There is an interesting discussion happening on facebook regarding the Death Penalty. Thought I'd copy it here. You can also follow it here if you are a friend of mine on facebook
It started with a status message that I put up, and was quickly followed by very interesting responses.
When a government executes someone they do it with a great deal of premeditation. The constitution of india guarantees the right to life. It shows strength in character for a nation to demonstrate restraint even in the wake of the most gruesome crime. I am not a supporter of Kasab, I am only against the death penalty
But I am totally for death penalty for convicted terrorists in India...You dnt want a plane to be hijacked 3 years later and then send your foreign minister to hand deliver him...It shows extreme weakness in character and will!!
These people have comitted to die for their cause. Why should we get in the way of that. Certainly we need to make an example that we are serious about tackling terror
@Dushyant, That our government needs to address its policy on negotiating with terrorists is undisputed. But clearly you can't propose that we kill them all just to improve our bargaining position?
@Jeff - because then there is little to differentiate us from them.
don't agree nihal. I can go as far as less painful methids and a more humane death than by breaking the neck. But as a nation state you need to make an example of those who rebel against your existence - to assure your people that they are safe under you and to deter those who think they can get by. I am all in favor of civility. No public executions, stoning to death etc or sevring of hands. But considering that you need to be 100% accurate to prevent terrorist attacks, (the 1% that slip by can prevent enough havoc such as in Mumbai), you need as strict a punishment as death as deterrent.
I agree with you, Nihal. Im also a little amazed at how many people are for this! Although if the Indian nationals on trial also are sentenced to death, opinions may change, I'm guessing.
The only dillema is: what good does keeping him in jail do? And what about how much it costs the Indian Govt. per day?
Although the dealth penalty is (unfortuantely) still legal in India, there has only been one execution in the past decade. There are currently 308 people on death row, waiting execution, while they have also put in appeals for pardon. See: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0506/India-hands-Ajmal-Kasab-death-sentence-for-Mumbai-attacks
Tough one...
@Sonia, In the old days countries celebrated the punishments of criminals for exactly the reason you state. Pirates were hung in cages at ports in Europe as a mark to other pirates that such behaviour will not go unpunished. In other forms of justice, public beheadings and decapitations were (and in some countries still are) common as a form of demonstrative justice. We today consider these acts to be inhumane, barbaric and thus unconstitutional. Maybe someday this nation will come to see the death penalty similarly
@Arz, I finally have someone who sees it similarly. Its the principle of the matter. One must not take what one can not return!.
Long rant ahead :)..
Society is built on the principle of conformance.. on the basis of a larger good (or the perceived larger good).An individual's right to life will always come under conflict here. One can exercise individuality and freedom as long as one does not threaten the society's individuality as a whole..when that happens, then society perceives that the individual forfeits that right.
Forget governments, look at the behaviour of just a group of people and you get lynch mobs and the Salem witch hunt. A government is just a larger manifestation of this.The fact is that it is easier to break rules and destroy things than to carefully construct them. I think ultimately all governments will become police states unless countered by the people.. Conversely, it is far easier to suppress all dissenting voices than to allow any. Thats what ferdie is pointing out. By allowing death sentences for any person and by having a section of people condoning it means that one day the government can very well do that to you as well as long as it perceives that what you have done is a crime and can convince a section of people accordingly of the same. And with this sentence, you cannot appeal once it has been carried out.
On moral grounds, the purpose of law and punishment is not retribution but to ensure that the person conforms with society. Jail time is supposed to allow a person to work on his wrongs and come back redeemed to society. The purpose of a death sentence on the other hand is deterrence, i.e as Sonia says to make an example of a person who will not follow the rules. There is no easy answer here. Ultimately it is a question of how much we are willing to give up our freedoms in order to feel safe and whether it will ever be enough.
(warning even longer rant ..:)
I have a couple of problems with that argument
A) That kind on anti-social behaviour can't be characterised as non-conformance! Trying to do that at best looks like a euphemism, a very bad one at that.
B) I am willing to stretch the definition of non-conformance if a person does not know right from wrong, is mentally unstable or of unsound mind. So does Indian law. Though we know that in the absence of right kind of treatment and lack of understanding, these excuses are already misused enough. Coming back to the point not even in anyone's dreams we think that these were acts carried out in an impulsive and unplanned manner.
C) I am not saying make an example of someone who hasn't followed the rules (or has done a crime) such as one should not take a bribe or one should not cheat. I am saying make an example of someone who threatens the fabric of your nation state and takes the life of your citizens in as indiscriminate and brazen a plot as Kasab did.
and yes ferdy, I admit that might have been more willing to give this guy benifit of doubt if he was an Indian national. Then, I might have been able to think that he had some genuine grudge with us. This whole debate reminded me of the movie Dead Man Walking
what K and his fellow terrorists did wasn't impulsive. It was not in a fit of rage. It was carefully planned...they knew their 'target segment' - innocent ppl, they estimated the no. of victims (obviously much higher than the actual), they knew there would be blood of innocent ppl all over, the anguish, the pain of victims & their kin. They had all of it painted on the canvas and I'm sure they saw the entire scene in their dreams every night and were kicked abt it! Can anything be colder than this? Did victims have a second to beg of these guys for their lives? I seriously don't think they deserve anything less than death. I'm not very sure if this'll act as a deterrent though!
