(First published on NewYaps a day before the four accused were sentenced to death)
As I write this, the fast track court set up to try the 2012
Delhi Gang Rape Case has found the four adult defendants guilty of rape as well
as murder. Their sentence is awaited on Friday.
As all this goes on, most of India is up in arms to procure
the death sentence for the accused. From placards at India Gate to rabid comment
sections on websites, Indians, or at least those who are bothered enough to
comment on this incident, have overwhelmingly spoken out in favour of killing
the accused in return for their brutal behaviour on the night of 16 December. In
fact, for some, even death is not enough; descending into a medieval eye for an
eye form of justice, they demand the accused be tortured in the same way as
they did Nirbhaya. I’ve even seen Afghanistan (!) and their mode of brutal,
atavistic Sharia justice being held up as a model for India to follow.
All of this is in a way predictable. Our entire response to
the rape has been far from enlightened. Most of the sound and fury, in the
first place, was fired up by the characterisation of Nirbhaya as the “daughter
of the nation” (desh ki beti), neatly slotting her into an
acceptable role for a woman (other roles being ‘mother’ and, maybe, ‘wife’). Not only that but most of the people protesting
the rape have no views on, say, the mass gang rape conducted by the Indian Army
in Kunan Poshpora, Kashmir or the organised state wide campaign of sexual violence
carried out in Gujarat in 2002. Even opposition to something as horrible as
rape is tempered by nationalistic and political considerations, it seems. Given
these limitations in the reaction, the fact that most of us have a medieval
urge to seek retribution (as opposed to justice) by murdering the perpetrators
outright is hardly surprising. In spite of this popular support that the death
penalty seems to have, the fact of the matter remains that this mode of justice
is not something that should exist in any country that calls itself civilised
and both morality as well as utility demand that it be
removed.
Since most calls for the death penalty are always predicated
on the brutality of the crime, let me start off by stating the obvious: my
opposition to the death penalty does not mean I do not oppose the crime itself.
What happened on the night of 16 December was and is horrible and there needs
to be punishment for the perpetrators as well as justice overall. That said,
however, the death penalty is not the way to do it.
The moral opposition to the death penalty is largely based
on the fact that killing—any killing—is wrong. The State has no right to take
what it cannot confer. And to do this in an organised way, using its full might
is nothing short of barbaric. The death penalty also encourages a very grisly
form of eye-for-an-eye justice that we should have done away with centuries
back. If you think it’s logical for death to act as a punishment in return for
murder, do you also think the State should set up a rape squad in order to rape
rapists or beat people who have been convicted for assault?
The biggest moral opposition to the death penalty, though,
is that our systems are imperfect and, sooner or later, you are going to kill
an innocent man. In the US itself, as per
Amnesty International, 130 people sentenced to death have been found innocent
since 1973; this in a rich, industrialised nation. Now imagine the number of
mistakes India’s dilapidated, overworked and overburdened judicial system would
make. Of course, mistakes can be made with other systems of justice as well;
being imprisoned for life for a crime you did not commit is extremely bad. Unlike
imprisonment, however, death is a mistake that cannot be rectified and is thus
an extremely costly, unforgiveable error to make.
Moving on from out and out retribution, though, some
supporters have a more refined argument: they claim that their support is based
on the fact that the death penalty acts
as an effective deterrent towards future crime. This, if
true, would certainly be a strong point. After all, who wouldn’t want fewer
violent rapes in India? Unfortunately, it’s a big ‘if’. This conjecture, that
the death penalty acts as deterrent, has no basis whatsoever in fact. The
available data paints a rather different picture: the death penalty does not
deter people from violent crime; the likelihood of being caught and punished
does. So, if anything, better policing, not harsher sentencing acts as an
effective deterrent. To quote from Amnesty International: “...research
has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent
effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The
evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent
hypothesis. The key to real and true deterrence is to increase the likelihood
of detection, arrest and conviction. The death penalty is a harsh punishment,
but it is not harsh on crime.”.
From a 2009 study of criminologists in the US conducted by
the National Research Council, over 88% believe that the death penalty was NOT
a deterrent to murder. Even more compelling data is provided by comparing
murder rates in US states with and without the death penalty
As can be clearly seen, murder rates are lower in states
without the death penalty, effectively destroying the
death-penalty-as-a-deterrent argument.
In fact, the perpetrators in the bus that night did try to
kill the victim—a crime for which most certainly there is already the death
penalty. As is obvious, the threat of this maximum punishment was not an
effective enough deterrent to stop them from committing their horrible crimes.
Come Friday though, most of these arguments are going to not
even figure as, in all probability, the accused will be sentenced to be
murdered. It will be immoral and it will be ineffective but it will still be
done. And on top of the ghastly crimes that were committed by these four on 16
December is going to be added one more, this time committed by the Government
of India.
2 comments:
Yes, I do agree partly with your views. But is there any option which will serve as a deterrent and also be punishment enough for perpetrators of such grisly crimes? I, for one don't think that they deserve a chance to reform. I also feel that they should be made to suffer and atone for the crime that they committed.
Suffering and atonement can only be done by people who are alive. Killing them serves no purpose whatsoever.
From whatever little I've read, being caught for these sorts of violent crimes acts as the best deterrent.
Post a Comment