Yes, from today more user friendly features would be added to the blog. I hope you like the change. Any suggestions for making the blog more interactive are invited.
Happy Reading!
Sunanda
Monday, November 27, 2006
Against DP.
The following is one of the responses received for the post "Santosh Singh's Trial: Is Death Sentence Too Harsh?" The author argues against death penalty (dp) for the culprit. Comments are invited.
My point-wise reply follows:
1.You say that social consequences would be far grave if an example
is not set at this very moment and that Law should be given an
opportunity to do some damage-control now.
A: What are these 'social consequences'? Will it lead to an increase
in the number of murders? Please look at the facts. In the State of
Travancore, there were 962 murders between 1945 and 1950 when the
d.p.was not in force; but in the five years from 1950 when it was
re-imposed, there were 967 murders. In Canada, after the abolition of
d.p.in 1976, the homicide rate declined. In 2000, there were 542
homicides in Canada - 159 fewer than in 1975. A survey released in
Sep.2000 by the NYT found that during the last 20 years, the homicide
rate in States with the d.p. had been 48 to 101 per cent higher than
in those that did not allow capial punishment. In the U.S., 500
people have been executed since the Supreme Court reinstated the
d.p.in 1976. Over the same period, 75 convicts were released after
evidence showed that they had been wrongfully convicted. (These
figures were cited in an article by Rajindar Sachar in The Hindu).
2. Is d.p. a damage-control devise by the Law? Control what damage? I
don't think it was envisaged by our law-makers as such. The latest
law is that it should be reserved for the rarest of the rare crimes,
considering the severity of the murder. But I am not on this law-point
at all, but on the ethical issues which you raised.
3. You are concerned with the message that a court order without d.p.
would give to the perpetrators of such crimes. That they can evade the
d.p. and continue to living at State's expense as a prisoner
undergoing LI.
A: Do any of us seriously believe that Santosh killed her, after
sufficiently pondering over the possibility that he could escape d.p.
because of his connections. It was a crime committed as a result of
passion, wrong parental upbringing, and not because in India, it is
possible to evade d.p. if you have right connections. If Santosh's
connections were the cause, then why Dhananjoy or any other lesser
personality would commit rape and murder?
Your argument would lead one to infer that all men are potential
rapists and killers, but they are held back, only because of d.p.
staring at their faces. Many men, in fact, are affected by the
passion, which drove Santosh to commit the crime, but they refrain
from doing so, not because of the presence or absence of d.p., but
because it makes no sense to commit such an extreme offence to satisfy
one's lust. Having said this, I would add, d.p. fails to address the
cause of Santosh's crime -which is wrong parental upbringing, which
could be the focus of a sociological inquiry (sadly no journalist has
focussed on this).
They need not live at State's expense. Their families could be asked
to meet the bill of their stay in the jail. If the families cannot
afford, I am sure there would be a number of human right NGOs, which
would come forward to meet this cost.
4. Giving another chance to criminal = risks social safety. The
debate on the Afzal case is a clear pointer that the social safety
lies in commuting d.p. as social safety in J&K, and as a result in the
rest of India, is endangered by the fallout of executing Afzal. In
other words, social safety should hardly be a consideration for
imposing d.p. How do we say that a person's death can ensure social
safety? Because we assume that he may commit similar crimes. This
probability should not be the basis for imposing d.p., because for
other forms of punishment, we rely on hard facts, not on probabilities
or likelihoods.
5. Denigrate the dignity of law? The law itself gives discretion to
the Judge whether to impose d.p. The Judge may go wrong in his
judgment whether the case is the rarest of rare or not. There is
cacaphony of differing judicial views on what constitutes rarest of
rare in the Supreme Court. So, dignity of which law? Putting the
social conscience on the wrong path? Do we believe the society
collectively will approve of rape and murder, if d.p. is not imposed
on Santosh?
6. Go a long way in disturbing the conscience of potential
perpetrators? D.P. has been in the statute books for a long time as
an option, and imposed several times, and many had been hanged. But
potential perpetrators continue, without their conscience being
disturbed. The reason is no murderer fears law, if he fears, he would
not commit the crime, if he commits, it shows he does not fear the
law.
7. Taking a principled stand against D.P. is not having an opinionated
mind-set. I have an open mind, but I want the other side to convince
me with facts, and substantiation.
My point-wise reply follows:
1.You say that social consequences would be far grave if an example
is not set at this very moment and that Law should be given an
opportunity to do some damage-control now.
A: What are these 'social consequences'? Will it lead to an increase
in the number of murders? Please look at the facts. In the State of
Travancore, there were 962 murders between 1945 and 1950 when the
d.p.was not in force; but in the five years from 1950 when it was
re-imposed, there were 967 murders. In Canada, after the abolition of
d.p.in 1976, the homicide rate declined. In 2000, there were 542
homicides in Canada - 159 fewer than in 1975. A survey released in
Sep.2000 by the NYT found that during the last 20 years, the homicide
rate in States with the d.p. had been 48 to 101 per cent higher than
in those that did not allow capial punishment. In the U.S., 500
people have been executed since the Supreme Court reinstated the
d.p.in 1976. Over the same period, 75 convicts were released after
evidence showed that they had been wrongfully convicted. (These
figures were cited in an article by Rajindar Sachar in The Hindu).
2. Is d.p. a damage-control devise by the Law? Control what damage? I
don't think it was envisaged by our law-makers as such. The latest
law is that it should be reserved for the rarest of the rare crimes,
considering the severity of the murder. But I am not on this law-point
at all, but on the ethical issues which you raised.
