Should The Death Penalty Be Banned For Mohammed Afzal?
To hang or not to hang? The death sentence verdict against Mohammed Afzal for his involvement in the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament in 2001 has once again revived the controversy about capital punishment.
The death penalty has existed as long as humans have existed. A central principle of a just society is that every person has an equal right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The essential basis on which community is built requires each citizen to honor the rightful claims of others. The utter and deliberate denial of life and opportunity to others forfeits ones own claim to continued membership in the community, whose standards have been so brazenly violated. The preciousness of life in a moral community must be so highly honored that those who do not honor the life of others make null and void their own right to membership. Those who violate the personhood of others must pay the ultimate penalty. The death penalty for Mohammed Afzal sufficiently honors the nature of moral community.
The arguments against capital punishment for Mohammed Afzal are: -
- Unfair Judicial administration.
- Weakness of the argument from deterrence.
- Humanitarian grounds and morality.
- Religion and Feelings of Kashmiris.
- India-Pakistan peace process.
Are these arguments valid? Firstly, the judiciary has really done a commendable job in Afzal's case. It is not that overnight in a single day the verdict has been given. Over the last four and a half years the investigations were done, analyzed, and after which the verdict has been given. The court has found it to be "a terrorist act of gravest severity" and "a spectacle of the rarest of rare cases", warranting the death sentence. Activists say capital punishment violates the right to life. But activists fail to understand that Right to life is guaranteed to Human beings who value humanistic principles, not the pathogens like Afzal who disease the society. A criminal who planned and committed a mass murder is definitely a pathogen to the society.
Secondly, the argument that the death penalty is no deterrent does not hold water. If this reasoning is true, we do not need any law against murder, robbery, rape, etc., because they continue to be committed despite stringent laws. Deterrence is not the principal aim of penalty. Men should be punished for their own crimes and not merely to deter others. I would like to insist here that such stringent punishments like death penalty keep the society in control. In absence of proper social control strategies like this, people will take everything for granted. Then there will be complete chaos and confusion in the society. A Gallup International poll found that "Worldwide support was expressed in favor of the death penalty." Afzal is a "menace to the society", whose "life should become extinct" to satisfy "the collective conscience of the society."
Thirdly, what is morality and humanity? Respecting other's rights equally as we respect our own rights, is morality. Death penalty is for merciless and remorseless persons like Afzal. There is no question of mercy for callous persons like Afzal. This is the real humanism. The man who spared no thought for the families of the victims cannot be shown mercy. Afzal alive is more dangerous than Afzal dead for the humanity.
Fourthly, a crime is a crime, no matter to which religion or region the perpetrator belongs. To show sympathy to a terrorist mastermind would be suicidal. It will be a crime against the common people who are exposed to terrorism day in and day out. Death penalty is awarded to a terrorist not to a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or else to a Kashmiri or a Gujarati or a Tamilian. Coincidentally, Afzal happened to be a Kashmiri Muslim and nothing more than that. Activists should realize one thing that crossing all boundaries such as Hindu/ Muslim/Christian and so on… we are all human beings.
Fifthly, Yasin Malik's argument that Afzal's execution will derail the India-Pakistan peace process is unacceptable and illogical. By supporting Afzal, Pakistan is once again showing its original colors of terrorism to the world. Commuting his capital punishment will bolster the morale of the subversive anti-India forces and would be like playing prank at our heroic security forces who are risking their lives for safeguarding the country. The attack on parliament was an attack on India's sovereignty and democracy. Clemency to Afzal will show to the world that India is soft on terrorism, which is not conducive to the integrity and sovereignty of India. Even in those countries where death penalty has been abolished, there are campaigns to re-examine their system in view of the increasing volume of terror.
One solution that activists forward is to extend life imprisonment well beyond the present limit of 14 years to make such incarceration cover the convicted person's entire life, especially in cases of terrorism taking a high toll. A convicted terrorist undergoing life imprisonment is a potential threat for another terrorist act to secure his release. In such case of life imprisonment the government has to take the responsibility of taking care of him and spend on his further life period inside the jail. Why should the taxpayer's money be wasted in taking care of a terrorist? Why should the jail be crowded? Instead of taking care of him for the rest of his life, if essential the government can take care of his wife and son till his son attains 21 years old. This is the real humanism and not clemency to Afzal.
A diseased person is given proper medication to get cured by killing pathogens that have invaded the body. Similarly a diseased society is medicated by such stringent punishments to keep the society in a healthy state. If the death sentence against Afzal is cancelled on mercy grounds, the society will surely have to face some other irresistible form of disease manifestation. Then even God with his omnipotence will not be able to save humanity. I would like to point here that even Goddess Durga killed Mahishaasura a pathogenic element of the society. Eliminating pathogenic elements like Afzal from the society is inevitable and divine in fact.
If the wrong guy is put to death, then that's a double tragedy. Not only has an innocent person been executed but also the real perpetrator of the crime has not been held accountable for it, and in some cases may be still at large. But I support the death penalty in the most heinous cases, like Afzal's. I strongly appeal to all the intellectuals and social activists not to fight for getting clemency to persons like Afzal, and to fight for genuine cases only. Media should also make it a point that they should not create an unnecessary hype for such issues involving thick-skinned persons like Afzal. "Let us not make a criminal look like a hero."
"If a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good."- Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica.
* JAI HINDH *
- S. MURUGARAJA
