Most Indians cannot forget a girl
whose name they don’t know yet. They came to know about this young
physiotherapy student of Delhi only when the TV channels flashed the breaking
news: ‘Delhi student was gang raped in a bus’.
Let us have a recap of the incident:
A 23-year-old medical student stepped out of a mall after watching a film with
a friend. At 9 pm, they boarded a
private licensed bus. Sometime later, the the driver diverted the bus from its normal route
and six men raped the girl after beating up her friend. She fought back, but
was repeatedly sexually assaulted and her abdomen and private parts were badly beaten.
At 10 pm, she was stripped naked and was thrown off the bus.
What an unfortunate life! She lost even her
name. Even the best medical help couldn't save her. She died within a few days.
And the country called her by a new name, ‘Nirbhaya’ which means fearless.
After a very quick and
comprehensive investigation, the Delhi Police could nab all the criminals. The
court did a wonderful job by expediting the trial in this case. The court
awarded the maximum punishment as per law.
Why Capital
Punishment?
People, by and large, welcomed
the decision to award capital punishment in this case. However, as a matter of principle,
a few people opposed such extreme punishment for any crime. On moral grounds I
tend to agree with their view. But, legally and also on the basis of an
analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, I appreciate the judgment
of the court. Certainly, one needs to apply the law of the land as it stands on
that day and the judiciary cannot close the eyes on the existing legal position.
The debate on the
utility or futility of ‘capital punishment’ is vibrant for several decades.
Naturally, following one liner I posted in a social networking site evoked
varied responses from a few of my friends.
Following are some of the discussions posted in my social networking page on my above one-liner.
Fawn
Neun
|
A quick
hanging death is too easy.
|
Guru
Prasad
|
Come
on sir! Who decides who are the right people? One judge or 3 judges. Right to
life is a fundamental right of all. State assisted murder is not acceptable.
|
Sibichen
Mathew
|
Unfortunately that is
the law of the land. We are free to bring in amendments to the constitution if we disagree.
|
Mini
Verma
|
Well
said Sibichen
|
Prafull
Kumar Sinha
|
You have done what the
framers of the constitution did not do, and the
Parliamentarians have
been restrained from doing, till date.
|
Pauljohn
Moonjeli
|
In my
humble opinion, death penalty can be only for enemies of state, when they
wage war (conventional or otherwise) on the country. In all
other cases, death penalty should be
replaced by incarceration till death with no
parole. Yes, that will be additional burden on the state/ society; but,
maybe the society contributed unwittingly to the crime.
|
Sibichen
Mathew
|
I agree Prafull, Pauljohn, Guruprasad. But, as
of now, one can't have the judgement
from 123 crore people.
The
job is vested with the judiciary in this
parliamentary democracy.
Of
course, there need to be a radical thinking
and consequent amends in the law to have retributory and reformative
punishments even for very heinous crimes. Such a moral
position would be appropriate for a
civilized society. I do not have any doubt.
But
from the angle of the 'perpetrator', he should introspect whether he has any right to live when he has
taken the life of another in the cruelest manner.
|
Banita
Naorem
|
I am
totally with you. Rights should always come with duty and responsibility
|
Ashok
Shahapur
|
158 Nations have
abolished Capital Punishment. Fear of
death by capital punishment has not stopped criminals from committing heinous
crimes. If we eliminate bad elements through capital
punishments whether rest of us are all saints ? Now even the word 'SAINT' has
lost its sanctity with incidents like Nityanad, Asaram and other self styled
godmen. Even the 'TEN COMMANDMENTS' given to the society say
'DO NOT KILL '
|
Sibichen
Mathew
|
Ashokji,
Individuals do not have the right to kill. But, as per the existing law, the State can (we see this not only in
Bible, but also in all sacred texts, since you quoted religious texts): To protect the
interest of the society and to give
exemplary punishment in rarest of rare
cases. Ashokji, none claim (including those 158 countries) that all crimes
can be wiped off overnight by hanging a few. Secondly, why do we shoot a ferocious animal
attacking the poor
villagers? If all of us justify that
act by Forest officials, how can we justify very heinous crime by men who
are worse than animals by giving them a lesser punishment?
|
At this point of time, I put
the following post to make myself clearer.
