CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

On the eve of Independence Day, when our country was about to enter its fifty- seventh year of freedom, an incarcerated Indian citizen (after having served a full term life imprisonment), was finally given his liberty from life. Ironically his ‘death day’ also happened to be his birthday. An ailing father, an aging mother and a devoted wife were devastated. The Nation, however, heaved a sigh of relief. Crime had finally been punished! Or had it?

Of late, Dhananjoy Chatterjee has become a household name. And his case a household debate. But while the criminal was relieved of his agony, his family was now being punished. What for? For taking pleasure in his mere survival? Take a moment to think with your head and not your heart. Take a moment to ponder on the somewhat lopsided and autocratic dealings of the law.

I do sympathize with the victim’s family. I also strongly feel that such decadence should not be allowed to roam free on the streets. But I also have nothing personal against Dhananjoy, the human being. Isn’t imprisonment for offenders, punishment enough? Isn’t ensuring they are barred from society, chastisement enough? If someone takes a life, what moral ethic dictates that we are entitled to take his? If someone stoops to a certain level, should we lower ourselves too? Wouldn’t that be merging the crime with the punishment? Laws should be reformative not retributive. That was the reason it was invented in the first place. We call ourselves an intelligent, progressive and forgiving race. If so, marching ahead should be our aim. Not back into the dark ages of the gallows and the guillotines.

A progressive world does not believe in enshrouding reason over a sadistic and distorted psyche. By simply changing life imprisonment to an imprisonment for life, the problem could have been solved. Many ‘on the spur’ murderers have had a change of heart. Many serial killers, given time, are also known to have evolved into better persons. Isn’t it fair to give humanity a chance? In arguments such as these, one often comes across the clichéd question- ‘What if the victim happened to be your child? After all, no child is exempt from the evils of this world.’ Agree, but has it ever occurred to anyone- ‘What if the offender happened to be your child?’ After all, no child is infallible either. Crimes of passion do not knock on doors of only the malicious and the malevolent. Even the most civilized of people, under duress, can sometimes lose their cool.

Terming any case as ‘the rarest of rare’ is again very arbitrary. How can the life of an individual be left in the hands of a single judge? Moreover, what is rare for one judge may not be for another- as was shown in the recent ruling of the Ahmedabad Court. Another death sentence was given to a youth (for raping and murdering a six-year old). But then again, Rahul Bhongale’s appeal (from Pune) was accepted and his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment (for raping and murdering a four year old). What was so special about Rahul’s case? Or isn’t the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl horrendous enough? Does it not fall into the ‘rarest of the rare’ category? Where does one draw the line? Why the discrimination? And how can the flexible hands of law, play lots with lives?

Capital punishment has been outlawed in over a hundred and ten countries. In fact statistics reveal that in America, the States that still execute the death penalty also have the highest crime rates. In Canada (which has abolished this law and since has had a lesser crime rate) there is evidence that death penalties have not been responsible for curbing crime. How do we explain that?

Many argue that a death penalty is the only deterrent. They say that such stern and severe sentences are not for the person in general but for the society as a whole. Does it mean that mothers can now rest assured their daughters will not be raped and murdered anymore? Is it now a proven fact that human failures are now permanently taken care of? Is it now okay to say there will be no more psychopaths on the streets for fear of a ‘death penalty’? I don’t think so. In a country where corruption is the uncrowned king and some subjects (the rich, the upper class and the elite) still do get away with murder, even the most heinous of crimes can never be a deterrent for them. Therefore those that would be caught would be the poor and the helpless. It would then become a system reduced to unequal rights. Now, doesn’t that sound like a redundant law?

There is also one more important thing we should not forget- life is irrevocable. And this is not a question of Dhananjoy, the person. Dhananjoy was at fault and he paid with his life. But how can one be sure the same justice is meted out to the next criminal that is hanged? What with our endless legal failings and political maneuverings and greasing of hands, what if an innocent is taken to the gallows? It is said that it is better to set free a hundred offenders than to take even one innocent life.

Martin Luther King said that capital punishment is society’s final assertion that it will not forgive. Are we Indians (those that pride themselves to belong to a Nation of Non-violence) willing to turn into a vicious society that has little or no ethical considerations? How can we, as humans, make vehement appraisals for a sentence of doom? What we need is not to rejoice in gloom but a legal system that is quick and effective. What we need is a form of punishment that rehabilitates, is a deterrent and one where the society’s righteousness is satisfied. All this and more can be achieved with an imprisonment for life. Let us think like rationales, not avengers. What exactly can we gain by a revengeful mission of ‘an eye for an eye’? Nothing much, I’m afraid, but a blind world.

Earlier, I have had the pleasure of using quotations from many intellectuals. Today I’d like to end my article with a simple but troubled quote. ‘What harm can I do to society, if I spend the rest of my life in jail?’- Dhananjoy Chatterjee. What harm indeed? Think about it.

Nargis Natarajan.