Why do we need to do away with Capital Punishment?
#Opinion #Controversial
Letter from the author-
I know the majority will disagree with me and only a small minority may agree with me. But I feel that something needs to be said on this issue at least for the awareness of the people. I will be giving you instances of people’s experiences and also more on human psychology as well as a bit of criminology backed by statistics. This will be a discussion with facts and not with emotions. Let us look into each reason one by one. The citations have been added to the statement, so please click on those links. The preference for the easiest path is the primary reason why Capital Punishment still exists.
Capital Punishment is nothing but a state’s decision to take a person’s life as an act of punishment for some action which state believes is deplorable or easily termed as state-sponsored killing. The term “State” is also ambiguous as in olden days there were no nation-states but kingdoms and empires. Even today, the state means different in different countries like it can be a person, a group of person, a dictator, a general, court etc. The most common ways of the same are hanging by the neck till death, injection, electrocution, shooting, beheading are few current rules. The ancient rules including, beheading, backbreaking, poisoning etc.
Abolishing of capital punishment is seen as a left-leaning idea but later after many right-leaning activists began to fight for the same, we can conclude it like a libertarian or a liberal idea.
In 2017, the UN Secretary-General made a sounding speech calling that “Death Penalty is unacceptable in the 21st century.”, responding to UN resolution UNGA 63/168 moratorium on the use of Death Penalty passed in 2007. In that proceedings, 104 voted in favour of the resolution and only 54 voted against and 29 abstained. Understand that there over 56 Muslim major countries but over 54 of them voted against which included India and China. So, the Muslim Nations’ demand for Sharia and death penalty etc is nothing but futile, which makes Muslim block purely divided. Within subsequent resolutions till 2016, over 117 countries voted in favour and just 30 voted against. The number now stands at 142 against 56. Amnesty International is the champion organisation fighting for the cause. Amnesty has found that the crimes have not increased in the countries which abolished them and in some, it has decreased.
India for all times has been successfully dodging itself by voting against it. The main argument put forward by the UN is several International Laws in favour of the person’s right to life; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the pioneer Law for Human Rights in the Globe, before that nothing like Human Rights was never heard of. The majority of war tribunals also made judgments which even said that war criminals should not be given the death penalty. Also, the American Convention, European Convention, Geneva Convention, but the Cairo DHRI legitimises it that too for only above the age of 18. Over 102 countries till the day, have abolished it, ie more than the countries who retain it. October 10 is commemorated as the World Day against Death Penalty.
An eye for an eye makes the world blind
A popular one, an apt quote for us to comprehend and understand, this issue. The main thing which we come across is how the idea of revenge is seen. It is glorified by everyone- by films, stories, novels. Killing a person as an act of revenge even today stands a controversial topic. But the fact is that human nature is meant to take revenge as a human can never accept a reality put himself in a bad light. Take the example that I slap you on your face, you slap me back just because it was not just a basic act of revenge but you are not ready to accept that instead, you are not ready to face that humiliation of getting slapped. This is a bit more glorified in the media as an act of sweet revenge or deserving one.
A typical example of such a scenario is Gun violence in the US and lack of laws controlling the sale of guns. What exactly is the problem? Should we use guns?
There are two sides- First side which says that they should have a gun with them for self-defence, just in case someone else uses his gun I can use my gun and keep myself safe. This is an ideal case. You assume that you and the attacker are the sole actors. But, with relaxed gun laws, millions are able to get access to guns. So, now buying a gun is just an excuse, because the gun you have is the same gun used by someone else to attack you. He is just using that excuse the kill you and you are using the same excuse to defend him. Literally, one gun sold has the potential enough to kill anyone and everyone.
The second side explains- that we should never allow anyone to have a gun so that no one will have any excuse to have them, thus no one will be in danger. You must have heard similar points for a nuclear-free world and things like that. This scenario is just about that.
Ethical issues
Ethics is nothing but socially accepted rules and which never have a scientific basis but may have a logical basis and must have a moral basis. These are just accepted by everyone.
If you believe that a state can take a person’s life just with a legal process, then everyone can, because each one is just placed equally before the law. Nowhere it is clear that the state has undeclared power to even distort the term ethics. Just like the term state is, you can be part of the state tomorrow also, so how are justifying you your undue power which you never had.