The discussion continued in
spite of the above. A few of the comments are reproduced below.
Devojyoti
Mukherjee
|
Endorse u .....yesssss...
|
Dagny
Sol
|
You
said it Sibi...
|
Ashok
Shahapur
|
Sir, we are in a CATCH
-22 . We are struck and too afraid to review the system : We believe that it is
the best way to deter crime. Henry
Ford said, 'Capital punishment is fundamentally
wrong as a cure for
crime as charity is wrong for poverty’.
But at the same time
when we look at certain cases, your response is justified which says ' PUT
THEM TO DEATH ! '
|
Ak
Rappai
|
They
should be hanged in public , telecasted, videographed,and
displayed in all public places to act as a
deterrent towards rape and
other similar crimes against women
|
Guru
Prasad
|
This society is
deranged to celebrate somebody’s hanging
|
Sukumar
Mondal
|
Heinous
crimes should be dealt with that way
|
Satya
Prakash
|
Perhaps our judiciary
should have more stringent punishment,
as
stringent and severe
as nirbhaya suffered......
|
Ashok
Shahapur
|
Mr
Sibichen Mathew, on what grounds you are for capital punishment?
Moral,
Biblical, ethical, utilitarian, or legal? Or any other?
|
Sibichen
Mathew
|
I am not for or
against. I respect the law of the land as it stands. This doesn't mean that I
do not have any suggestion for amending the existing law. That is a different
topic altogether. At present, I respect the judgment in the given facts and
circumstances of the case. I am consistent on this and no contradictions.
|
Ashok
Shahapur
|
Sir,
your comments are both a fusion of explorer and constructive view. Yes,
the country needs reform system with regard to capital punishment beyond
that of primitive society .
|
Sebastian
James
|
By calling for public
hanging we are not so different from the
Saudis/Afghans
afterall (who impose death by public
hanging/stoning/beheading,
etc for crimes committed). Effective
punishment=Probability
of being caught X Severity of Punishment. The Saudi/Afghan style is
to increase the severity of punishment to scare people. But we could
also work towards increasing the chance of criminals getting caught and
getting conviction in a short duration. As a civilized society we should work
on this approach rather than the former.
|
Ashok
Shahapur
|
Sir,
You were against capital punishment. You are for retributive and
reformative
punishments even for heinous crimes.
You say in Nirbhaya type cases capital punishment is justified . Sir,
these thoughts reflect your holistic and divergent thinking from various
angles. Sir, these thoughts reminds me Walt Whitman's quote " I contradict
myself, I contain in multitudes!'
|
Pauljohn
Moonjeli
|
When/if the
'perpetrator' introspects whether he has any right to live when he has taken the life
of another in the most cruel manner, that could be a turning point in his
life. I think all of us CAN be reformed, regardless of our history/
background, etc. look at what happened to Reny George:
http://www.tehelka.com/inspirations-reny-george-57/
|
Anil
Gupta
|
As
expected we always debate about rights of doers of crime but rarely
bothered
about the victim and their family. Unless we reverse this trend crime is not
going to stop. It is pity that the brightest brains and philosophers come forward
always for protecting the rights of criminals.
Comment from Abraham Jacob
we find that most of the crimes are committed by habitual offenders, criminals who are on parole or who have been let off earlier due to lack of evidence.. I feel it is better to eradicate such people from the face of the earth so that the threat from at least such elements as well as the cost of maintaining them by the country can avoided.
|
Sibichen
Mathew
|
Paul, you need to
apply the sociological theoretical perspectives when you compare the motive,
process, and cultural background of both cases. These are in two different
realms. One would arrive at erroneous decisions through incorrect
comparisons. That is why thousands of criminals and their shrewd advocates
get away by misleading the courts by citing incorrect precedents (I mean case laws).
|
The above discussion prompted
me to analyse the current decision of the court in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The question I am analyzing is
this: ‘Am I correct to hold the position that ‘I was against Capital Punishment
till I read about how Nirbhaya was killed’?'. In other words, ‘Can we have capital punishment in ‘rarest
of rare’ cases?’
