Right to kill.
The controversy over the death penalty has again come to fore, after a court directed the so called planner of the parliament attack,Mohd. Afzal, to be hanged. I don’t know and don’t want to know whether he is guilty or not, I am not interested in knowing what the law of the country say with regards to capital punishment, neither do I have any regards or respect for anyone or any institution which advocates capital punishment. I have a single minded thought on this issue – One of the very few things on which I am in no dilemma- No human being has the right to decide whether the other is worth living in the world or not. No court or a collective body of people have the right to decide whether a person should live in this world or not, whatever the ground be.
We talk about terrorism and it being destructive then, We talk about us being civilized and then we talk about hanging so called terrorists so as to terrorize the others from attacking us. Are we missing something out here, we just talked about being civilized which means constructive and then we talked about terrorizing others through the means of the state. Are we not resorting to what we abhor? In my view any religion, any state or any institution that wishes to decide the life of other human being has no moral right to claim to be a victim of terrorism cause it itself uses the same tool to defend itself.
All in all capital punishment is a form of terrorism in itself and should be done away with because no one has the right to kill other.
Pingback: Why Mohammed Afzal Should Not Be Hanged at National Highway
completely agree with you. by legitimising the use of violence as a means to an end the state only stoops down to the level of the terorrist. capital punishment is one of those things we must banish, and banish now, if we are to be a sane society
Well I think that it’s better to have jail for life for two reasons:
1. Take away someone’s freedom and it’s worse than torture for the rest of their lives. Killing them ends it pretty fast and they don’t really suffer.
2. If they are innocent and are cleared later then they still have the remainder of their lives (and a nice fat cheque from the government) and society does not have to feel guilty for killing an innocent person.
Pingback: Afzal and the “Hanging” Dilemma « Polite Indian
First, all you guys, if you’re oh-so-concerned about violence, if your hearts bleeds so much for human rights violations, pack your bags – carry the Marx-Mullah Brotherhood manual with you – go for a trip to all the terrorist training camps in PoK and blare all your human rights concepts ALOUD to the terrorists and then come back to India – if they let you say alive that is – and continue your campaign. Be assured of all support.
If a man is about to kill me with a sword held high over my neck… sorry, I too want to live. I’ll fight back… and yes, with violence. Call me selfish if you like but I too have human rights. I too have a right to live. And more importantly, I’m innocent. I did nothing to justify his desire to murder me. I also have a right to selfdefence.
That argument is based on the premise that ALL violence is evil. Killing mosquitoes is violence. Is it evil? Killing bacteria using antibiotics is violence. Is that also evil? How about mosquito rights? How about bacteria rights?
Suffice it to say you guys lack common sense. Your pervert the very concept of nonviolence. Even the Mahatma wasnt this nonviolent. Even the Mahatma favoured the use of brute force by the British to beat the Nazis during WWII. Selfdefence is NOT evil. Or suffice it to say – a necessary evil. Hanging a criminal is JUSTIFIED because it deters others into NOT taking to crime. Calling this terrorism is making the wrong conclusion. Terrorism targets INNOCENT civilians. The state here, on the other hand, is targetting a convicted criminal.
If my wife is raped and her throat is slit, I wont run around screaming for the human rights of the rapist. Maybe one of the security personnel who were killed by this reptile should’ve been YOUR FATHER. Then you’ll still probably campaign for the coldblooded creature’s human rights.
I have more practical reasons for Afzal to be hanged as soon as possible. One is the possibility that hijackers may use it to do another IC-814. That might result in a plane being blown up and hundreds of people losing their human rights just because some idiots and so called rational thinkers and human rights activists thought that the the human rights of a proven, unrepenting, coldblooded terrorist who doesnt subscribe to the concept of human rights anyway are more important than the human rights of the security personnel and innocent lawabiding citizens who are bombed and torn into pieces day in and day out
Second is that it might end up further radicalising those sections of society in India which already live in the perception that the Indian state is soft and are sick and tired of the Marx-Mullah Brotherhood’s daily dose of bullshit.
If you are so concerned about human rights, then how come you didnt speak a SINGLE WORD on the human rights violations of those 9 security personnel? Obviously, your sympathies are one sided. Obviously, your sympathies are MISPLACED.
You all are hypocrites walking around naked with your irrational bullshit written all over your chests for everyone to see and yet acting as if you are the very saviours and heroes of human rights and the very salt of rationality!
Atlantean,I wholeheartedly agree with you analysis. Capital punishment is a must for a terrorist. Not just capital punishment but I advocate something more severe. Death is a one time thing but continuous punishment will instill greater fear among future terrorists.I do agree that I cannot be silent when someone rapes my wife in front of me and further pardon him just because human rights will be violated. Even Islamic Shariah has strict rules for murder. If a person is found guilty of murder then he should be given the capital punishment..as eye for an eye…simple.