There is no religion which endorses killing or violence as we assume. But, none of the religions ever stopped to do anything on the same. The history says exemplary stories like that of Asoka who professed Buddism to keep away from violence, understanding that violence was not the answer. You have the bible which talks that only love and constant patience in dealing with criminals can bring a change in a person’s thinking. But these have never been reflected in the actions of any of its followers and thus n number of wars till today happened.
An interesting case came in front of SC, this month, which said that India should abolish the Death Penalty by hanging. One of its lines said that, how can the court ask for a person’s life to be taken, if it can’t give life and thus asking the constitutional validity of the same. The petitioner also said that hanging even after death, by itself is the disrespect towards the body of a human being. The same gives only a 30-sec pain but sorrow and burden for the near and dear ones.
There is no rule book, which allows humans to be called as the supreme species of this planet to an extent that it can decide that who should be born and who should die. If you are defending that right of humans to say what is good for humans can be decided by humans itself then why does IPC 121 exists which says attempting to suicide is also a crime because you are a human being and a public property of the state. The same person, when hanged by the court is upholding the law and you are no more public property. Why the double standard?
The Universal Human Rights Declaration of 1948 clearly states that a Human Being can never be deprived of his/her life. This document is widely accepted by the majority of the world nations but is never implemented.
The concept of the Death penalty violates the person’s right to a second chance. You have done a crime, but you regret it, you owe a second chance after a punishment. You owe it, how limited the definition itself maybe. You may start working in the Jail Kitchen and make food as you have in Kerala, where the jail mates cook and sell chapatis. These chapatis have been donated to flood victims in Chennai. Such social initiatives can be encouraged. Now they are manufacturing face masks too. Why is the law system not always concerned about changing life?
Criminology, Psychology and Death Penalty
Let’s come to the most imp topic, criminology and statistics. These will blow out your mind. The sections above are just cosmetic arguments to support these arguments.
In India, you have two types of criminal law- The Indian Penal Code (IPC) commonly known by everyone and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Both are not the same. IPC was formulated by the British in 1860 and was amended multiple times. It was inherited as such by Ceylon, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma after independence. Understand that, IPC was used to punish Indians who were against the British. As of today, IPC has 511 sections, with parts of Sec 377 declared invalid. CrPC had the death penalty just to irk Indians fighting against British Raj. Multiple Indians were hanged by misusing this law and you know the names like Bhagath Singh, who is a hero just because he was hanged and he is thus a martyr. Just because the British will hang a fighter, did it anyway stop any Indian from fighting for freedom?
Coming to law, more than half the Indian Population is clearly unable to understand and comprehend laws. If they can’t what is CAA or diff between CAA and CAB then how can they even know about 511 sections of IPC?
All these laws are made upon two assumptions-
- The (majority of ) citizens in the nation are law abiders and only a few are criminals. Otherwise, there is no actual requirement for the law. If none of the citizens is not going to follow them, then what is the use of law. Anyway, people are going to violate them.
- The second assumption is that everyone is presumed to be aware of the law at least since you are an adult. Eg- You are expected to know what is illegal and legal in your country. If you are caught by the police for a crime, he is not gonna ask you whether you are aware that such a law existed because not knowing the law is also a crime. But, on the contrary, how is a person without any education, who is more inclined to carry out IPC crimes, be aware of the laws as such. So you have contradictions in the system.
Criminal Law system by itself is declared supreme by the Humans themselves to govern human, and not to place the system above the Humans itself. So, if a human is attributed to the death sentence, then this decision is taken just by the system which itself was made of a panel of human beings, deciding what is good and what is bad in a limited perspective and later placing themselves above the other humans. This is outrightly unfair. How is one human being inherited over another human being? This is a basic violation of the law. Even article 21 of the Indian Constitution itself is attributed for Right to Life. This week, Rtd Justice Kurien Joseph sir said that heinous crimes cannot be prevented by the death penalty coinciding with the hanging of Nirbhaya convicts.
In India, the Death Penalty is only for the rarest of rare cases. The interpretation of the same is left upon the judges who are humans themselves, prone to errors. Now, see if it is right or wrong?