In Bachan Singh v. State of
Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a murder
involves exceptional depravity, it shall be an aggravating circumstance for
imposition of penalty of death.
In Machhi Singh v. State of
Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
‘When the
community feels that for the sake of self preservation the killer has to be
killed, the community may well withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death
penalty. But the community will not do so in every case. It may do so ( in
rarest of rare cases) when its collective conscience is so shocked that it will
expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty
irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of
retaining death penalty. The community may entrain such a sentiment when the
crime is viewed from the platform of the motive for, or the manner of commission
of the crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime, such as for
instance:
(i)
manner of commission of Murder i.e., when the
murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting,
or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the
community ;
(ii)
whether the victim is subjected to inhuman acts
of torture of cruelty in order to bring about his or her death.’
Whether Nirbhaya case was one of the
‘rarest of rare’ cases?
I referred
to the press briefs based on the reports
released by the Medical board on the progress of Nirbhaya while she was
in the hospital.
Following report clearly makes
the relevant point:
19-12-2012
Amidst the arrests and the investigation by the
police in the shocking case, the health of the victim has deteriorated again.
While her condition got better on Tuesday morning, she was again put on
ventilator in the evening, according to the medical update from the Safdarjung
hospital.
The Safdarjung hospital has said that the condition
of the victim has deteriorated. According to the hospital, while the condition
of the victim got better on Tuesday morning, but had to be put on ventilator
again in the evening.
The hospital further said, "This is a severe and a very unusual case
which the hospital has never seen in terms of the injuries...she has received
severe genital and intestinal injuries."
The court went through the medical files of Nirbhaya in
detail. It observed as follows:
The facts show that entire
intestine of the prosecutrix was perforated, splayed and cut open due to
repeated insertions of rods and hands. The convicts, in the most barbaric
manner, pulled out her internal organs with their bare hands as well as by the
rods and caused her irreparable injuries, thus exhibiting extreme mental
perversion not worthy of human condonation. As convict in pursuance of their
conspiracy lured the victims into the bus Ex. P-1, brutally gang raped the
prosecutrix, inflicted inhuman torture and threw the defenceless victims out of
the moving bus in naked condition, profusely bleeding in a cold winter night ;
their unprovoked crime demonstrated exceptional depravity of mind of the
convicts. In the postmortem report Ex. PW34/A, besides other serious injuries,
various bite marks were observed on her face, lips, jaw, near ear, on the right
and left breasts, left upper arm, right lower limb, right upper inner thigh
(groin), right lower thigh, left thigh lateral, left lower anterior , genital.
It rather show the beastly behaviour of convicts. Further, the convicts did not
stop after pulling out her internal organs after the crime of gang rape /
unnatural sex but then had dragged the victims to the rear door of the bus
Ex.P-1 to be thrown out and when the rear door was found jammed the victims
were dragged by their hairs to the front door and thrown out of the moving bus.
Her intestines were so severally damaged and the suffering inflicted on the
prosecutrix was unparalleled. The brutality caused to her internal organs is
extreme as is evident from the medical evidence on record and hence the act of
convicts call for extreme penalty.
As per the present legal
position, in order to award a death penalty the court has to first weigh the
aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances. If it finds
that there are no mitigating circumstances, then the court need to apply the
Rarest of Rare test to find if the case falls within such category.
While delivering the decision, the court has relied upon past
judicial pronouncements:
In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
" In the first place, the
very humanistic edifice is constructed on the foundation of "reverence for
life" principle. When a member of the community violates this very
principle by killing another member, the society may not feel itself bound by
the shackles of this doctrine. Secondly, it has to be realized that every
member of the community is able to live with safety without his or her own life
being endangered because of the protective arm of the community and on account
of the rule of law enforced by it".
