Yesterday
Ajmal Kasab was hanged to death for his involvement in the 26/11 Mumbai
attacks. There was a sense of revelry around the country, when it
actually is poignant moment for all of us. The debate on capital punishment is
one which has been going on for ages, and I don’t think I can offer a new line
of argument, but in the light of recent events I feel compelled to put out my
thoughts.
Before that, the question that begs for attention is that, whether
Ajmal Kasab was the ‘rarest of the rare’ case that required the capital punishment.
Among the many categories of Normative ethics, the branch of philosophical
ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how
one ought to act, morally speaking, are Consequentialism and Deontology.
Consequentialism theorises that the consequences of the person’s acts are the
ultimate judge of the morality of the act. One of the major reasons for any
judge to pronounce a death penalty is because it acts as a deterrent for
potential criminals. Ajmal Kasab’s death is in no way going to stop the
strategists from plotting another attack, as he was just a pawn who was ready
to die anyway.
Deontology on the other hand is the normative ethical position
that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule
or rules. What Kasab did is unquestionably abhorrent by any standard, but does
he represent the worst of humanity for whom we reserve the death penalty for.
We have to understand the circumstances in which the crime was perpetrated.
Ajmal Kasab was 21 when he committed the killings in Mumbai, more than half of
the boys of that age, under everyday conditions are not fully aware of their actions;
Kasab was probably recruited early in his childhood and indoctrinated with a
false ideology based on hate and violence. If I had lost someone dear to me in
the attacks, I would have wanted Kasab dead, but the more evolved and humane
response would have to be something else, he could have been sentenced for
life; like in Norway which will keep its vile terrorist attacker, Anders
Breivik, locked up for life. That would arguably have been a greater deterrent
than hanging a man who had planned anyway to die. Our responses to such
situations should reflect the soul and conscience of mankind, that which values
life itself more than anything, rather than temporary public anger.
To come to the death penalty itself, when a court in any
country pronounces a death penalty it actually is trying to wipe clean its
blemishes. A human being considered worth executing by the society, is actually
a result of the failure of the institutions of the society. If we have people
who cross all limits of civilised life, it is because the society in large has
created circumstances for their creation. It is the failure institutions like
the judiciary, legislature and also the institution of family or an absence of
it. When you take part in ceremonious killing of a fellow human being, we
refuse to gauge the inherent value of life itself.
