita homicide.
Another example (a bit hypothetical); some 50 years ago while there was an abundance of wheat grown in Punjab there was hardly any rice. Statistically it could be interpreted to mean: 1.Land in Punjab is not suitable for rice or 2.Farmers of Punjab have no rice growing skills. Both of which are wrong. Where as, wheat being the staple grain of Punjabi diet it was less attractive to grow rice when (due to transport and market limitations)there was poorer access to markets in other states.
Statistics unless used in the correct context is an easy tool to perpetuate lies.
In this context we should compare our systems of law enforcement with at least countries with large populations (other factors being, ease access to weapons, poverty levels and...) like China, US, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Incidentally Bangladesh fares better than us.
Further, in now way do these statistics justify our system or prevent us from improving.
On a more pragmatic note, let us term errors in capital punishments as 'homicide by the state'. Now look at the sum of homicide by state and homicide by citizens (in both cases a life is lost). Let the state adopt any system. A system which brings the sum down is a better system.
Interesting point here. 2011 figures, China:Intentional Homicides 13,410 + Capital punishment (for far more flimsier reason than "rarest of rare cases" eg. embezzlement) 2000 = 15,410; India: Homicides 42,923 + Capital punishment 0 =42,923; Bangladesh 3988 +5 =3993; US 14748 + 43 = 15,801. Which system would you like to choose.
This is something like a filtration. If the filter is too fine it filters little and blocks more. No system can be perfect or cannot be improved but surely a system which gives a more desirable result is better.
Was it Deng Xiao Ping who famously said "I am not interested in color of the cat, I only want to know if it can catch mice"?
Finally, if we really want to improve our law and order system we have the opportunity to see what is happening with models that various countries are following. Why can we not simply adopt, or adapt if you please, a system from another country which gives better results? Somewhere I believe laws are not made for justice but to suit the ends of powers that be.
Agreed that we should adopt the most effective system. Amongst comparable countries China offers the best role model. Strict enforcement and swift penalties.
ReplyDeleteDibu Mama,
ReplyDeleteHaving fun reading your blog! Ma just told me about it...
That said, I think you could not be more wrong on this issue! However, rather than debate all the various things that are wrong with expanding the death penalty as a solution to crime, I would instead present this solution I just heard about:
http://www.ted.com/talks/gary_slutkin_let_s_treat_violence_like_a_contagious_disease.html
I think the speaker makes a good point that the fundamental premise of the connection between a peaceful society and strict and harsh punishment is a weak one, in fact a rather medieval notion. Indeed, there seems to be little correlation globally between application of the death penalty and amount of crime.
Arjun
Hey Arjun. Great to see you here. The blog on the death penalty has generated a lot of heat with most people feeling like you do. I saw Gary Slutkin's talk on TED. Societal intervention is a GREAT idea. It's also what we call 'management intensive' and requires a sustained drive from the government or private funding to really make it happen on a large scale. I speak from the limited perspective of India where programmes such as these would require a superhuman effort to take off on a scale that would make any kind of impact. Having said that, it is certainly worth a try. Now for the other side of the argument. I'm sure you will agree that crime deserves punishment. If you don't then there is really no argument that can convince you of my point of view. However, if you do then it's only a question of the quantum and severity of the punishment. The Indian Penal Code allows the death penalty only in the 'rarest of rare cases'. My point is that no objective is achieved by hanging 4 people in the last 20 years when there are 40,000 murders every year. May as well not do it. If you are serious about deterrence, laws have to be administered with severity. India certainly needs greater enforcement of all laws, not only the death penalty.
