The recent executions of two terrorists convicted of waging a war against the Nation have raised multiple questions. One, whether these executions were just and the second larger question, whether capital punishment as a concept should continue in the country? While it would be easy to paint the abolitionists as loonies who have unfortunately come to dominate public discourse in India, a cursory study of evolution of death penalty over the ages would strengthen the argument that reducing barbarity of this punishment should follow the course of civilization.
Death penalty has been observed to be a part of the legal system of almost all societies since the dawn of civilization. Perusal of historical tales of any land speak of executions conducted in gut wrenching manners - through the breaking wheel, boiling / burning to death, flaying, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing (including crushing by elephant), stoning, sawing, decapitation, devoured by hungry beasts, forced drowning, throwing over a cliff, blowing on a cannon and still many other forms which are too grotesque to record. Not infrequently, these executions were public spectacles with remains of the executed getting quartered and hung across various points of the city as a warning to other potential mischief makers.
Today, civilisational progress has ensured that except for a few societies, executions are more ‘humane’ now. However, while the case for reducing barbarity of executions finds a large general acceptance, the same is not true with the case for abolition of capital punishments altogether.
Quite often, executions are condemned as being infinitely worse than murder. In words of Albert Camus, the Nobel Prize winning author and proponent of ‘absurdism':
“An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. [...] For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life”
The premises which Camus and other abolitionists follow are:
· Execution is murder by another name
· Rather than redressing the previous crime, it adds to it
· Demand for death penalty is nothing but a cry for revenge
· The absence of details of the execution (on how the criminal suffered) in public discourse, is a manifestation of our subliminal revulsion at administered death
While it may be tempting to summarily dismiss the above objections as being personal beliefs of people who dwell in a make believe ideal world, each of the points raised deserve careful consideration.
It is not difficult to in principle agree with the assertion that net result being the same, i.e., extinguishment of life, executions can indeed be equated to murders. It is the second premise however, which shows the limits to this similarity. A non-judicial murder is generally driven by motives of a gain (personal or for a larger cause) together with the desire to inflict grievous harm on the victim. An execution, on the other hand is punishment for a crime which was heinous enough to distort the principles of human existence.
Likewise, while it cannot be effectively denied that death penalty is a form of revenge, this acceptance does not negatively impact the desirability of executions to be conducted for the simple reason that justice has to be consequential, retributive and restorative (wherever possible). If revenge is to be frowned upon, it would be difficult to argue in favor of any form of punishment; even a rap on the knuckles as punishment, by its very nature is a form of revenge.
Camus’s arguments on the ‘silence’ surrounding executions are factually correct but seem to confuse its causal relation with the latter. Murders are repulsive and it is natural that normal human beings would find the spectacle of death abhorrent. Except for those instances, where enlightened souls give up their lives, having ritualistically abjured food, death is rarely, if ever, a pretty sight. In case of death penalties, the sadness of death and disgust which it evokes co-exists with the general relief that the execution followed a just retributive process! It is here where a strong case exists to find more humane means of administering death so that our natural urge to adhere to humane boundaries get addressed.
The basis arguments on death penalty rest on the premises that fundamentally, execution is a form of Judicial Murder and stands in violation of basic Human Rights.
As indicated earlier, executions are certainly killings for they are judicially legitimized acts of extinguishment of human lives. However, this reality does not ipso facto make capital punishment abhorrent. While there can be little doubt that the Right to Life is a basic universal right, premise that Human Life is inviolable under any circumstance has doubtful validity. Killing in valid instances of self defense is considered generally acceptable. Many societies accept controlled euthanasia as valid and more commonly, abortion of an unborn fetus is both legal and valid. Lest such comparison be seen as unseemly, due cognizance must be taken of the fact that these instances too violate what is otherwise believed to be inviolable. Particularly inexplicable is the status of abortion where the State sanctions a killing not because of any crime the unborn has committed, but because the parent(s) of the unborn do not desire that birth to happen. It is more even more inexplicable that in the debate on Capital Punishment, the abolitionists are generally those in favor of abortive ‘rights’ while the otherwise pro-lifers speak in favor of executions!
Moving beyond comparisons, if one were to evaluate Judicial execution on its own merit, it becomes necessary to account for various principles governing the concept of justice which defines it to be ‘retributive’ – punishment should be proportionate to the crime, be justly imposed and considered as morally correct. Not only does this principle appear intuitively fair, another factor which strengthens the case for retribution is the reality that civilization and rule of law means that the State takes over responsibility for ensuring safety and well being of ordinary citizen and the latter recourses to the State defined mechanisms to seek redress rather than taking up an avenger or a vigilante role. The intensity and depravity of all crimes are not equal and there are crimes innumerate where anything less than the death of the convict fail to meet the tests of fairness and equity.
Finally, on whether Capital Punishment is a deterrent; contentions and questions on its deterrence value are irrelevant for unlike in nature where consequence of any act is pre-determined and certain, there is no certainly of punishment being inflicted for any crime. The person who commits a crime, irrespective of its magnitude, invariably does so with a belief that he will escape the consequences of punishment. If however, retribution, divine or man-made was to follow each lapse, the human civilization would be spared the need of maintaining an expensive and an only partially effective apparatus of law enforcement and justice. Presence of a large number of laws dealing with an even larger number of crimes is a potent proof that existence of laws and punishments has only a limited deterrent value. The course of justice cannot be served by not punishing convicted criminals only because there could be others who have escaped the dragnet of law. Hence, if a person, after being through a due process of law, is found guilty of committing a crime so heinous that none other than death penalty is a proportionate punishment, the punishment, howsoever abhorrent it may seem to a few, must be carried out!
