It is very unusual for me to have consecutive posts on a single topic – death penalty. But, I am sort of compelled to follow-up my earlier one [1] with this, as a response to some oral discussions-cum-arguments I have had with a dear colleague of mine.
I will first say that what I have understood as his position on the issue may not be his position, but I have nothing else to go on. Yet, I must go on even in the face of potential mistakes in my line of thinking, going beyond my misunderstanding of his. With that qualifier, here I go.
Death penalty is not a deterrent is my position, my colleague says. He has understood me correctly. Yes, that is my position. From this, he asks me, “How sure are you about the deterrence of the other types and levels of punishments that society imposes on wrong doers?”
My response is wishy-washy, I will admit. If I was punished for copying in an exam, for example failed in that course, would that deter me from copying again? I am not sure. What I may rather do is to doubly ensure that I will not be caught copying.
In effect, the punishment has not worked as a deterrent.
Bingo! There should be no punishments, if the argument for abolition against death penalty is grounded in deterrence.
However, my position against death penalty did not arise out of the “deterrence” utility of the punishment. Those in favor of death penalty advanced that utility as a justification, but digging deeper I found there was none. The countries that have abjured death penalty have not seen an increase in the incidence of such crimes. On the flip side, the numbers of such crimes have not abated in countries that have retained it on their statute books (the US, and China too).
Given the above, the logical position I can hold is death penalty is not a deterrent.
The question arises, then: what about the other crimes and punishments?
Taking a short detour let me say that it is a common mistake to see death penalty as the top most rung on the ladder of punishment. Why? The other punishments, at some level or the other, are reversible. True, we cannot give back the years lost in prison. But, that is precisely why I wrote, “at some level or the other.” I have read articles about an innocent man wrongly incarcerated when he was a young adult for forty years. Can we give him back any of those forty years? No.
Yet, his life had not been taken. Death penalty is truly and completely irreversible and it is not just “another rung on the ladder.”
Back to the question: do the other punishments deter crimes? Here again, we are treading on probability and we can never be certain. We think they do. But, in the case of death penalty, the numbers from the globe show it does not. This difference has to be acknowledged.
But, punishments are not merely for their deterrence utility. The fact is the criminal had violated the rules of the society and he has to pay for it, even beyond doing time in prison. This is why a criminal may not enjoy voting rights, cannot stand in elections for public office and other such restrictions on public participation even after the jail term got over for some specific crimes. There is an odor of “revenge” in this. If the argument for death penalty was extended along these lines, we would end up with, “He took a life; therefore, his life should be taken.” The odor of “revenge” wafted way high, much beyond the reach of the punishment ladder.
When I argue against death penalty, it is never acknowledged that I also concurrently argue, no matter the cost, for sentencing the criminals to life term without parole for the so-called “rarest of rare cases” in the Indian context.
Just to get my position against death penalty straight: it is a normative issue, and the society which I can conscientiously feel good about and enjoy living in has no death penalty on its statute books. In other societies, my living will be mere survival.
I request the reader to please refer to my earlier post [2].
If the society you enjoy living in is different from the above, so be it.
There may be some pin pricks but no brass knuckles.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. http://nonexpert.blogspot.in/2012/05/eat-it-antonin.html
2. http://nonexpert.blogspot.in/2012/04/reluctant-argument-against-death.html
I will first say that what I have understood as his position on the issue may not be his position, but I have nothing else to go on. Yet, I must go on even in the face of potential mistakes in my line of thinking, going beyond my misunderstanding of his. With that qualifier, here I go.
Death penalty is not a deterrent is my position, my colleague says. He has understood me correctly. Yes, that is my position. From this, he asks me, “How sure are you about the deterrence of the other types and levels of punishments that society imposes on wrong doers?”
My response is wishy-washy, I will admit. If I was punished for copying in an exam, for example failed in that course, would that deter me from copying again? I am not sure. What I may rather do is to doubly ensure that I will not be caught copying.
In effect, the punishment has not worked as a deterrent.
Bingo! There should be no punishments, if the argument for abolition against death penalty is grounded in deterrence.
However, my position against death penalty did not arise out of the “deterrence” utility of the punishment. Those in favor of death penalty advanced that utility as a justification, but digging deeper I found there was none. The countries that have abjured death penalty have not seen an increase in the incidence of such crimes. On the flip side, the numbers of such crimes have not abated in countries that have retained it on their statute books (the US, and China too).
