A heinous crime occurs. The very next moment, there is outrage and rightly so. With it
comes a demand – ‘Death to the criminals’ (paraphrased, could be in any form
depending on the protest or the nature of the crime). This happened after the terrorist
attacks in Peshawar in Pakistan (2014), the gruesome rape and murder in India
in 2012, the Boston Marathon bombing 2015, etc. The crux of the argument is
that the perpetrators are a threat to the society – of course, there are no
grounds to challenge that and thus, executing them is going to be a deterrent
against any potential offender in the future.
In terms of statistics, it might
seem that the world at large is abolitionist and there are exceptions who still have
this practice. As of this date, 142 countries around the world have abolished
capital punishment / have it in statute but do not use it in practice (of which
106 of them have do not have it in statute). However, significantly more than
50% of world’s population still live in jurisdictions which hold on to this medieval
practice – the very fact that the list includes China, India, US, Indonesia, Pakistan,
Nigeria and Bangladesh push the numbers up to 50% (adding the countries in
the Arabian peninsula, Japan, etc. would take the numbers much higher). This
makes the topic significant for discussion.
The concern regarding this topic
is that a binary is established – that an academic or moral opposition to
capital punishment is not considered, if you oppose the practice, you are pro-criminal.
This binary was perfectly exploited by one of the former US
presidents during a debate (re: 1992 US Presidential Election:
George H.W. Bush vs Mike Dukakis). This binary is what we need to get beyond.
Note: This article is not a
neutral evaluation of the ‘merits’ of both the sides, it reflects my opinion
The moral concern
Morals differ between people. Can
criminals who committed the most heinous crimes be subjected to values that we
agree upon as human rights? Under what circumstances can the right to life be suspended?
Different value systems have different opinions on it; with places like Saudi
Arabia executing people for homosexuality and places like the US reserving it for
violent crimes / killing of police officers.
The most apparent and fundamental
flaw of this form of punishment is the irreversible nature of the act. Apart
from the fact that the there is a history of wrongful convictions and
executions in the past (example: Derek Bentley, Timothy Evans in UK in the
1950s), societal values also change with time. Taking an example from France –
Marie-Louise Giraud, the last woman to be guillotined in the country was
convicted for performing abortions and executed in 1943. Before anyone argues
that it was the period of Nazi occupation – France criminalised abortion in
1920 before revoking it in 1975 (she would have been 72 in 1975). While it was
not a capital crime till the Nazi occupation, several members of the public were
not opposed to it owing to religious beliefs. Today, even many of the so-called
pro-life advocates do not support this to be a criminal offence, let alone being
a capital crime. So, if this change of value occurs at a period of time coinciding
with one’s own life – you have no chance of giving them back what they had, and
normally the state issues an apology several decades later (other examples
include blasphemy, ‘witchcraft’, etc.)
I believe that it is personally
immoral to kill a person unless it is an act of self-defence. Imagine a
psychopathic killer who holds a person hostage completely under their control and gives
them a date of death. Even reading about it makes one’s blood run cold. But a
death row prison is not much different if you think of it objectively, you are
holding multiple people constantly under the fear that this moment could be
their last. This intention to execute a person comes from the primary act of
codifying vengeance and establishing a procedure to carry out revenge. Humans
throughout history have been bloodthirsty and for large parts of human history,
executions were public with large cheering crowds – often a spectacle than
setting a deterrent (its effectiveness is addressed later).
While one could argue that people
who have been convicted beyond doubt for murder or terrorism deserve it; the
very risk that the cost of it is that you could potentially kill innocent
people (and it has happened) makes you no different from a murderer yourself,
regardless of what your intent was, every criminal has an ‘intent’. While a life
without parole is also mentally agonising with a potential to traumatise a person
forever, it provides a person at least a fighting chance at life if the
conviction is overturned whereas the irreversible nature of capital punishment
could have no justification.
The practical aspect
The case for the death penalty
does prima facie seem simple – why should the taxpayers pay the living expenses
of a criminal for the rest of their life, the society is better and safer
without them, the family of the victims need a closure, etc. The arguments in
favour are endless but the question is whether it is practical.
I would concede that the
proponents of capital punishment understand the irreversible nature and as a
result, the death row prisons are isolated and secure, there are multiple
aspects to be established before a death row convict is executed running for
several years. This adds to a huge element of cost, thereby collapsing the
entire argument that capital punishment is less expensive. In US, it is
estimated that a death sentence costs 18 times more than life sentence without
parole (re: California). While this is a US example, the procedure is similar in
almost every democracy in the world still using this practice (and thus, the
costs are also going to be similar).