In Devender Pal Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2002) 5 SCC
234, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"Principle culled out from the judgments
in Bachan Singh (supra) and Machhi Singh (supra), is that when the collective
conscience of the community is so shocked, the court must award the death
sentence."
In Ram Singh v. Sonia & Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 1, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court once again held as follows:
"It would be a failure of justice not to
award the death sentence in a case where the crime was executed in the most
grotesque and revolting manner".
In C. Munniappan v.
State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as below:
"Stressing upon the manner
of commission of offence, if extremely brutal, the diabolical, grotesque
killing, shocking to the collective conscience of the society, the death
sentence should be awarded."
In Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral v. State of Maharashtra
(2011) 14 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as below:
"
the distinction has to be drawn between ordinary murders and murders which are
gruesome, ghastly or horrendous. While life sentence should be given in the
former, the latter belongs to the category of the rarest of rare cases, and
hence death sentence should be given."
The order in the present case clearly presented its reasoning in following words:
‘The court has to look into the
factors like society's abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain
types of cases viz., like the case in hand - of gang rape with brutal murder of
a helpless girl by six men. These are the times when gruesome crimes against
women have become rampant and courts cannot turn a blind eye to the need to
send a strong deterrent message to the perpetrators of such crimes. The
increasing trend of crimes against women can be arrested only once the society
realize that there will be no tolerance from any form of deviance against women
and more so in extreme cases of brutality such as the present one and hence the
criminal justice system must instill confidence in the minds of people
especially the women. The crime of such nature against a helpless women, per
se, require exemplary punishment. I may leave here while saying that the
gravity of the incident depicts the hair rising beastly and unparalleled
behaviour. The subjecting of the prosecutrix to inhuman acts of torture before
her death had not only shocked the collective conscience but calls for the
withdrawal of the protective arm of the community around the convicts. This
ghastly act of the convicts definitely fits this case in the bracket of rarest
of rare cases. Hence, I award the following punishment to each of the convict.’
Here below are two pictures shared and liked by hundreds of women in social networking sites immediately after the above judgement (Credits to the anonymous owner)
+photo.jpg)
The perspective of
the UN
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains the following:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
(The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 3,5,6, 7, 8)
Out of 193 Member States of UN,
about 150 countries have abolished Capital Punishment. In a recent speech, Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon said as follows: ‘“The taking of life is too absolute, too
irreversible, for one human being to inflict on another, even when backed by
legal process. We have a duty to prevent innocent people from paying the
ultimate price for miscarriages of justice. The most sensible way is to end the
death penalty’ The topic of discussion was “Moving away from the death penalty
– Wrongful Convictions.”
View of Amnesty International
Amnesty International opposes
death penalty in all cases without any exception. It campaigns for total
abolition of death penalty. Amnesty International argues that there is no
evidence that the death penalty is a stronger deterrent against crime than
custodial sentences. As per the statistics compiled by Amnesty International,
there were at least 680 in 2012. Half of the executions took place in Iran
(314). Iraq executed 129, Saudi Arabia 79 and the US 43. This excludes data
from China which, according to Amnesty, contributes to a large portion of total
executions in the world.
How India is more responsible
than other countries in awarding capital punishment?
In principle, I agree to the view
that capital punishment should be best avoided. However, India, as a responsible Member State
of the United Nations, has never used this option in undeserving cases unlike
many other countries. As per the
statistics of the National Crime Record Bureau (2013), in India a total of 97
prisoners were awarded capital punishment in 2012 and only one person was
executed.
In a recent report (2013) of the Amnesty International titled
‘Death sentences and executions in 2012’, it narrated instances of capital
punishments carried out by politicians across the world to show that they are
tough on crime or to silence the dissent.
In Iran, four people were
executed for the ‘offence’ of ‘enmity against God and corruption on earth’.