Statistics of the death penalty
A study by Byran H and Anthony was whether Corporal and Capital Punishment were effective deterrents. They made a thesis on the same considering an example of Singapore and Hong Kong. Both are also city-states. Both of them have a lot of political similarities as well as being the liberal kings of Asia. The only difference was that Singapore retains and uses both the punishments while Hong Kong abolished both in 1993.
In thesis, they made an interesting observation from the stats. There was no difference between the criminal statistics of both places. Also, it was observed that authoritarian and semi-authoritarian govts tend to misuse these laws to crackdown on dissent. So it pretty clear by the statistics also that there is no proof that Capital Punishment acts a deterrent.
Generality
Fear of death is a far used misconception to support this. The fear of death is just a myth. Since childhood, we were taught that you are born just for a period and you will die one day. So, virtually everyone understands that death is a certain concept. Maximum no. of deaths occur from road accidents and health problems. So, does that in any way stop us from driving? Does air crashes stop us from flying? Does titanic sinking stop us from a cruise ride? Does the fear of cancer stop us from drinking and smoking? All of this doesn’t! We are just optimistic and we are being more careful. So a person doing a crime is not going to think that Oh! I will die one day, so let me do this crime or I will be hanged so I may not do it. So his real thinking is going to be how to do the crime as well as an escape from not being caught and that is optimism for him.
So it is a null argument to say that fear of death is indeed something which stops the criminal. We just love the status quo- we just like to stay what we are and not change them. That is the same reason, One may prefer to be in jail for 10 more years than to die tomorrow, it is not because the jail life is lavish.
If you think that jail life is so lavish? then why don’t every poor on the street does some crime and go to jail?
If fear of death is real, then why are soldiers ready to die for their respective countries? Why are the people living in mines ready to take up the job? Why do we hundreds in the queue for joining the suicide bombs section of ISIS despite the threat of respective govt and air-raids?
Why is the Taliban still stronger despite putting all their lives at risks and fighting the USA? Understand that even US has realised that nothing was progressing with violence and it is now trying to uphold a peace deal.
Fear of death is nothing more than a myth. The main reason, because its counter exists in Human Psychology ie Hope. Even in the worst scenario hope is a recharge against the former.
Did the capital punishment of Afzal Guru and Ajmal Kasab prevent emergence of new terrorist organisations? Or did killing of Laden stop the creation of ISIS?
Rapes and Capital Punishments
We have formally reached the end of the story, but nothing less can be told because the last resort you will try to defend CP, is by talking about rapes.
Only 10% of the total IPC are Crimes against Women. Rape comes under Sec 376A of IPC. The rape laws in India are pretty biased but lets keep it aside.
There is no theory that says Death Penalty is a deterrent against rapes. You saw that in the thesis above as well. Even in India, there is no law which grants death sentence just for rape cases. Only if there is murder following a gangrape, a death sentence is given. When a rape case is filed those, cases don’t just end with Sec 376 A, but also with cases like POCSO, murder etc. The crimes statistics show that the majority of the rapes are cases where the victim knows the perpetrator while over 30% of the cases filed are fake. India has ranked 3rd in World’s Porn consumption and then you ask m why don’t we respect women (is a not a logical argument). India is still at 112th rank on the gender gap index.
After the 2013-Nirbhaya case, Verma committee was appointed to look into an appropriate change in law. The first thing his committee suggested was the abolishing of capital punishment in India. The rape laws in India are the toughest in the world but we fail at implementation. Even the Law Commission of India in 2015, put forward the suggestion to abolish it as well, despite that India voted against the Moratorium in the UN. In 2018, few states passed a law which granted sure death penalties for rapes of POCSO cases, but this triggered massive protests from law experts for various reasons-
- Majority of these cases are perpetrated by the person whom you know
- You won’t file a case against the person whom you already know, especially if you already know the criminal.
- The chances of the rape victim to survival stand minimal as when death is sure. ie In India, people believe that rape victims who have survived don’t deserve to live, so it is common for criminals to kill them.