But then people will say that an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. I don’t agree with that. It’s human tendency to seek revenge and until and unless his thirst is quenched, he cannot rest in peace. Many terrorists take up arms against the atrocities against them or their families. I don’t buy the argument that religion is alone the source of provocation. The fire has to be kindled and it has to come from deep inflicted wounds. For peace to prevail judiciary systems should have capital punishment because then only the animosity won’t exist (because the state will be responsible for the killing then).
My whole point is that the capital punishment has to be justified with solid evidences and not like the one sided enquiry of Afzal’s case. I strongly believe that he is being dragged into this. And that’s my only objection his capital punishment.
Pingback: Don’t Hang The Afzal Whatever Dude at Psychotic Ramblings Of A Mad Man…
First of all, I am against capital punishment as a principle. Both because I find it morally wrong and also because it is irreversible. There are innumerable cases where mistakes have been made even by the best justice system and since it cannot be reversed, the very thought that one might erroneously kill an innocent person, however small its probability, is enough to make it unacceptable. That is why most countries around the world have abolished capital punishment.
Having said that, I find much o the opposition to Afzal’s execution as being more politically motivated rather than being based on any principles. His case went through the full system of justice and was confirmed at every step, including the High Court and the Supreme Court. I am not sure what is the basis for calling it “one-sided”. The Supreme Court can also make mistakes and is not infallible. But if an offence, that too one that involves capital punishment, has been confirmed at three different levels (and where two others were acquited for lack of evidence), I would be careful before declaring Afzal’s innocence.
My own preference is to award him life imprisonment, if he is guilty, rather than giving him the death penalty. Executing him, particularly now after all the attention his case has generated, will only make him a martyr. And this is a good time to re-evaluate the need for capital punishment in the first place.
The point about terrorists in jail being an invitation for other terrorists to hijack planes and get them released is simply not a valid one. During the Kandahar hijacking, it wasn’t as if the three terrorists who were released had been convicted. They were awaiting trial. It was possible for the Govt. to release them precisely because they had not been brought to trial yet. A govt. can withdraw a case against an undertrial. If they had been convicted and were serving a jail sentence, there is no way the Govt. could have released them in Kandahar even if they had wanted to. The law of the land simply does not allow them to do it.
In sum, it is not just morally the right thing to commute the sentence to life in prison, it is also practically the best course of action. Of course, the politicians of the BJP, who have been desperate to find an issue, will try to create a lot of noise on this issue and will hope to have found an issue. They are unfortunately sadly mistaken. Most Indians will, even if they don’t support the commutation of the death sentence, at least not be too upset if it is done. And if the full facts of the case are brought before them, including the practical aspects of it, they might even support it.
Atlantean.. your point taken and the sarcasm ignored, I proceed to say that If i was a terrorist in the custody of the police, I’d much rather be hanged than be tortured in jail for the rest of my life. If this be the case, then I believe terrorists do deserve a worse punishment, rather than just death. Death is more a punishment for his family than him. As far as deterring from crime is concerned, most people that have taken to terrorism have agreed to dying for what they would like to believe is their ’cause’. what they havent bargained for is a life o torture. that woud be a more potent deterrent.
The only argument in your entire post thats I cud buy is the IC 814 argument. That appears valid to an extent.
It feels nice to feel like the salt of rationality:D. perhaps you decided to handle that with your sugar of sarcasm.
oh yeah even your statement that we are acting like we are the very salt of rationality. I can buy that too
And daily dose of brotherhood is not bullshit, it is probably the only leftover hope to counter bitterness like yours. ‘gandhigiri’ zindabad:)
@Atlantean,
Relax. And please be a little polite the next time you rant. Makes it easier to respond to you.
Cheers,
HP
Dear IM:
I do not agree with capital punishment in principle. However, I beleive the discussion on ‘whether capital punishment is outdated or needs reform’ should be conducted independent of the present ruling. Or it could have been done before the judgement was passed.
Moreover, the debate on capital punishment and its validiity in Indian scheme should be carried out on a broader spectrum and shouldn’t be confined to single incident and case such as this.
While I believe capital punishment needs to be relooked, where in my opinions are similar to yours- that any group of people, however big or small, should not be allowed to pass a decision on whether someone is worth living or not.
Sujai,
What does this refer to “Dear IM”? There are many IMs out here and the person who wrote this article has a name, Asif.
Atlantean, you might want to take a look here:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1950
Not all family members of victims are into taking revenge or promote death penalty, and some of those victims died during 9/11 attacks. Admittedly, this is not an easy issue to decide if one’s family member is involved, but there are people out there who have chosen to forgive, or at least not seek death penalty.
The other option to consider is will I really feel peace after taking “revenge”? Again, we all have to answer this for ourselves.
Cheers,
-Amit