Five persons were sentenced for anti-government protests. Both in Iran, Iraq,
and Saudi Arabia, it has been reported that confessions were taken based on
forced confessions under torture and later awarded death penalty. In many
cases, the accused were not allowed to take the assistance of a counsel. In Sudan, the government used the capital punishment to
suppress the opposition.
The Amnesty report says that the
death penalty continues to be used for ‘crimes’ such as ‘adultery’ ‘apostasy’,
and ‘sexual relations between consenting adults’, all acts which do not meet
the international standard of ‘most serious crimes’ but which should not be
considered crime at all. In United States the death penalty has been abolished
in many states because of its discriminatory applications and the possibility
of wrong convictions.
The sentencing for
death penalty is not final
The imposition of capital
punishments does not always end up in execution. After the order of death
penalty by a sessions court, same has to be confirmed by the High Court. The
convict can file an appeal against the order of High Court in the Supreme Court.
In India, Article 72(1) of the Constitution grants the President the power to
grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend,
remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence in all cases where the sentence is a sentence
of death. Mercy petition can also be filed before the Governor of the state.
The police, the jail authorities,
the co-convicts in prison, the counsels and many others who interact with a
convict sentenced for death penalty but pending for execution can tell clearly
whether that person is in a repentance mode. All these would be invariably go into the reports that aid in deciding on a pardon by the President.
Concluding analysis
(Caution: Following analysis is in the context of legitimate
democracies and not applicable to the state sponsored killings in many
authoritarian states.)
In a civilized society, the
civilized decision makers are democratically elected, and legitimately
appointed to provide protection to the people as per law. Their actions can be
criticized if they fail to follow the law. Once a power is legitimately
bestowed upon an incumbent, and if he does his duty in exercise of that law,
none can question that action. If the law itself is redundant, incorrect,
illogical, irrational, inhuman or antisocial, the only remedy is to change the
law. The law can be amended only by the representatives of the people duly
elected and the majority decision prevails. This is absolutely the correct procedure
in a democratic society. If there is something wrong with the democratic
process which itself is less democratic or it is difficult to be democratic due to the inherent errors and biases in that process, there
are avenues for reform. The constitutions of the democratic countries provide
rights for every citizen to express his dissent in a civilized manner. For
reasons discussed above, it is the sovereign duty of the state through its
judiciary to apply the law as it deemed fit in appropriate circumstances in
order to serve the best interest of the society. An order awarding capital
punishment is an example of legitimate exercise of the power granted as per
law.
Though the law governing an
individual and the law governing a state are not mutually exclusive,
contradictory or which can be substituted, they are not one and the same. When law expects
an individual not to harm another individual unless there are certain
mitigating circumstances or exceptions specifically enumerated in the penal
codes, the state is not prohibited from inflicting a harm on an individual or entity
or a group of individuals or a group of entities for the common good. Entire
punitive system is based on this principle. If the parliament has made a law or
the highest court has already pronounced a judgment in identical case, there is
less room for applying discretion that is beyond the scope of law or deviate
from a well-established precedent. Any
adverse decision would be considered as perverse and would bound to be
set-aside.
The state needs to respect the
life of every citizen. For this purpose, in exceptional and rarest of rare cases,
it needs to take the ultimate step of depriving a person his life for common
good. An army has the power to shoot at the person who deliberately trespasses
or invades the state’s geographic boundaries to damage the unity and integrity
of the nation and the peace and welfare of the people. A criminal if he acts
against the country and its people and if his existence is a further threat to
the state, it is the duty of the state to eliminate the permanent threat in
order to remove the fears in the minds of the people and to maintain law and
order.
But the above power to take away
the life of an individual has to be used only in the most deserving cases.
