By Ishan Agarwal
Years ago, when human civilization was still evolving, man did only what was beneficial for him, or at best what was beneficial for his family, his tribe or his clan.
However, now after centuries of so-called progress, mankind has been burdened with an added social responsibility, to care not only for himself and his immediate family, but to work for the betterment of the entire humanity.
This has resulted in an artificially induced dichotomy: a sort of conflict of interest among the various hierarchies of this man-made social system. Let us be realistic: deep within, even the most kind-hearted and the purest noblest soul blazes that primeval desire to take care of oneself. This is indeed in conformity with the laws of nature, wherein such behaviour ensures the survival of the fittest.
This in no way implies that man must not care for society, or live by its rules. What it does, however, imply is that such behaviour might very well be in conformity with the outlook of most of us; however, for a few, this may result in a conflict of interest, compelling them to act against what the civilized world terms as ‘crime’.
Initially there was no problem with this social system, as all men worked to make both ends meet, taking care of themselves and those few that depended directly on them. However, as society began to evolve, it was expected of mankind to take care of not only themselves, but work for the benefit of humanity, that so-called social ills started occurring.
Men slowly began to steal, lie, commit felonies, betray other humans and by treachery started committing sins, in order to improve their lives, thus falling even deeper into the well of vices dug by them.
Necessity is the mother of all inventions, and out of this barbarian chaos, where might was always right, emerged the foundation of justice that was the principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. Punishment was made dependent upon and commensurate with the crime.
Against Capital Punishment
Many will argue that a taker of lives is a murderer, and he ought to be punished for the crimes he has committed. But does not capital punishment make the person ordering it a murderer too, and perhaps a greater sinner than the person who killed, as he must have done so in a moment of insanity, hate, evil or malice?
A person ordering the death penalty does so, confined in his room, using reason, where he is devoid of such barbaric emotions. In spite of this, still he orders the death of the sinner; instead of punishment, I feel that he becomes a bigger sinner, a bigger murderer, than the person who initially committed the act.
By taking away the life of a criminal, instead of sentencing him to the most exemplary rigorous punishment, you are actually doing him a favour. By killing him you are releasing him of all the hardships he could have faced, and refusing to give him a chance to contemplate, introspect and possibly change.
Death is not punishment. It is a sudden, dramatic and momentous release from it.
Many argue that no matter what, the death penalty is necessary to deter criminals from committing crime. These people would have a man killed so that other people do not do so. They are happy in setting an example which is in fact itself a crime: a crime greater than the one being punished.
Those who support the death penalty also argue that it is a necessary deterrent for others from committing such crimes. The article rejects this proposition, noting that such an argument is based on the false premise that exemplary punishment will definitely act as a strong deterrent. Exemplary acts of crime may be committed by insane minds, during temporary periods of illogical thought, or by misguided individuals who firmly believe that what they are doing is right.
Reformative Punishment
I am a Hindu and a staunch believer of ‘Punar Janam’ or rebirth. We are sent to earth to fulfil our role and to improve our next lives only by indulging in good deeds. If one errs in this, it is imperative, and also according to the rules of natural justice desirable, that the person is punished, and also given a chance to repent for his deeds.
He must be given an opportunity to introspect, reflect on his wrong actions and try to improve himself, so that when he actually dies, he is a better human than he was when he committed the crime.
If however, you just go and kill a killer, you are killing him while in his mind he is still a killer, and in the next life he is going to continue being so, only with added vengeance.
A convict accused of murder, or even one convicted for it and awarded the death penalty, is often kept locked in prison for years, while the case against him or his mercy appeal keeps lingering on. In such a scenario, his fate is worse than his nebulous future in the banal monotony of his prison cell.
Such a punishment can never reform. Such punishment can never improve our society. How can the death penalty punish a prisoner when all it does is take away the prisoner to another world instead of punishing him? I stand firmly for the abolition of the death penalty.