Sunday, September 4, 2011

Killers Must Get at least Capital Punishment

There is a hue and cry about clemency for the killers of Rajiv Gandhi. A similar hullabaloo was created while Indira Gandhi's killers were to be hanged.

There are mainly two ways to understand a killing or killings in general:

1. The killing(s) was justified.

2. The killing was a crime.

Some readers might look askance at point number 1. However, if we consider what happens in a war, the point becomes evident. Are soldiers tried for killing enemy soldiers? There may be war-crimes, but killing is seen as justified there.

When it is crime, there are many possibilities. Either it happened by mistake, or happened in a fit of anger, or it was a premeditated killing and so on.

Our constitution recommends capital punishment only in the rarest of the rare cases. We disagree. Whether by mistake or in a fit of anger, killing is a very very serious thing, and people must know that even if it happens by mistake or in a fit of rage, it will never be taken lightly. Thus life-sentence must be given only in the rarest of the rare cases and usually capital punishment must be given. When the crime is more serious, including gory premeditated killings, child-rape and so on; the punishment must be exemplary. Despite facing the risk of being branded as barbaric, we would go to the extent, that exemplary punishment could be worse than mere death by hanging. For example, being dropped into a cage of hungry carnivores. This might sound barbaric, but often there is no better way to discourage crime than meting out exemplary punishments. The details could however be a matter of more serious discussion by better informed people. However, all the sissy theories of being humane to criminals must be shunned at least in some deserving cases.

More often than not, all discussions on jail reforms, whether by the likes of the dumb-fuck Sanjiv Bhatt (Gujarat cop) or Kiran Bedi; are immature at the least and dangerous at worst. All those who recommend humane treatment of criminals must remember that those against who the crimes were committed would view it very differently. And these imbeciles themselves would have very different views if one of their near and dear one suffered any such thing. For example, Kiran Bedi mocked parliamentarians when Anna was not being given importance. Why did she not contemplate parliamentarian reforms, like what she designed for Tihar inmates? Why could she not remain humane to parliamentarians for just two weeks? We are not defending the action of parliamentarians, and we have expressed our views on the matter elsewhere. We are in favor of a new constitution. However the point that those who are blabbering on jail-reforms have double standards must be understood very clearly. Also, lawyers like Ram Jethmalani, who thrive counseling criminals, are often very eloquent about the rights and suffering of the jailed and the convicts. We wonder why any political party entertains him and tolerates his whims. We wish that he is at the receiving end of a serious crime and afterwards a clone of Ram Jethmalani argues for the perpetrator. It will be quite an entertainment to watch the show then.

Broaching Rajiv Gandhi case now, those seeking clemency (even though it is commuting death penalty to life imprisonment) must be forthright whether they consider this particular killing a crime or not? Are they thinking that killing Rajiv Gandhi was justified? They are free to use freedom of speech but then they must express their opinions frankly and directly. And if they do consider it to be a crime then killers must get at least death, if not worse punishment.

We are very clear and forthright that there should be capital punishment and even harsher ones in the case of heinous crimes. As mentioned earlier guilty of rape in general, and especially rape of minors, the convicts must be given very serious and exemplary punishments. On a side note, we are in the favor of life imprisonment being for the whole life, and not some 16 or 20 years as presently is the case. Also, since incarceration (keeping a person in jail) involves expenses, we are in favor of recovering the expenses by the one who has been jailed. Taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize the cool-life of the criminals! In fact even police expenses must be recovered from the convicted.

We need to remember that if as a society we are humane to criminals without any regards to other non-criminal citizens who face the brunt of crime, we are being inhumane to those innocents. And that, in our opinion, is a serious blunder. If we want to survive as a civilization, we must understand justice and then enforce it. Killing is damn serious crime, and it should never be treated lightly as it is being attempted in this country. Remember, if we do not strongly discourage crime, then in effect, we are encouraging crime. And a society which encourages crime, is on a suicidal path. We should shun such paths.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are not moderated. Please read the About Us page. If you have outright disagreement, then you may not have much use commenting. You are free to record your disagreements in a civil manner. Repeated abuse, and irrelevant postings will be removed. Please avoid advertisements.

This blog does not honor political correctness. If your comment is posted, this does not mean that this blog endorses your views.

While I allow anonymous comments, please quote your twitter account if you want to have a referenced discussion.

There is a Suggestions Page, please post your suggestions regarding this blog as comments on that page.