Amnesty International, which is against the capital punishment, opposes it
mainly on the ground that many countries use this indiscriminately. Its reports
narrate instances of capital punishments carried out by politicians to silence
the dissent, for the ‘offences’ or ‘sins’ which amounted to ‘enmity against God and corruption on earth’,
and by taking forced confessions and torture in custody. When certain
undemocratic, illegitimate, inefficient, and fascist rulers and officials use
capital punishment for illegitimate purposes, it is perfectly right on the part
of organizations like Amnesty International and other human rights
organizations to call for a total ban on death penalty.
The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights by the United Nations is not in contravention to the laws of the
legitimate states. It advocates for upholding the law that ensures freedom to
all citizens. There is no different opinion that ‘all are equal before the law
and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law’.
Thus an innocent and hapless woman is entitled for justice and expects the
state to punish a criminal appropriately. Protection under law is for the
people who follow the law and not for people who act outside the law.
Similarly, millions of hapless women can experience the security and protection
offered by the state for which they are entitled, only when they are convinced
that the state has taken concrete steps so that no incident of gruesome murder
is perpetrated by criminals who think that they could get away without facing
extreme punishments. As mentioned earlier in this article, the United Nations
is worried more about the death penalty in cases of wrongful convictions.
Now the question is, if the
judgement is wrong, an innocent person will lose his life which none can
restore in this world. This throws open a very fundamental and universal issue
of error of judgment. In a perfect criminal justice system that analyses the
investigation reports threadbare, allows production of evidences by all the
parties, follows time tested and established procedures for examination of
witnesses, put in place an adversarial system where arguments and submissions
are cross examined, draws from the rich judicial precedents, permits state
sponsored legal assistance, there is no scope for gross errors. Even if there
is an injustice due to various factors including the inability of any party to
produce any evidence at the time of trial, the multi-tier criminal justice
system that provide for appeals to higher courts give opportunities for the
accused, the convict, or the prosecution. By the time the order is delivered by
the apex court, all aspects of the case would have definitely brought on record
so that there is no error in the decision.
Next objection would be about the
opportunity for repentance and
reformation. Crminal justice system and the related punitive system are
aimed at reforming a criminal. Reformation is a process that happens from within and the individual becomes conscious of that when he perceives a change in the 'state of mind'. But the
reformation of a person is manifested in his outward action. To examine whether
a rapist is reformed, the state cannot set a honey trap outside to examine
whether he is attacking the lone beautiful woman or it cannot mount surveillance
for months and years to check whether his animal instinct to rape is still
intact. However the jail authorities and the people who interact with him in
his cell can understand his change in attitude, temperament and behaviour and
report the same. Psychologists and sociologists can closely watch or do a counselling
or try scientific tests to find out whether there is any reformation. But all
these are also marred by errors of judgment, sometimes graver than the errors
in the scientific analysis and conclusions of the criminal justice system.
Paroles, commutation of sentences
etc. are done in many cases based on the reports of jail authorities and other
social scientists that the convicts have reformed. But in significant number of
cases it was found that the people who went on parole have indulged in criminal
acts, and people who got released after commutation of their sentences, engaged
in further offences.
Another strong argument in favour
of total ban on death penalty is that there is no evidence which shows that the
crimes have been reduced because of death penalty and thus it is not an
effective deterrent. This is a misplaced notion for two reasons. First, there
is no authentic and comprehensive statistics to show that such heinous crimes
have either increased or decreased because of the ban or continuation of death
penalty. Second, an unreformed criminal who has done a very gruesome act which
classified as a rarest of rare cases after a comprehensive judicial
investigation and analysis, can by way of his conduct and interaction within
the walls of the prison (even if no parole is sanctioned for him), infect
and influence others with his words and behaviour. This will have an effect
that is counter to the deterrence. In an over-crowded and grossly under-staffed
prison system (most countries including
India has inmates much more than its capacity), and reports of large scale
corruption and indiscipline within prisons, a shrewd criminal who has done a
gruesome and ‘rarest of rare’ crime, can exploit the loopholes and adverse circumstances
to remotely indulge in further crime through his friends and accomplices
outside the prison. Even solitary confinement for life is not a viable
alternative in the current punitive system and would not in any way safeguard
his rights; if at all one has to consider that a person who committed a most
gruesome murder can demand any rights for himself.
