Profound
as psychology is, it's a knife that cuts both ways.... You can prove anything
by it. I am speaking of the abuse of psychology, gentlemen. – Dostoyevsky, in Brothers Karamazov
“Who is Anders Behring Breivik?”
“Who is Anders Behring Breivik?”
No,
that is not a start of an Ayn Randian tome. But, public’s memory being as short
as it is, it has to be jogged frequently and the starting question is as good a
way as any.
He
is the Norwegian who engaged in mass killing twice in a single day; once, in a
neighborhood dotted with government offices (six people), and the second time
in a secluded summer camp area where some teens had gathered (66 killed). This is
a classic case of charismatic murder rampage of recent times. Will it fall
under the “rarest of rare cases” paradigm of Indian criminal jurisprudence?
No,
for two reasons. As charismatic as the incidence was (in the sense a tiger
pouncing on a prey is truly charming, sans
the lack of pretension in the kill), the arms of Indian law do not extend that
far, to Norway. This is good. And, the other good thing is, Norway has
abolished death penalty from its statute books. Therefore, discussions on what
Breivik did and how he should be punished will not, cannot include death
penalty. So, there is no blood thirst in this post. One cannot draw a parallel
between Breivik and Afzal Guru or Ajmal Kasab. Anything I post on death penalty
(I am an unreconstructed opponent of death penalty, no matter the details of a
case) invites comments on death penalty for the so-called Islamist terrorists mentioned
above. Now, I hope to be spared of that inanity. Or is it insanity? That brings
me to the subject of this post.
I
have read the following quote (author unknown): For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert.
The
above came to my mind when I read an article in The Guardian [1] on Breivik’s last sermon as the defendant. The
article mentions what awaits the murderer. But, before I go into that, a few
observations.
Why
did Breivik go on that rampage? As per the news report, Breivik justified his
actions thus: “The attacks on July22 were preventive
attacks [my emphasis] to defend the indigenous Norwegian people.” Oh yes,
the tiger was afraid of its prey, say, the antelope?
Those
of you who have followed criminal cases fit for capital punishment know that at
least in the US prosecutors typically demand that the defendant be found sane
(in that mad cap country, mad people are spared the gallows! This perhaps is a
rare instance of sanity). It is the defendant who claims that he is insane (the
argument of “insanity” has itself become permanently insane says the prominent US
lawyer Alan Dershowitz [2]) so that he can lead a long insane life.
But
in the case of Breivik the tables are turned upside down. The prosecutors want
him declared insane so that he could be sent for “compulsory mental
healthcare”. I suppose that is sort of a limbo. But the argument from the other
side is very strong. Breivik’s lawyer says, “The defendant has a radical
political project [foreclosing the possibility of “Islamic colonisation of
Norway”]. To make his acts something pathological and sick deprives him of his
right to take responsibility for his actions.” He also says that his client
must enjoy the “’fundamental human right’ to be considered sane.” I cannot find
a loop hole in this argument, if capital punishment has been expunged from the
statute books.
But,
the lawyer keeps the door ajar when he asks for lenient treatment of his
client. The news item merely states this without clarifying. If the murderer’s
act was sane and if he should take responsibility for his actions, whence the
question of leniency? Why should a sane person be shown leniency?
But
let that slide. What I am interested in how having or not having death penalty
changes the arguments between the two sides, the prosecutor and the defendant.
Now, perhaps the shifting sands of jurisprudence will help one decide on which
side of the fence she will like to land.
A
further observation – deeper and which forces one to consider the legitimacy to
be given to psychology in a courtroom. There are two conflicting psychological reports
in front of the judge. One report concludes that “Breivik had psychotic paranoid
schizophrenia.” Further, “he believes he has the responsibility to save who will
live and who will die. This responsibility is rooted in a senior position in a non-existent
organization.” Sounds truly loony tunes to me.
But
let us hear what the other report says. It concluded that “Breivik had narcissistic
and anti-social personality disorders but was legally competent and not psychotic.”
Which
report the five- judge panel will agree with and how it will decide will be
known in a few days. But no matter what the outcome of this trial, two things
are clear: one, Breivik will not be put to death. Two, with the kind of
diametrically opposite conclusions the two reports have come to, there can be no
room for psychiatry in the court room, particularly when capital punishment has
not been abolished. Consider also what Dostoevsky said about abuse of
psychology. Just imagine, if the death penalty were on the cards, the decision becomes
the ultimate crap shoot. Truly you will be playing with a human being’s life.
Throw the dice. Let it decide.
No
sir, I would not want that.
To
conclude and without the authority or the concomitant responsibility, I will
sentence Breivik thus: “You are sane. You have to take responsibility for your
actions. You will spend the rest of your life behind bars – no parole, no early
release for good behavior (!), no mercy petitions, no nothing – and stew in
your own mental juice. You will live, but of what kind, of what quality, you
will get a good idea as you do. You may very well go insane but that is a
possibility you have opened up for yourself.”
Raghuram
Ekambaram
References
6 comments:
Solomon has spoken..without death penalty this is the most lenient sentence one can think of.
DS sir, thanks for elevating me so high!
I think it will be the most severe/cruel punishment also. This was said by a death penalty supporter and I had posted on it earlier.
RE
Wish that the judges in India were required to spell out the conditions attached to sparing death penalty in specific cases in their judgement itself.
Yes, that is an excellent idea Aditi, except that I do not support the logic that underlies death penalty itself. But, if death penalty is allowed what you say makes eminent sense.
RE
My views on death penalty are clear no right to live for he who takes an life
That is OK Balu, but then you have to say no to all kinds of exceptions; and there are too many and none of them well defined.
More importantly, in this case look how the absence of death penalty has flip-flopped the usual stances of the prosecutor and the defense counsel. This can only mean that the effects of having death penalty on the statute books had not been studied in detail thus far.
And, for whatever it is worth, Norway will not put Breivik to death. If what you say has to be valid universally, then death penalty has to be adopted by ALL nations and you have to convince more than 60% of the nations on this.
Good luck.
RE
Post a Comment