- No clear cut evidence of deterrence
As per 2013 and later on, the number of rape cases went up drastically. It is good that the reportage has gone up significantly showing sign of a country with better law and order if people are ready to report the case. But again, the actual evidence that even after multiple executions rape keep on happening. A similar incident happened after 2019 Cyberabad case, the cases kept on going, even the victim in Unnao case had to face accidents and later severe burns by the culprit. It happened because our criminal system is faulty and not because of the no-death penalty.
Those, demanding instant death penalty, understand that there needs to be a fair trial before the criminals are convicted. A case happened in Ryan School, Delhi where a boy was raped(not defined in the constitution) and killed, staff in school was arrested there was a massive demand for the death penalty and speedy justice. But the conviction proved that he was innocent, the same had also taken place in Cyberabad, where the accused were randomly killed in a fake encounter. Understand that the powerful people like Asaram Bapu and BJP MLA of Unnao will be free while innocents will die. We are not a banana republic. A trial needs to be done, enough and more legal provisions must be utilised well before conviction and also for things like appeal. Even today, Saudi Arabia is convinced that it will reduce unwanted death warrants and will reduce it to life imprisonments.
Post the encounter SC CJI said that meaning of Justice is not revenge. Punishment is not revenge, its a correction.
Rapes in India, happen due to lack of sex education and not knowing about consent. A journalist from Washington Post had taken an interview of 100 rapists. She observed that everyone were cooperative and none of them felt like they did a big crime. They are never ready to accept that they did anything wrong in a non-consent sex. So, people don’t know what is the difference between sex and rape. This is the society in general we have. It may sound rude to people like us, who live in cities, but that's the harsh reality of the Indian (Rural) Society. Our system is fundamentally flawed. This phenomenon is known as Cognitive Dissonance.
If you still claim that India, has worst crime rates just because we don’t utilise the death sentences, then I will give an example of a country which executes more than 40+ people (publically) a month- Iran. It does public execution of criminals, but even today there is nothing they have to show that these executions paid off because they execute the same number of people on average. Same is the case with Pakistan. Now see the nexus, of countries with most executions, these are the countries which have the least rights for women- Saudi, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan.
Asking for the death penalty on social media and lighting candles is the easiest thing we can do, so we keep doing it because it’s not in our hands to change the society, give more rights to women. It is also easy for politicians to grant permissions for encounters because it is easy for them too. We all want the easy path and that is what our psychology ask us. It is also easy for police to shoot down a person because he need not do a bigger case, just need to listen to his bosses. Unless we change this attitude society is not going to change, you should be the change and that’s crimes will come down. It is not easy for the lady journalist to interview them and analyse the reason for crime, because it demands effort and courage. We all want things to solved through a short cut.
What can you do?
- Leave short cut mentality
- Start reading and analysis of why crimes happen
- The background studies by which people ask for abolishing of the death penalty.
- Demand for a police reform
- Increase the reportage of cases
- Stay vigilant
- Don’t put women behind home
Join for Amnesty Course on Anti-Death Penalty- Click
What can governments do?
- Leave the lust for vote and power
- Establish more police drills and patrolling
- Bring Police reform- Make Police independent of the govt
- Prison reforms
- Prisons should help criminals recover and make them productive to society
- Abolish C.P.
- Implementation is where India, falls; locals don’t respect laws.
- Establish fast track courts
- Victim rehabilitation
- Increase conviction rates
- Crime awareness
- Compulsory sex education and promote women’s rights
- Changes in colonial laws
We are very good at emotions but extremely poor at facts; we need to topple that. We need to find solutions, and not just sit idle. That is why in MUNs and debate we discuss pros and cons and we come at a consensus. We need to put our actions in to practise. That is what MUNs do, they provide suggestions to the UN and the governments.
Read more on UN Crime and Justice
We need to understand criminology and psychology better to solve the cases. We need to empower the police force and judiciary to for the cases to be wrapped up faster for speedy justice. Justice itself doesn’t prevent crime, we need to work on the ground to bring positivity in society. We need to learn to forget and forgive too. If we can prevent, why do we need a cure?
.
.
.
Follow us on medium for more for International events, news, MUN guides and detailed analysis. Follow us on Social media to stay in the loop- Facebook| Instagram|Telegram Channel |Youtube|Twitter. We also invite guest writers to publish their material via this blog!
