The Death penalty has always been a topic of debate around the world. Is it the right way to punish a human being, who we think does not even have the minimum eligibility to coexist with us in the society on this planet? Scores have asked this question and I might have posed this question to a lot of my friends too.
Do you remember the day when India stood in shame, helplessly releasing a bunch of hard core militants over a hijacked plane in Kandahar? I like many of you asked the question, why did we not kill the terrorists immediately after nabbing them? Why do we have to let them live, to free them later? Why do we have to feed them, guard them. Why do we have to spend the tax payer’s money on these cruel bas*****, who intended to kill my people and take over my country? I was so cross and angry that I advocated death penalty and more stringent laws whenever we had a debate. I would easily win as most of my friends shared my views. But now, I question my thoughts.
Who defined, an offense and its equivalent punishment? If it is the law, how come for an offense like teasing a girl, you could get lucky in the U.S, you could rarely get punished in India and in other countries, you could be pelted with stones? If I were to write the law, I would take things; I saw and felt into consideration. It doesn’t mean it is right. I think a rape crime requires a severe penalty. I mean the victim’s life has been tarnished for life and so has the family the victim belonged to. The culprit not only abused her at that fateful minute, but also has discolored her entire life. I would advocate the severest of punishments for that heinous crime. But our law recommends a nominal fine and a meager 3 years imprisonment, with parole opportunity. Is this right? Why isn’t my thought a law? Is it because I do not have a loud enough voice?
Saudi Arabia and a few other countries are amongst those nations who have the stringiest of laws, to curb corruption and other evils of the society. Their law as simple as punish the wrongdoer so cruelly, that others never even think of doing the same again. Cutting off hands for robbery, flogging for public usage of obscenities, beheading for attempting to catch a glimpse of a girl in her traditional cover-all-but-eyes dress are but a few examples of their crude way of dealing with offenders. Do you support all these?
I empathize with your feelings when you loudly question why the man who killed hundreds of people should be allowed to live. I understand your angst; I understand your sorrow and fear. But if life isn’t in our hands, how can you entrust death into the hands of mere mortals? Please do not get me wrong, I do firmly believe in punishment, in fact rigorous punishment, where the man repents each and every minute of his life for the crime he had committed. But killing this man is not the solace, the victim’s families. It is just not right, because we are not sure if it is right. The man might have been wrongly motivated, maybe pressurized, maybe he is plain cruel. We just don’t know and we can’t do something we can’t take back, is my argument.
Please friends, voice your feelings. It would really be great to know your thoughts.
8 comments:
This content was unexpected, but I am glad you took this topic up. I had indeed "made my voice louder" earlier when the Union Ministry of Law had earlier conducted a survey on this. (This WAS the page, I guess, since this link still exists someplace, but the URL leads to Nowhere. You could still write, I guess.)
Like you might have guessed by my nature, I did save a copy of it in my PC then... and wait, I am not sure if I still have it, since I moved data several times since then. If I have it, you'd know it as an update in my own blog, maybe in the next couple of weeks.
Speaking here in short, I don't approve of a death sentence of any sort anywhere in the world. It's plain simply quite wrong, period. You can't do the same thing as you punish someone else - even if you *are* the Law.
See this too... a 59-page document that I ...only skimmed through. This seems like it's more about the "mode of death sentence" than the justification of the sentence, it does give detailed information relevant to the case in point, and also includes a questionnaire that you can answer and e-mail to the concerned authorities. (Make your voice louder... whether someone cares to hear or not.)
hey shashank. very nice post.
I dont support death penalty either. In fact that is not even a punishment, if you really need to punish somebody, u need to make them repent it, killing them is only putting an end to their own sufferings
Sasi, why did u stop posting blogs??
The theme u chose is splendid..n the way u brought the discussion to scaffold ur statement in the culmination is remarkable.
Well...i pretty much assent with u abt condemning someone to death..If u r gonna instigate this for the crimes tat 'ey hv ...then we r gonna mislay many ppl on this earth.
Death is stable;
It comes once in an existence,
And it goes..
Without a twinge
Without a trace
How can you shoot him ??
And watch blood running thru his veins??
Or hang him and watch him leave his breath??
Leaving many of his beloved ones in tears..
This is unfair rite ?? the rap shd b given in a such a way tat he's punished for the crime he has committed n also provide him an opening to realise his mistakes n may not committ the wrong deeds he did b4...
hey!! u missed to put a sketch for this topic :D .
"Do you remember the day when India stood in shame, helplessly releasing a bunch of hard core militants over a hijacked plane in Kandahar? I like many of you asked the question, why did we not kill the terrorists immediately after nabbing them? Why do we have to let them live, to free them later? Why do we have to feed them, guard them. Why do we have to spend the tax payer’s money on these cruel bas*****, who intended to kill my people and take over my country?"
Why? Because our Consitution assumes that we are Philosopically Just (Upanishads) and says that we are Judicially Just.
"Moralistic and common sense approach towards treatment of subjects"
"Who defined, an offense and its equivalent punishment? If it is the law, how come for an offense like teasing a girl, you could get lucky in the U.S, you could rarely get punished in India and in other countries, you could be pelted with stones? If I were to write the law, I would take things; I saw and felt into consideration. It doesn’t mean it is right. I think a rape crime requires a severe penalty. I mean the victim’s life has been tarnished for life and so has the family the victim belonged to. The culprit not only abused her at that fateful minute, but also has discolored her entire life. I would advocate the severest of punishments for that heinous crime. But our law recommends a nominal fine and a meager 3 years imprisonment, with parole opportunity. Is this right? Why isn’t my thought a law? Is it because I do not have a loud enough voice?"
Your reasoning is bad, logical flaw "rarely punished" thus "increase penalty".Its sad to read that you think its the Law, but not the literal practice of the implementation of the Law. More over years of imprisonment is merely a deterent for carrying out a cold crime, it doesn't matter when its instinctive.
"Saudi Arabia and a few other countries are amongst those nations who have the stringiest of laws, to curb corruption and other evils of the society. Their law as simple as punish the wrongdoer so cruelly, that others never even think of doing the same again. Cutting off hands for robbery, flogging for public usage of obscenities, beheading for attempting to catch a glimpse of a girl in her traditional cover-all-but-eyes dress are but a few examples of their crude way of dealing with offenders. Do you support all these?"
You can never compare Saudi Arabia to India, for that matter China with India. Peoples thinking is different, their thinking doesn't matter in Saudi Arabia but it matters in India (Democratic).
"We just don’t know and we can’t do something we can’t take back, is my argument."
True, but then again this is True when your Philosophy or Law has thought you to take comfort from forgiving.
Not True, when Philosophy or Law has thought not to take comfort from forgiving a deadly crime.
Think about it....
Post a Comment