"Death versus Deterrence".
The focus during the past days has been on judgments. Some of these judgments were being watched keenly by the world as well as the media. Be it the ‘Panchayati style” Ayodhya verdict or the commuting of death penalty of Santosh Singh to life imprisonment, every citizen these days seem to be questioning the judiciary and our eminent judges. The Ayodhya verdict has been welcomed by many and scorned by some. Similarly the commuting of the death penalty to life in the Mattoo case has been seriously questioned by her family and friends. Can life imprisonment be a good alternative to death penalty? The issue remains unresolved.
Why does a society punish its members for certain acts that are offensive and unacceptable to its laws and codes? This can be a starting point of exploring our dilemma about death penalty vs. life imprisonment. It is argued that fear of death deters people from committing crimes, and the penalty of death exerts a positive moral influence.
The death penalty laws have invited ire and ridicule of human rights activists everywhere, and Courts in most democratic countries, including India, have been very sparing in pronouncing death sentences in the ‘rarest of rare cases”. Yet, crimes of murder and rape and the cruel manner in which they are carried out, at times, make ordinary citizens support and commend death penalty. Countries that no longer have death penalty have not experienced an increase in the number of murders. Capital punishment is retributive justice, and murder rates bear no logical correlation to the death penalty’s deterrent value. Whether deterrent or punishment, the death penalty belongs to the bygone era. It is a barbaric remnant of an uncivilized society, immoral in principle, unfair and discriminatory in practice. Life imprisonment without parole and actually for life with some added social purpose appears to be a better alternative to death penalty.
The focus during the past days has been on judgments. Some of these judgments were being watched keenly by the world as well as the media. Be it the ‘Panchayati style” Ayodhya verdict or the commuting of death penalty of Santosh Singh to life imprisonment, every citizen these days seem to be questioning the judiciary and our eminent judges. The Ayodhya verdict has been welcomed by many and scorned by some. Similarly the commuting of the death penalty to life in the Mattoo case has been seriously questioned by her family and friends. Can life imprisonment be a good alternative to death penalty? The issue remains unresolved.
Why does a society punish its members for certain acts that are offensive and unacceptable to its laws and codes? This can be a starting point of exploring our dilemma about death penalty vs. life imprisonment. It is argued that fear of death deters people from committing crimes, and the penalty of death exerts a positive moral influence.
The death penalty laws have invited ire and ridicule of human rights activists everywhere, and Courts in most democratic countries, including India, have been very sparing in pronouncing death sentences in the ‘rarest of rare cases”. Yet, crimes of murder and rape and the cruel manner in which they are carried out, at times, make ordinary citizens support and commend death penalty. Countries that no longer have death penalty have not experienced an increase in the number of murders. Capital punishment is retributive justice, and murder rates bear no logical correlation to the death penalty’s deterrent value. Whether deterrent or punishment, the death penalty belongs to the bygone era. It is a barbaric remnant of an uncivilized society, immoral in principle, unfair and discriminatory in practice. Life imprisonment without parole and actually for life with some added social purpose appears to be a better alternative to death penalty.
No comments:
Post a Comment