DeleteHi Dibu Mama,
DeleteSorry for the late response! Yes, I'm sure that this topic generated a bunch of opinions–your post is a fresh take on the discussion! I'm wondering what the relative costs are of incarceration/application of death penalty vs. societal intervention. It does seem a bit farfetched, but perhaps in the end it could actually be more cost effective than executing people. Globally, it seems that there is not much correlation between the number of crimes and the degree of punishment. Rather, it seems that some places (like the US) just have more of a culture of violence, and it sounds like that's what really needs to change, both here and perhaps in India. How to blend with this with the legitimate need for victims to get some measure of justice is a tricky point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDebu,
ReplyDelete(this is based on a note I had written, so it is a bit long)
Read the blog. I agree with the points you make. However, from my perspective, I feel that giving someone the death penalty reduces his punishment. If I were in a situation where I had to choose between the death penalty and life-long rigorous imprisonment without parole (and I mean life-long, not just 14 years), I would choose the death penalty. A life has to be lived and for that one must be free. Being part of a chain gang in a violent and crowded environment for the rest of one's life is not my idea of living. However, I realise that few will share this perspective. Almost everyone feels that cessation of life is the worst thing that can happen to someone. Believe me, there are many other worse things.
I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrent. Yes, as you say, quicker and more visible death penalties will perhaps make a minority of would-be criminals think twice. However, the majority will continue on their venal path, regardless. Human nature is such that we do not think of the consequences if the immediate action is motivated by conditioning, psychopathic leanings, acute greed or the yearning for vengeance.
Am I for the death penalty or not? I am not sure either way.
My objection to the death penalty is rooted in the reasons mentioned in para 1 above. Another factor is that sometimes the innocent get the death sentence wrongly. However, given the rarity of the death sentence in India and the rigorous supervision of the Supreme Court, this risk is not an adequate reason to oppose the death penalty.
My support for the death penalty is on three counts:
1. It brings some closure to the families of the victims.
2. It prevents the criminal’s cohorts from resorting to kidnapping, hijacking and other such activities in order to try and free the criminal and
3. As you have pointed out, the cost of keeping a death row prisoner in prison is enormous. I do not think that it is callous to mention this. I do not understand why the tax payer should keep paying for the food, lodging, medical care and safety of someone who went all out to maim and kill the tax payer’s loved ones. Imagine if we were to impose an additional tax on everyone to meet this expenditure. Would Indians find this palatable? Yet, this is exactly what we are doing when we take a part of the tax collected to keep these evil murderers alive.
In Masterchef Australia, they always say that the decision comes down to "which dish will we order again". If we ask the same question regarding the death penalty given to Yakub Memon, what would my answer be? At this time, I would order it again, not because it is tastier than the alternative but because it is more appropriate under the circumstances and is in conformity with the legal provisions of our nation. All his appeals have been exhausted and his sentencing has met the SC’s ten point guideline which is quite rigorous.
Having said that, I will not regret if we outlawed the death penalty and replaced that with rigorous imprisonment without parole till the criminal’s natural death. As mentioned earlier, I feel that this would be a far more heinous punishment. Yes, it will be costly, but the nation must be prepared to pay for the luxury of being soft-hearted. Confiscation of the assets of the terrorists should go towards ameliorating some of this expense.
In their self-created din, our activists forget that they are a minority in a population of 1.2 billion. As in any democracy, whether we retain or remove the death penalty is for the majority to decide, not for you or me or any of those others raving for or against the sentence.
I can only wish and hope that those who represent the will of the majority in our Parliament are wise enough to decide maturely, truly reflecting the convictions of the majority. I may or may not like the final decision but then that is the price I have to pay to live in a democratic environment.
KA
Kishore, thanks for a well considered opinion. I agree that keeping a man in prison for the rest of his natural life is a very severe punishment and perhaps worse than a swift death. However the costs and the risks are enormous. Given that we have 40,000 murders a year imagine the cost of keeping them in jail for that long a time. India can hardly afford it. Clearly we must attack the problem from two ends - prevention (if at all possible) and deterrence. I am of the view that even if we hang 1% of the murderers (including terrorists and other heinous criminals) we should be hanging 400 people a year. At that level I would be really surprised if we don't achieve deterrence. On the inhuman, non-gandhian aspects of the penalty I have little to say. Having experienced the 1993 bombings in Mumbai at first hand (our daughters were stuck in the primary school for hours as the school was near the stock exchange and the Air India Building) I have no sympathy for these savages.
Delete