I often come across an argument
that one needs to hasten the trials, reduce the number of appeals or some even
suggest to summarily execute. But imagine, with all these extensive procedures,
in the US, even in the 2000s – there have been cases of wrongful executions
(re: Cameron Todd Willingham). Studies even estimate that roughly 4% ofprisoners on the death row in the US are potentially innocent (the exoneration
rate at present is just under 2%). 4% might seem innocuous from a statistical
perspective but these are people’s lives we are talking about and not misspent
council funds.
To further the pro-capital punishment agenda, often a ‘pro-victim’ stance is played. It is perfectly reasonable
for the victim and their families to be worried that the criminal might harm
the surviving members. It is also valid for them to be outraged when the
criminal is leading a normal life in the society notwithstanding their actions
and thus, is perfectly reasonable to expect the institutions to act. However – does
the act of executing the criminal provide a sense of closure? It perhaps might
to some of them, everyone has different feelings, but we must note that a study
found higher levels of mental satisfaction in cases of life without parole than
capital punishment. One can question the study or the location as it is US
based (link to the study here) – but people and human psychology is similar
around the world. But what must be noted is that the very act of prosecution
demanding capital punishment is rare – does that mean that the victims of
gruesome crimes where the convict was not put to death do not have a sense of closure? Considering the trauma, they
perhaps never will, but there is no evidence suggesting that death provides
that, and this argument is primarily used only to further a pro-capital
punishment agenda by the proponents than a concern for the victim.
The final argument is one of it
being a deterrent. If you look at the map below (red and orange being the ones who still
use the death penalty), it is evident as to where crimes are more as it is
often a combination of socio-economic factors than the fear of punishment. Death
sentence by itself is a combination of socio economic factors as Saudi Arabia,
known for its public executions of locals and foreigners alike, is known for
executing people from poorer African and Asian countries but not from wealthy
European countries or the US. Studies also indicate that US states that
repealed the death penalty (like New York) – there has been a reduction of
murder rates as compared to states that use the penalty. Of course, correlation
does not imply causation but that is sufficient to sabotage the proposition
that death penalty improves order and crime.
 |
| Status of Capital Punishment by Country |
A funny write-up on public
executions by the 19th century writer Charles Dickens – where he
urged to stop the practice and instead make the execution private was because thieves and hooligans took the
opportunity and displayed violent behaviour. Ironic that the very act that is
supposed to act as a deterrent is the spot for crime scenes (refer here to read Dickens’ letter).
The legal concern
In most democracies, innocence is
presumed until guilty and the judiciary is prudent, meaning, if in a group of
five people, four of them are surely guilty and one is surely innocent but the
prosecution is unable to establish who is guilty or innocent – it is not
possible to sentence all five of them for ‘greater good’ and 80% accuracy.
Similarly, the systems that we
have developed are flawed – ultimately, we are human, and flaws are inherent in
any legal system. However, under this system, there is no possibility of subsequent
correction and the moment we accept ‘collateral damage’, we are opening a can
of worms. The moment there is mandate to judicially murder a person, it is
inevitable that there is going to be a margin of error and one cannot be
discussing margins of ‘error’ when it comes to killing an innocent person.
It is also possible that the
judges do not have all the evidence at the time of sentencing and with the
evidence available at the time, the conviction might seem reasonable. However,
the history of posthumous exonerations has cited otherwise. It is true that
every criminal has a story – for instance, Indonesia has the death penalty for
drug trafficking and one of the death row prisoners at the moment is a 64-year-old
woman from the UK. While she pleaded guilty, she claimed that she did it
because her family was under threat from the ones who sent her on the mission
had she refused. While it is possible that the story maybe fabricated by her
counsel, but if future investigation into these claims reveal them to be true,
you have carried no justice (re: Lindsay Sandiford).
A lot of executions are more to
do with politics than being practical, it is often used by politicians to
appear ‘tough’ and appeal to the bloodthirsty instincts, which people enjoyed
two centuries ago, and see no reason why these cannot be exploited for
political gains. Rise of politicians like Joko Widodo (Indonesia) and Rodrigo
Duterte (Philippines) provide testimony to this exploitation.
Conclusion
It is evident that there is no
reason to continue following a medieval practice – it is only a means to
satisfy people’s temporary outrage and bloodthirsty instincts. With no visible
benefit, the cost is huge. Life sentence without parole is established to be
more effective in terms of handling violent criminals and I am sure everyone
will agree that it is also a more humane solution. It is practical to demand a
reform of systems within and address the root causes for reducing crime, rather than advocating a killing spree, which achieves nothing.
The simple English idiom to sum up this discussion on capital punishment is 'Don't throw the baby out with the bath water'.
Have a nice day,
Andy
No comments:
Post a Comment