The crime-list for death penalty

Even for people who look favorably towards abolishing death penalty, it has recently become de rigeur to claim exceptions for terrorism and rape. I do not understand the exceptions.

Let us go over the reasons advanced as justifications for death penalty. The first one is deterrence. The second is removing a dangerous criminal from amongst the society. The third is protecting the public purse. It is time now for these aspects to be looked into in respect of the exceptions argued for.

Let us take terrorism first. A terrorist gets into his act with a high level of certainty that he or she will not come out of the episode alive. The terrorists who enacted out 9/11 died in the attack. If Ajmal Kasab survived, that was his bad luck. Those involved in the suicide attack against Rajiv Gandhi must have been ready to die, but they survived, thanks solely to their evolutionarily-bestowed survival instincts and nothing more. It is only because they have an opportunity to live under the laws of the land (as enshrined in our law books and enumerated recently by the Supreme Court of India) they have been successful in pleading for their lives. No one can argue that they were sure of escaping. Under these conditions to argue that death penalty is a deterrent is futile.

The second rationale, removing the criminal from amongst us, can also be undermined. Removing an “evil” human from social interactions can be achieved through incarcerating him or her for life, with no chance for remission. The society benefits at the level of upholding a principle of human morality, “Thou shalt not kill!” I am quite exercised in raising this religious tenet in this context, often violated by those proclaiming religiosity, yet I endorse at the level of a principle, apart from its religious connotations.

The third rationale does not register in my mind, literally. My not accepting this rationale is based on the fact that there are many other items of expenditure that can be foregone with hardly any effect on the society except saving money. Listing out even a few of these items will make this piece too trivial, in my opinion. So, I desist.

But, I can take another tack. Bringing a condemned to the gallows, under the current laws, is burdened by a long process and concomitant cost. So, those who advance the monetarist argument are also implying doing away with due process. At its extreme, it will sound like, “If the conviction is tagged ‘terrorism’, take the convicted straight to the gallows!” All said, I repel from this argument and will not honor it any further by engaging with it.

Some people go further and argue for death to murderers, not just terrorists. I have read, “[D]eath penalty should not be abolished especially for … Murder.” This is a non-starter, for the simple reason that murder is not monolithic. It is highly nuanced and severely categorized. Perhaps the most defensible murder is self-defense and it can be one’s case that death penalty is in the cause of self-defense, even if it be of society as a whole. There is another point. What if the act of terrorism did not lead to deaths, for whatever reason including the incompetence of the terrorist? In that case will he or she be put to death?

That was a slight detour from the main arguments in this post. Now I come to rapists. The act of a rapist is not a thought out act. It is one of succumbing to some primitive impulses. Yes, such acts deserve penalty, but why death penalty? The rapist may not have killed his victim. If indeed he had, the arguments against death for terrorists hold good here. The second and third rationale against death-to-terrorists applies in full measure, no further elucidation is necessary. One additional question though. What if the rape victim refuses to die? Death for the rapist for this one too?

Veering slightly further, one may ask why this clamor for death penalty at all. It is simply the desire for revenge. The sooner the death-penalty lobby acknowledges this the better it would be for everyone.

Then, the other question is why, beyond terrorists, automatic death penalty is limited to rapists? Why not for manufacturers of spurious drugs? Why not for the adulterers of school midday meals? Why not for people who run schools with thatched roofs on the higher floors of a building on a congested street? Why not for priests who indulge in pedophilia? Why not for people who brew illicit liquor? Why not for someone who pulls a trigger against an obviously unarmed person, as happened in Florida? Why not for the engine driver of a train that mowed down innocent pilgrims walking on the rail track?

Who do we include, and more importantly, who do we exclude and why?

When we are ready to answer the last set of questions, let us talk further about death for terrorists and rapists, and if time permits, for murderers too.

Raghuram Ekambaram