(In preparation of my P6 speech as part of toastmasters competent communicator manual)
--
It is what it is!!
“An eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind” – these famous words are commonly attributed to Mahatma Gandhi in reference to his non-violent struggle. Similar thoughts are also seen in the Holy Bible. It says “An eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth would lead to a world of the blind and toothless”. Extrapolating the same thought – a murder for a murder would lead to a world of dead bodies. Toastmaster of the day, fellow toastmasters and guests, for generations legal justice systems, humanitarians, politicians and common man like you and me have pondered the necessity and evil of the death penalty. Does the government or any ruler have a right to take away a person’s life and is it a lesser sin than the sin committed by the person? Should perpetrators of heinous crimes be not punished by death or what would be a sufficient retribution for their acts ?
Death Penalty or Capital punishment is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. This custom has been around for ages – used to punish crime or to suppress political dissent. Earliest communities meted out such punishment in public to discourage individuals from breaking law. In feudal world the rulers ensured the discipline of their subjects through its use. Dark Ages are replete with stories of how the unjust and selfish leaders exacted vengeance on the people they saw as a threat to their success.
The exact form of execution of the punishment has varied across the ages. Since the act was meant to send out a strong message to the adversaries, it was often gruesome. Boiling, burning, crushing, crucifixion, dismemberment, disembowelment are some of such barbaric acts that we have all heard of. Some of the current methods are more humane like hanging, lethal injection. Although its’ difficult to comprehend how these methods are humane, the argument is that the victim suffers less pain and its’ visually less offensive. Currently 58 nations actively practice death penalty where as 97 have abolished it – and there are others who have not used it for 10 years or allow it only during exceptional circumstances like wartime. However, the four most populous countries amounting to 60% of world population – China, India, USA and Indonesia – practice it. India retains capital punishment for a number of serious offences. More importantly Supreme Court of India in 1983 ruled that the death penalty be imposed only in “the rarest of rare cases”. These rarest of rare cases are those in which the “collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power to inflict death penalty”.
On one hand we have perpetrators of such heinous crimes like genocides, cold blooded murders, terrorist attacks, sexual assaults and many more. How can we agree to not have a judicial system which provides for the severest of punishments to them? On the other hand how do we agree to a system that acts as violently as the criminal? Most judicial systems and governments around the world guarantee a right to life. Does the government’s duty of justice trump the individual’s right to life? Also not less important is the question of severity of crime – how do we distinguish between a person who has committed a murder and a person who has made the victims life impossible through death threats or other abuse? There are also instances where people have been wrongly convicted only because they were at a wrong place at a wrong time. There have been cases where people on death row have had their sentences reversed once new evidence was available. When no judicial system can be always correct in ascertaining a crime how does it commit to a death penalty ignoring the slightest possibility of it being wrong?
Common logic dictates that unless there is to be a deterrent to crime or bad behavior in general it will be difficult to ensure that all abide by the law and hence the necessity of punishment. But where lays the balance between the necessity and the evil? Cesare Beccaria, an 18th Century Italian jurist, philosopher and politician put forth some of the first modern arguments against death penalty. His work was founded on two central arguments. First argument was that objective of punishment was dual – to deter future such repetitions of crime (by the guilty or others) and to reform the offenders. Death penalty does not achieve the first objective as such crimes do repeat. It cannot achieve the second objective as offenders cannot reform after execution. Second argument holds that the state’s right to take a life of its citizen is illusory since a person (the guilty) agrees to the existence and creation of the government and the social contract expecting his progress and protection of his life and hence the death penalty breaks the contract and is unjust.
Death Penalty is thus exactly, that “great power which comes with great responsibility”. Its use has to be restricted to cases where there is enough evidence and where the crime outweighs the punishment. Its use has to be to deter crime but in no way encourage violence.
It is what it is!!
