GAUGING THE MORALITY OF JUSTICE
Terry Goodkind once said, "Pity to the guilty is treason to the innocent". One of the putative purpose of Criminal Laws, is retribution i.e. punishing the people to set an example for others not to commit the same crime. Interestingly, another aim of these criminal laws is to ensure reform, in the sense that the guilty undergoes a reform so as to return as a positive individual into the society.
These two purposes present a conflict of opinions and dichotomy of interpretations which is manifested in the likes of Capital Punishment. There are crimes whose sole punishment is death. Does this mean that those who commit such crimes have no scope for reform? Or, if interpreted the other way round, this dichotomy may also suggest that these crimes are so heinous that there is no coming back from such crimes and hence, death of the guilty is the only way to set an example. This debate certainly has no end and proponents of both schools of thought may debate for hours as to why what they believe is correct.
But the idea of death penalty brings us to another important question. If we deem that the guilty has reached that stage from where there is no coming back, isn't it more suitable to execute him or her within the due process of law rather than provide never ending safeguards to those who are being executed? For instance, as we saw in the Nirbhaya Case, the guilt and offence of the perpetrators had been determined a long ago yet they were not sentenced to death, either because of the laxity of the State or because of the curative petitions being filed by them again and again probably to delay the execution or make an earnest attempt to revoke the death sentence itself.
The Rights given to the guilty have the sole purpose of ensuring that the guilty is not deprived of a life of dignity and access to basic amenities even when in prison and these rights continue to provide protection till the last day of prison or till the last step headed towards the trapdoor. In the case of death penalty, these rights have the task of "respectfully escorting the convict to the trapdoor". However they have been twisted to the benefit of the guilty and there purpose has depreciated to "ensure that the convict never reaches the trapdoor".
This brings us back to the quote of Terry Goodkind and the weight it has in modern criminal legal system. With utmost certainity, it is the duty of the State to provide all kinds of safeguards to those sentenced with death penalty. This is because the State is depriving the guilty of a right which is central to the concept of human rights and hence should ensure that it is done in the least coercive and most acceptable manner. But at the same time, the State should also ensure that that once the sentence has been decreed, the execution should be carried out within the prescribed time and legal framework. This is important to uphold the values of Justice because not only does Justice comprise of protecting the guilty from rights being violated but it also comprises of punishing the guilty for rights he or she has violated.
We must never forget, 'Justice delayed is Justice denied'.
These two purposes present a conflict of opinions and dichotomy of interpretations which is manifested in the likes of Capital Punishment. There are crimes whose sole punishment is death. Does this mean that those who commit such crimes have no scope for reform? Or, if interpreted the other way round, this dichotomy may also suggest that these crimes are so heinous that there is no coming back from such crimes and hence, death of the guilty is the only way to set an example. This debate certainly has no end and proponents of both schools of thought may debate for hours as to why what they believe is correct.
But the idea of death penalty brings us to another important question. If we deem that the guilty has reached that stage from where there is no coming back, isn't it more suitable to execute him or her within the due process of law rather than provide never ending safeguards to those who are being executed? For instance, as we saw in the Nirbhaya Case, the guilt and offence of the perpetrators had been determined a long ago yet they were not sentenced to death, either because of the laxity of the State or because of the curative petitions being filed by them again and again probably to delay the execution or make an earnest attempt to revoke the death sentence itself.
The Rights given to the guilty have the sole purpose of ensuring that the guilty is not deprived of a life of dignity and access to basic amenities even when in prison and these rights continue to provide protection till the last day of prison or till the last step headed towards the trapdoor. In the case of death penalty, these rights have the task of "respectfully escorting the convict to the trapdoor". However they have been twisted to the benefit of the guilty and there purpose has depreciated to "ensure that the convict never reaches the trapdoor".
This brings us back to the quote of Terry Goodkind and the weight it has in modern criminal legal system. With utmost certainity, it is the duty of the State to provide all kinds of safeguards to those sentenced with death penalty. This is because the State is depriving the guilty of a right which is central to the concept of human rights and hence should ensure that it is done in the least coercive and most acceptable manner. But at the same time, the State should also ensure that that once the sentence has been decreed, the execution should be carried out within the prescribed time and legal framework. This is important to uphold the values of Justice because not only does Justice comprise of protecting the guilty from rights being violated but it also comprises of punishing the guilty for rights he or she has violated.
We must never forget, 'Justice delayed is Justice denied'.
Comments
Post a Comment