See the example of a rapist who
is responsible for the death of a hapless woman passenger in Kerala in Southern
India. Govindachamy was in the habit of
indulging in various criminal activities under the guise of his ‘profession’ as
beggar in trains and by attracting the sympathy of people showing his physical
handicap. He sexually assaulted and killed a girl while she was travelling in a
local train. The police arrested him within 48 hours. He was awarded death
penalty by the court within a few months.
This photo was published widely in many newspapers.
Someone compared Govindachamy at the time of arrest and after a
few months in Jail (Source: malayalam.oneindia.in)
It is reported by the media that
he has not reformed even a bit after this incident and the sentencing. He has
already completed 2 years and 5 months in jail. I would like you to read the
article in open magazine to know about Govindachamy in detail. . Also see this article. It is not because he got demoralized by the
judgment of the court that he behaved aggressively. He is very optimistic about
his coming out of the prison by employing the best advocate for him. The huge
monetary backup from many unidentified persons points towards the organized
criminal gang behind him. Don’t you think one should feed him with his
favourite mutton curry and biryani (he did a hunger strike for getting these
delicacies in the jail) and plot further crimes along with his criminal gang?
As a citizen let him fight in higher courts and prove his innocence. If the
High Court and Supreme Court after examining the evidences and arguments concur
with the lower court’s judgment and the President of the country reject the mercy
petition on the ground that the person has not shown any inclination to reform
himself, would you still argue that he should have been sent to prison so that
he will get an opportunity to communicate with his gang who had invested huge
sums for his case? It is reported by the jail authorities that he is acting as
if he is mentally deranged to get leniency from the appellate courts. The actor
can act that he is totally reformed and get a parole and continue to indulge in
his past pastime.
Next argument is from the angle
of religion. I do not want to go in detail to that. But the scriptures of both
religions of Judaic tradition (Christianity and Islam) and the major eastern
religion Hinduism are full of instances where the rulers and leaders eliminated
the enemies of the state and the society guided by divine and prophetic voices. Even if there is an argument that Jesus had
re-written the old law of ‘tooth for tooth and nail for nail’, that position
was in the realm of individuals and not in the realm of Caesar, if he acts to
protect the society against criminals who refuse to reform themselves. In fact
this is not only a sovereign duty but also a ‘divine’ responsibility. The
Catholic Church is a staunch opponent of death penalty. But it said in an
authentic document that, ‘No matter how heinous the crime, if society can
protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so’ (USCCB, A Culture
of Life and the Penalty of Death). The key word in this statement is ‘if’. That
is what the democratic governments also do. They award death penalty only in
rarest of rare cases where it is found that it is the only solution to protect
a society that cannot protect itself from an extreme and unreformed criminal.
See another article titled 'Is the death penalty just?' from a religious point of view.
Final note
Death penalty is an undesirable
punishment for all civilized societies. Awarding death penalty to serve the political
and religious interests is highly deplorable. Even in democratic countries
where capital punishment is awarded in rarest of rare cases, steps should be
taken to reduce it to nil. However this can happen only in an ideal criminal
justice system and punitive environment where a) criminal investigation is done without any flaw, b) judicial
process is inclusive, transparent, quick, and affordable, c) prison rules are
stringent and the prison officials are honest and efficient, d) the prisons are
transformed into institutions for reformation, and e) an efficient crime
prevention system is in place. All nation-states should strive for this. And
governments should ensure that only life sentences are awarded to persons even in
rarest of rare cases and no mercy petition for commutation is entertained. It
should be incarceration for the entire life in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases. Till
a criminal and punitive system as stated above is in place, let us be less
vocal in opposing the judgments passed as per law in very deserving cases in
the interest of the society.
© Sibichen K Mathew (views are personal)
(To publish your comments, click 'Comments' below. It will appear in the blog after a while) Or e-mail me: sibi5555 (gmail))