Given the above, the logical position I can hold is death penalty is not a deterrent.
The question arises, then: what about the other crimes and punishments?
Taking a short detour let me say that it is a common mistake to see death penalty as the top most rung on the ladder of punishment. Why? The other punishments, at some level or the other, are reversible. True, we cannot give back the years lost in prison. But, that is precisely why I wrote, “at some level or the other.” I have read articles about an innocent man wrongly incarcerated when he was a young adult for forty years. Can we give him back any of those forty years? No.
Yet, his life had not been taken. Death penalty is truly and completely irreversible and it is not just “another rung on the ladder.”
Back to the question: do the other punishments deter crimes? Here again, we are treading on probability and we can never be certain. We think they do. But, in the case of death penalty, the numbers from the globe show it does not. This difference has to be acknowledged.
But, punishments are not merely for their deterrence utility. The fact is the criminal had violated the rules of the society and he has to pay for it, even beyond doing time in prison. This is why a criminal may not enjoy voting rights, cannot stand in elections for public office and other such restrictions on public participation even after the jail term got over for some specific crimes. There is an odor of “revenge” in this. If the argument for death penalty was extended along these lines, we would end up with, “He took a life; therefore, his life should be taken.” The odor of “revenge” wafted way high, much beyond the reach of the punishment ladder.
When I argue against death penalty, it is never acknowledged that I also concurrently argue, no matter the cost, for sentencing the criminals to life term without parole for the so-called “rarest of rare cases” in the Indian context.
Just to get my position against death penalty straight: it is a normative issue, and the society which I can conscientiously feel good about and enjoy living in has no death penalty on its statute books. In other societies, my living will be mere survival.
I request the reader to please refer to my earlier post [2].
If the society you enjoy living in is different from the above, so be it.
There may be some pin pricks but no brass knuckles.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. http://nonexpert.blogspot.in/2012/05/eat-it-antonin.html
2. http://nonexpert.blogspot.in/2012/04/reluctant-argument-against-death.html
6 comments:
"Just to get my position against death penalty straight: it is a normative issue, and the society which I can conscientiously feel good about and enjoy living in has no death penalty on its statute books. In other societies, my living will be mere survival."
all the more reason for your persistence.
Thanks DS sir.
RE
"do the other punishments deter crimes? Here again, we are treading on probability and we can never be certain. We think they do. But, in the case of death penalty, the numbers from the globe show it does not." We had been though this before Raghu...it is interesting that you invariably discount the South African experience of increased crime rates post abolition of death penalty, treating it as a 'special case of exception'. :)
That is indeed a pinprick Aditi and here is my counter: you always discount the US and China. Hundreds in the former and possibly thousands in China murdered by the state and no progress.
Hmmm... (I do not know an appropriate smiley for this!)
RE
This comment was not intended to be a pinprick, Raghu.In the States of USA that have death penalty in statutes or in China, statistical comparison is not readily available for a before-after situation, but it is available for South Africa, and from the looks of it, the situation in South Africa is quite uncomfortable.In general, globally, crime rate is on the rise. Even if you exclude South Africa, efficacy of any penalty, including death penalty as a deterrent will be in the realm of probability.That is what I wished to convey, merely contesting your assertive statement that 'But, in the case of death penalty, the numbers from the globe show it does not'.
P.S. Feeling quite sad that our esteemed co-blogger in Sulekha, Girdhar Gopalji passed away on 12th..just read it as a post in the Sulekha group page in facebook.
Aditi,
Perhaps you misunderstood the sense in which I used "pinprick". I am sorry. I, for one, think that civil discussions without one calling the other an nincompoop, a fanatic, etc. advances reasoned discussions (I do not think reason alone can get any two people to converge to a common position as their starting lines may be located on two different planes (a pair of skewed lines never meet). Yet, such discussions help in shortening the distances. This is the sense in which I call your arguments pinpricks.
If China does not ever want to abolish death penalty it will forever be outside of this discussion. With a population of 1.3 billion and death penalty meted out in scores of dozens, with their absence any discussion will be obviously incomplete.
Anyways, please read my next offering, focusing on South Africa and its abjuring death penalty.
Thanks for the sad information about GG sir.
RE
Post a Comment