The Logic and Politics of Capital Punishment

The Logic

As we have now come to the final chapter in the execution of a convict, it inexorably follows that at least some of us will engage in heated debates which are more often than not more emotional than logical. This article is therefore a sincere attempt to suggest an objective analysis.

The purpose of any punishment is to act as a deterrent and it is from this simple logic that the strongest argument in favor of capital punishment that has been put forward stemmed. The logic is that capital punishment serves as a deterrent. Scientific studies were conducted which proved that was indeed the case. These studies, it has to be noted, were not without any criticism and it can arguably be said that these studies were not conclusive enough.

It logically follows that the strongest argument against death penalty would be simply to say that the reason for death penalty is not convincing enough and therefore we must do away with it.

And the glaring problem with the argument in favor of death penalty, assuming the conclusions drawn from the studies are indeed valid, is that capital punishment may act as a deterrent only when it is done more often. Hanging one person every five years or so and amid so much debate, would not really impact a potential murderer as he would know his chances of getting the death penalty are at best, minimal. This means that if we really hope to seek the benefits of death penalty maintaining the status quo will not help and we need to send more and more people to the gallows.

I for one am sure that we will never to see that day as it would be insane to go to that extreme from the commendable 1983 supreme court ruling of imposing death penalty only in the “rarest of rare cases”. So it is logically compelling that we do away with this kind of punishment as has been adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, in 2007 and 2008.

The politics

The issue of death penalty is an extremely sensitive one. Be that as it may, it still cannot escape the tentacles of politics and ulterior motives.

The reason Mr. Karunanidhi gave as to why the death sentence should be commuted (that it would make Tamils all over the world happy) is one that is bound to provoke communal tensions, deeply flawed and connivingly political.

Mr. Karunanidhi may have done the right thing by calling for the reconsideration of the mercy plea but he has done it for the wrong reasons. He has shown all his experience in getting what he wanted with that remark as the current AIADMK had to support and pass a resolution in the state assembly. If the Jayalalitha government would have done anything different, it would have been branded by the DMK as Anti-Tamil.

His remark has now inevitably evoked Mr. Omar Abdullah to tweet, "If J&K assembly had passed a resolution similar to the Tamil Nadu one for Afzal Guru would the reaction have been as muted? I think not”. Although this is being looked at with contempt by the right wing BJP, it is perfectly logical.

Everybody has an identity and belongs to an ethnic group. What if every time a convict is about to be executed the people belonging to his state/religion claim it would make them happy if he/she is let go?

PS: Other arguments:-

1. The costs involved in mercy petitions and successive appeals to appellate courts would offset the cost effectiveness of the execution, if any.

2. Killing a convict, because he has killed others, is the only equal punishment. This is more emotional than logical and there cannot be a counter argument to emotion.