Kill death penalty

I don’t believe in death penalty any more.

Yes, there was a time, not long back, when I was a proponent of capital punishment. I remember arguing quite vehemently (indeed abusively) with my good friend Iyer, about the Saddam Hussein case when he was being tried, though at that time we were arguing about his right to a fair trial. We deviated soon, as arguers usually do, and we were voicing opinions about the death punishment. I don’t remember what his stand was, but I was pretty convinced that death was the correct punishment for Hussein. I have changed my views over the last few years and I don’t support death punishment any more. I confess I don’t argue as vociferously against it as I did for it because some cases leave me in middle ground, though with my back against death punishment.

The underlying reason for this new stand is that I believe death is not the biggest deterrent – it’s the fear of of living in an unforgiving world. As kids, we have gotten into trouble often, I have. I used to lie, cheat in tests, steal money from dad’s drawer and conceal poor grades from my folks. And each time, the worst punishment I could think of was  varying degrees of reproach, insults or slaps. However, when I eventually did get caught, the imagined punishments would seem bearable, even mild, when my folks used to ignore me. Remember the time when you came home from school and found your mom solemnly pretending to read an old magazine, the food not ready on the table (or worse, when it was!), everyone unusually cheerful to everyone else, your dad being extra sweet to your siblings and they in turn being paragons of good behavior – the entire family being strangely perfect and you feeling like a stranger? That killed me. I broke down, then my mom, dad became Gandhian and my bro barely concealed his smirk. That feeling was a bigger deterrent.

Magnifying it to the death penalty vs life imprisonment argument, it may not be an exact fit, but the sentiment remains. My main contention against death penalty is that it vindicates the victim, but does not punish the criminal. I cannot bring myself to forgive terrorists and murderers and rapists and that’s probably why I don’t want them dead. Death is far too lenient and worse, doesn’t solve the purpose. They should suffer a punishment worse than death – the anguish of living in an unforgiving world. And as far as the purpose being solved, a person who is capable of being reformed, will be reformed, and the others – what better punishment of living in hell and facing the devil within themselves?

While most of the death row opponents agree with this sentiment, they seem to be non-committal when the argument turns to terrorism. And rightly so. I have been thinking about this for a while and I began to question myself during and after the Bombay attacks. I was horrified as I saw the attacks on TV and seethed when I read about the details of the attack. Like everyone, I was angry at everyone else – the terrorists, the security agencies, the ‘intelligence’ bureaus and both the governments. As TV channels banked on the misery of the victims and their families, I heard one particular girl on TV whose opinion put my vague ideas into words. She said our aim should be to kill terrorism and not the terrorists. And the fact that she in one of the ‘terror zones’ made me admire her conviction even more. That is our aim isn’t it?  Does killing Ajmal, a man who came prepared to die anyway, achieve that? I don’t necessarily say life imprisonment does, but it does something death does not. I don’t wish to bring religion into this, but from what I’ve read, these people are bred and made to believe in honor in killing and being killed. The Holy Wars, the Promised Lands, heaven, 72 virgins and many such promises are the driving force behind any form of terrorism. Killing them and in a sense validating their beliefs is, in my opinion, almost as heinous as advocating them.

I confess I don’t subscribe to the humanitarian side of the death row debate. Human rights are for the ideal world, and this world is far from being ideal. I don’t think death penalty is the only blemish on our otherwise unimpeachable humanity. Sorry, this argument does not convince me. Human right sympathies don’t apply to terrorists and rapists. But I do believe that there is a punishment that is far more insulting than abuses, far more painful than slaps and infinitely more torturous than death – betrayal. They should be made to realize that there is absolutely no honor in killing. They should realize that there is no heaven for terrorists, only the hell of Indian jails.

There was one particular comment that the judge made in the Kasab verdict  that I found extremely disturbing. He said one of the substantiating factors behind his verdict was that he did not want another Kandahar incident. I cannot think of a stronger argument against death sentence in this particular case. His verdict is driven, among other reasons, by terror! We all have a higher conscience to answer to, but is that terrorism? Have we as a country reached a point in history when we pass judgments, not because we want to punish our enemies, but because we fear them? This symbolic act of “sending a message” is actually on that is sent to us! I sympathize to many of the arguments for death penalty, but not this.

To expand on a confession I made earlier, I am still hesitant in putting forth my views against death punishment, especially when I realize that I speak with the comfort of not being a victim. Unfortunately, terrorism (and in fact rape or murder or anything as heinous) is not limited to an unfortunate few. It is global and it is very real. Would I still retain this ideal if, (ironically) God forbid, I become a victim myself? I don’t know. Which is probably why I’m trying to convince myself early on.