3. You are concerned with the message that a court order without d.p.
would give to the perpetrators of such crimes. That they can evade the
d.p. and continue to living at State's expense as a prisoner
undergoing LI.
A: Do any of us seriously believe that Santosh killed her, after
sufficiently pondering over the possibility that he could escape d.p.
because of his connections. It was a crime committed as a result of
passion, wrong parental upbringing, and not because in India, it is
possible to evade d.p. if you have right connections. If Santosh's
connections were the cause, then why Dhananjoy or any other lesser
personality would commit rape and murder?
Your argument would lead one to infer that all men are potential
rapists and killers, but they are held back, only because of d.p.
staring at their faces. Many men, in fact, are affected by the
passion, which drove Santosh to commit the crime, but they refrain
from doing so, not because of the presence or absence of d.p., but
because it makes no sense to commit such an extreme offence to satisfy
one's lust. Having said this, I would add, d.p. fails to address the
cause of Santosh's crime -which is wrong parental upbringing, which
could be the focus of a sociological inquiry (sadly no journalist has
focussed on this).
They need not live at State's expense. Their families could be asked
to meet the bill of their stay in the jail. If the families cannot
afford, I am sure there would be a number of human right NGOs, which
would come forward to meet this cost.
4. Giving another chance to criminal = risks social safety. The
debate on the Afzal case is a clear pointer that the social safety
lies in commuting d.p. as social safety in J&K, and as a result in the
rest of India, is endangered by the fallout of executing Afzal. In
other words, social safety should hardly be a consideration for
imposing d.p. How do we say that a person's death can ensure social
safety? Because we assume that he may commit similar crimes. This
probability should not be the basis for imposing d.p., because for
other forms of punishment, we rely on hard facts, not on probabilities
or likelihoods.
5. Denigrate the dignity of law? The law itself gives discretion to
the Judge whether to impose d.p. The Judge may go wrong in his
judgment whether the case is the rarest of rare or not. There is
cacaphony of differing judicial views on what constitutes rarest of
rare in the Supreme Court. So, dignity of which law? Putting the
social conscience on the wrong path? Do we believe the society
collectively will approve of rape and murder, if d.p. is not imposed
on Santosh?
6. Go a long way in disturbing the conscience of potential
perpetrators? D.P. has been in the statute books for a long time as
an option, and imposed several times, and many had been hanged. But
potential perpetrators continue, without their conscience being
disturbed. The reason is no murderer fears law, if he fears, he would
not commit the crime, if he commits, it shows he does not fear the
law.
7. Taking a principled stand against D.P. is not having an opinionated
mind-set. I have an open mind, but I want the other side to convince
me with facts, and substantiation.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Just a passing thought...
Yesterday, I read a quote on the status of animals in India...which I thought I should share with you all...It goes like this --" I would rather be a cow in the USA--well fed but slaughtered, than be a cow in India--worshipped and starved"
Suddenly, a thought crossed my mind...the condition of women (exclude those urban elites) is much the same...Women in India are glorified and hailed as Devi's, worshipped as the Mother Goddess...and at the very first instant of adversity, branded as 'witches' and hunted as game. I find the situation amusingly ironical. Is it not?!
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Santosh Singh's Trial: Is death sentence too harsh?
Yes, we all are delighted, now that the case has been decided favorably.
One thing that many people have been seen pondering/introspecting and arguing is whether death sentence was necessary to meet the ends of justice. I have something to say here…
True that all of us, at one point of time or the other, tend to think along these lines. Our conscience is rattled whenever we picture the dependents of Santosh, who are no doubt innocent. But then, this would always be…there would always…ALWAYS…be two sides of the same coin. So, if the verdict in Santosh Singh’s trial has some benefits, it would inevitably and invariably have some adverse aftermaths as well (the most immediate one befalling the hapless family). The former however, in my opinion, far outweigh the latter. Just because the legal and administrative machinery did not/could not deliver at the right time or in a just fashion, and because of which the culprit managed to spread his wings, does not mean that Law should not be given an opportunity to do some damage-control now…now, that things are crystal clear.
True that some innocents would suffer…but is it not true that the social consequences would be far grave if an example is not set at this very moment? What message would it give the perpetrators of such crimes?—that they can evade the death penalty and continue living at State expense as a prisoner undergoing LI? Would that not be a mockery of Law?
Reformatory exercises for culprits and convicts is good; it sounds good at least…yes, one should explore the possibility of reforming a criminal, no matter how hardened one is…but as any general rule, this too has exceptions. And, in my opinion, if giving another chance to the criminal means risking social safety or sending a wrong signal to the society or denigrating the dignity of law or putting the social conscience on the wrong path etc, I do not think that the reformative effort is worth even a try.
The verdict in Santosh Singh’s case is a very specific one. By delivering it, I do not think that the court intends to purge the society of such evils in one go…no…but there is no denying that it would go a long way in disturbing the conscience of potential perpetrators. Fear of Law is not a bad thing, especially not if it has good consequences…it does has its own unique role in reforming the society, though insidiously. And, this is what the verdict would do.
JRR Tolkein, in his famous work, Lord of the Rings says in one episode, “Many who live deserve to die and many who die deserve life…can we give it to them? No. Then, we should not be too eager to dole out death in judgment.” It is a personal favorite…a cogent argument against capital punishment, no doubt! Having a stand point is wonderful…it shows that you are not a rudderless boat or a spineless person. However, I believe that adhering to any particular mindset in the absolute is never a healthy sign…to say that death penalty is wrong always and in all circumstances tantamount to falling prey to an opiniated mindset. Sometimes, I believe, it makes more sense to have the flexibility to be able reshape and reformulate the opinion…and this case fits that category.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
