Capital Punishment - An Imaginary Debate

by Kumod Jha

Oct. 10, 2006

Here is an imaginary argument over capital punishment to terrorists.

A: President should not provide clemency just to build a humanitarian image of Indian state. If he does so in a militant's case, the capital punishment may not be justified in any other case and hence there would be a demand to completely abolish it.

B: Well, so let us abolish it. There is always a chance that someone can be wrongly convicted.

A: If someone is wrongly convicted, that demands judicial reforms, not abolishment of capital punishment. What are the alternatives of capital punishment? Life-imprisonment? How? Life imprisonment for terrorists is nothing but keeping them alive at the expense of taxpayers. Life imprisonment will create the risks for hijacks and blackmailing the government to release the terrorists. It will demoralize the armed forces. There may be more fake encounters to make sure militants would never reach the courts. It will not be as effective a deterrent as capital punishment. What about those innocent civilians who were killed by these terrorists?

B: Are we saying that capital punishment will act as a deterrent to suicide bombers? Can taxpayers or the armed forces decide the punishment for an offence? They may be demoralized even if India changes her foreign policy and offer friendship to the neighbor countries. Should India never start the peace process just to keep the armed forces happy? Whose interests come first, the taxpayers and the police force or the nation as a whole? Fake encounters can be checked through other means. The threat of hijacks can also be averted by other preventive ways. And about the victims and their family, no compensation can be adequate, but the family needs to be rehabilitated. And, so is true for the militant's innocent family. Are we a country where law is based on the principle of "An eye for an eye"? Do we want to teach revenge to our citizens?

A: How life imprisonment to a terrorist is in national interest while capital punishment is not? What good are we trying to achieve by it?

B: We become a country which respects individual's human rights. It helps in extradition treaties without any double standards (remember Abu Salem's case). India's case to take the lead role in determining international laws will be strengthened. And the citizens will learn higher values.

A: So, we ignore the rights of taxpayers, armed forces, Supreme Court and the victims of terror to show a human face to terrorists and the world? Didn’t you say that a nation’s interest is above individual’s interest?

B: No, we don't ignore anyone's rights, we ignore their wishes. Courts are not ignored; they made a judgment based on the laws. It was not judge's wish; it was the wish of law. Nation’s interest is not above human rights.

A: What was the wish of law that we can ignore? Why is it against human rights?

This was the point where my imagination stopped. And my brain was full of questions? So far the argument was over "Why capital punishment and why not capital punishment". But now the question was something fundamental. What is law aimed at? What is justice?

Return to previous Page