I read an interesting article to ban capital punishment in a newspaper. You can have a look at it. Should we ban capital punishment?
The article is present at the following location :
Death penalty is violation of human rights
Vaishalli Chandra / DNA
Monday, October 12, 2009 10:13 IST
Bangalore: As yet another World Day Against the Death Penalty is being celebrated on Saturday, Prakash Cariappa, programme co-ordinator,South India Cell for Human Rights Education and Monitoring (SICHREM) spoke to DNA on why killing of another being is a crime -- whether committed by a criminal or the law makers.
Do they, who commit a crime and violate the rights of others, deserve consideration?
The law or the constitution is not meant to punish anyone but to bring about a change. Government cannot commit a crime against me, if I commit a crime, in the name of keeping law and order. The duty of the government is to understand circumstances that make someone a criminal,and provide resolutionand a better circumstance.
Is there a mechanism or process in place, to ensure reformation?
What are the prisons for? The prisons are not just a place to keep criminals. The criminals are sent there for reformation. Sometimes a life sentence is reduced to 14years, as the law thinks that with so much time spent in the prison, the criminal mentality of a person will undergo a change. However, it is unfortunate that these prisons have become places where criminals are made, not reformed.
It is the state's responsibility to transform the prisons into places where criminals are sent with the conviction that they will be reformed. But, the governments have failed and more and more criminals are becoming habitual offenders.
Why do you think capital punishment is wrong?
No one commits a crime because they like it. Their circumstances make them do it. For instance, a thief may commit a crime because he has not have eaten for days or he can't buy food because, he is unemployed. In such cases, it is the governments' responsibility to address issues that make people adopt crime. Killing is wrong even if it is punishment. No one has the right to kill. We tend to forget that these people are humans. They need to be treated fairly.
Is there a need for a change of people's mindset? If yes, how can it be achieved?
Of course, the society needs to consider criminals as human beings. The usual attitude is that if a person commits a crime, he should be punished. There needs to be a shift in emphasis from punishment to reformation. The theory behind the death sentence is that it will instil fear, and hence, make people stay away from crime. But that isn't the case -- the crime rate isn't coming down. The focus should be on reforms and on addressing the issues that push people into crime. People should come forward and campaign against death penalties, as they are a violation of human rights.
COMMENT BY RAKESH FROM ABTN
Readers' comments:
Hi Vaishali, I read an interesting article in DNA regarding the death sentence. Your points in favour of banning death sentence are good. I had certain points to add in this regard. Firstly, the article says that if we give a death sentence to a person, it is inhuman, as it doesn't provide the person a second opportunity to improve. If the person is imprisoned and punished for some time, in due course, there may be a possibility that he can improve. The point you have mentioned of people committing crimes under circumstances is also valid.
Does the dying man lose his opportunity to improve? If so, what loss? But the basic assumption of yours is that after a person dies everything is finished. In scientific terms our body is made up of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, calcium, iron, hydrogen in major proportion in addition to a few more elements in small proportions. If the modern scientific theory holds good that we are just a combination of the above-mentioned chemicals that react in an encaged sack for a matter of time and after that, stop reacting, then there is no need to worry at all if mentioned chemicals in any bag stop reacting a bit sooner than those in other bags. It is like, if I throw a bottle of HCl from the laboratory into the gutter, there is no crime in that. I will not be convicted for it. So, even if we take the modern understanding about what life is, we still come to the conclusion that there is no loss if we hang a person to death, because it is just a bag of chemicals that stop reacting because of stoppage of external supply of raw materials to it (in terms of oxygen). Just like, if a paper is being burnt and if we put it off by pouring water on it, no one will cry for this stoppage of combustion. You may say, how merciless? Is there no value for emotions at all or what? What is an emotion according to modern theories? It is just a release of a few hormones which are in turn chemicals. Whether these chemicals are released or not should not make any difference, or will they? An alternative way of looking at things. But let us look at a different perspective of things. It is said in the Holy Scriptures that death is not the end and also that we are not just a bag of the above mentioned chemicals. We are a spirit soul. This spirit soul is neither created nor destroyed. It is also said that we need to bear the reactions of the activities we do, good or bad. Human being is one creature who can discriminate between good and bad. Animals too have intelligence. A cat knows when to enter the house to drink milk. A tiger has intelligence to attack a deer or to attract its female counterpart. Basic intelligence for the sake of eating, sleeping, mating and defending are exhibited even by animals. But a human being is one such creature who has something additional. If in some problem, a human being is supposed to have the intelligence to bring a solution to the problem and not just neglect it and search for happiness in eating, sleeping, sex and defence thinking that the pleasures derived from them will act as an anesthesia to the pains of life. The pains in life are caused due to the evil activities one commits. So, being in a human body, one should utilise it to the fullest to burn the reactions of his activities so that he doesn't face the reactions in future. So hanging a person for the crime he commits provides him an opportunity to burn the reactions for his sins that if not done he will suffer in some form or the other in this or future lives. Also, this implants a fear in the citizens of the country against violation of state laws. The article said that hanging a person is a violation of human rights, but actually not hanging a person for the crime he committed is in real sense a violation of human rights, not only for the person but for the society at large. I am not using revenge as a reason for hanging a person. Many claim that if a person kills someone, his relatives are in grief. In order to consolidate them, we need to hang the murderer. That's a silly argument, because the relatives are not going to get any benefit when the murderer is hanged. But hanging the murderer is in the opinion of scriptures like Manu Samhita beneficial to the murderer himself. If someone supports death sentence because the relatives of the murdered are in grief, he is accused of being emotional, not practical. But here we find that the people who are opposing the death penalty are more emotional than those who are opposing it. Is killing always wrong? The article said all types of killing are wrong, whether be a murder or a sentence. If so, even killing an enemy in battle is wrong, and the soldier who returns home must be sentenced, who knows how many murders he committed? Also, every day so many animals are slaughtered just to make a tasty meal for humans, what about those? This is still a gross form of murder. A person may kill other because of circumstances, but here he is killing animals for his palate. Why should they not be convicted? Can all killing be branded wrong? Else who decides what killing is right and what is wrong? Is it we humans who are prone to committing mistakes, being illusioned, possessing imperfect senses and above all having a cheating propensity decide what is right and what is wrong? If killing is not always wrong who decides when it is right? Here we look into the absolute and relative truths. Relative truths vary from time, place, person etc. We are all familiar with these truths. But absolute truths don't vary. Killing is right or wrong is relative to time, place and circumstances. But if we consider only our country, protecting it is an absolute truth, and so to do that, we can engage in killing enemy soldiers. But if we extend to the world, relative to India , killing is good. But relative to Pakistan, Indian soldiers killing is bad. But as we go on extending, we will arrive at one truth, beyond which there is nothing more. That is what is said in the Bhagavad Gita by Krishna. He says in Bhagavad Gita 7.2:
"I shall now declare unto you in full this knowledge, both phenomenal and numinous. This being known, nothing further shall remain for you to know." So, if we take this knowledge that is not a personal property of any sect or religion but a law book for mankind, then it will benefit all. This can provide guidance in circumstances such as these. Otherwise, whether we accept the opinion that everything is finished at death or we accept that there is rebirth, in either case there is no harm in having death sentence to a person committing crimes. But an argument may come that what is the loss if he is alive if we are just a bag of chemicals. That's true. If we believe that everything is finished at death, there is no loss either way. But if by chance in future it is proved that there is rebirth, then we are at a great loss. It is a great violation of human rights.