For those of you who have forgotten, there was an instance of a bus being burnt with commutes inside some years ago. Three college-bound students were burned to death. The arsonists-cum-murderers were caught and brought to justice. Death penalty was imposed. As required by law, the case came up before the Supreme Court of India which affirmed the sentence. This affirmation, based on the rarest-of-rare case paradigm, should have deterred similar incidences.
Were death penalty truly a deterrent, why did we have a rather similar incidence just a couple of days ago? Two buses had a run-in on the road, to capture as much revenue as possible. The gang of one bus set fire to the other bus, with the passengers inside. A few got burnt to death.
Having asked the question, I would pro-actively answer it. It happened in Madhya Pradesh, half-nation removed from Tamil Nadu. It had commercial competition, not politics, as the background. No institution of governance was involved; therefore, there was no one to be sent a message. In an increasingly liberalized world, it would become less and less rare that ordinary people will be sacrificed at the altar of economic growth. The case is NOT rarest-of-rare.
“Death penalty, you see, deters only if the situations are literally identical. If they are not, the claim that death penalty is a deterrent is void.” That is, to discern the deterrence effect of death penalty in this case, it must have happened in Tamil Nadu, must have had political undertones, having an institutional basis. And more importantly, it could not have had any commercial basis.
Raghuram Ekambaram
The Ur of the sequence is situated some years ago. It happened in Tamil Nadu. It had a political basis. The Supreme Court had pronounced a judgment of guilty of corruption on a powerful politician. The acolytes of the political party took it upon themselves to send a message to the Supreme Court and the via media were the three students.
Were death penalty truly a deterrent, why did we have a rather similar incidence just a couple of days ago? Two buses had a run-in on the road, to capture as much revenue as possible. The gang of one bus set fire to the other bus, with the passengers inside. A few got burnt to death.
Having asked the question, I would pro-actively answer it. It happened in Madhya Pradesh, half-nation removed from Tamil Nadu. It had commercial competition, not politics, as the background. No institution of governance was involved; therefore, there was no one to be sent a message. In an increasingly liberalized world, it would become less and less rare that ordinary people will be sacrificed at the altar of economic growth. The case is NOT rarest-of-rare.
“Death penalty, you see, deters only if the situations are literally identical. If they are not, the claim that death penalty is a deterrent is void.” That is, to discern the deterrence effect of death penalty in this case, it must have happened in Tamil Nadu, must have had political undertones, having an institutional basis. And more importantly, it could not have had any commercial basis.
Raghuram Ekambaram
13 comments:
Raghu my views on death penalty is quite clear, yes, when somebody has taken other person's life just for gain or pleasure or to assert his power, that person should be hanged in public view.
Please forget about death penalty for the time being, Raghu.
ANY punishment can have ‘deterrence’ value ONLY if the perpetrator of the crime has reasons to fear that because of the efficient governance structure of the country, (a) she will be definitely caught and (b) if found guilty, she will be definitely punished in proportion to the gravity of the crime committed by her, without favour or fervor, and without extraneous considerations like sentimental appeal by her dependant family or sentiments of the community to which she belongs.
Sorry Balu, I do not agree, because just about every instance can be seen to fall in a grey area where deciding whether the act of murder was "just for gain or pleasure or to assert his power" is impossible.
Raghuram Ekambaram
No Aditi, it should not come as a surprise to you that I do not accept your argument just as you do not mine! Governance cannot be and has not been, EVER, improved to the level of efficiency to deter crimes. The US is a reasonably well governed country (that is what we claim), it has death penalty and its homicide rate has NOT reduced over any stipulated period. It ha smany states that have abolished death penalty and have not seen a spurt in homicides.
My point in this post is simply this - people committed a crime and were sentenced to death. But that has not deterred the subsequent act of a similar nature. What gives? I don't know and I do not think you do either.
Well, let that be.
Raghuram Ekambaram
Raghu, as a corollary of your US example, if rates of homicide and rape have increased in South Africa after death penalty was abolished, will you be comfortable if I argue death penalty had indeed acted as deterrant earlier in South Africa, and now the potential criminals have got bolder?
I do not see, if according to you, no extent of punishment can really deter a potential criminal,how does this knowledge really help the cause of no-death-penalty crusader?
I might not know criminal psychology, but the thought of having one less heinous criminal in the world gives me a lot of comfort. :)
Well,as you said, let that be...
Reward and Punishments are required in any organised community to cat as motivators and deterrents. This implies that there is a perfect communication , speedy execution and
Perfect understanding of the communication by the relevant public.
Unless death penalty is publicized along with the reason right up-to the grass root level,the deterrent logic has no meaning.
Aditi, abolishing death penalty did not happen in a social vaccuum in South Africa. That country took upon that extra burden just to establish itself as a humane society.
Please understand why they chose to bring about the TRC. They wanted the victims to be able to look at the perpetrators in their eyes and force the truth out.
Aditi, on this, you MUST read Albie Sachs's (a judge of the Constitutional Court). Its death penalty rate before and after apartheid cannot be comapred on any scale - any scale at all.
Sachs was planned to be killed by the state supported terror outfit. yet, the fellow who threw the bomb that blew of the right arm of Sachs came to his chambers in the court, not for any lenience but merely to acknowledge humbly and in person the eroors of his ways.
South Africa must deal with its increased crime rate, but not by bringing in death penalty because that has proven to be no deterrent at all. Less said the better about the financail implications to the state on this count. It is pure revenge.
Listen, I am not against penalizing criminals, but I do not want to go the Hiterian way, the "Final Solution".
Raghuram Ekambaram
DS sir, speedy execution of "Execution" is the worst thing that can happen.
The deterrent logic cannot hide anywhere in logic.
Raghuram Ekambaram
I'm not totally opposed to death penalty. A person who is an absolute threat to society should be 'removed' from society. In the olden days criminals were segregated on some distant island - I think I don't need to mention one such famous island which is a great nation today! In the olden days, again, lunatics were set aboard a ship and the ship was set adrift in the sea. Well, death penalty is better than the treatment they (we) gave to those lunatics.
What kind of a logic is this Matheikal ;)))) Today's treatment is better than the worst of yesterday's; therefore aceptable!
Just joking!
Seriously, as I mentioned in response to Aditi, I cannot allow myself to come any closer to Hitler's "Final Solution" idea, on the level of individiuals, community, nations, whatever.
Raghuram Ekambaram
Raghuram, it's only after logging off yesterday that a doubt caught me. So I checked it up. When I mentioned the treatment meted out to lunatics in the olden days, that was not entirely correct. I was mentioning it from my remembrance of reading Foucault as a student of literature. When I rechecked it I learnt that Foucault was referring to some people's suggestion in the medieval period to deal with lunatics by abandoning them in "s ship of fools." However, Foucalt does go on to say that segregation of criminals and lunatics was a common practice in the Classical Age.
Matheikal,
Thanks for coming back. I had taken your word for it, and I am no worse because of that. I know on whom I should put my "faith"! In face, you coming back validates my ideas of you - someone I can put my "faith" in.
Raghuram Ekambaram
Raghu,I gave the South African example just to show that the argument could cut both ways.Nothing more, nothing less.I am not even saying that South Africa should get back death penalty in its statutes, it is entirely their call.
My view is that it is easy to be liberal and earn global fame for lofty ideals, why Obama even got a peace prize because of his intentions.... But it is very difficult to roll back a 'perceived' liberal measure, even when it is found to be desirable to do so for effective governance. Therefore countries that still have death penalty in their statutes need to tread very slow.
Needless to say that I respect your position that you do not want death penalty,even though I do not agree with that position.:)
Post a Comment