Human Rights Watch is opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances as an inherently irreversible, inhumane punishment. It is a practice abolished by a majority of world states. On December 18, 2007, the United Nations general assembly passed by a wide margin a resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions. In fact, the international community had moved further towards abolishing the death penalty on November 19, 2012, when 110 countries approved a general assembly draft resolution calling for a moratorium on executions. India was part of a tiny minority that voted to retain capital punishment, arguing for it being used sparingly, and in cases of particularly heinous crimes.
In Kasab’s case, the “rarest of the rare” doctrine was upheld, considering the seriousness of his crime. However, apart from violating the very principle of the right to life, to those that celebrate his death as a step towards justice for the Mumbai attacks, bigger questions remain. Will his death serve as a deterrent? After all, Kasab had been sent on a suicide mission. He committed these acts and was prepared to die in the process. And this execution has fulfilled that mandate. More crucially, in the interest of justice, have the right people really been punished? Those that plotted the attack and deployed these deadly killers remain at large, or are yet to be convicted.
However, the “rarest of the rare” principle is in itself faulty, with interpretation left to the discretion of individual judges who are vulnerable to fallible judgements based on fallible evidence. On July 14, 2012, retired judges asked India’s president to commute the death sentences of 13 inmates erroneously sentenced by the Supreme Court. This followed the court’s admission that some of these death sentences were rendered per incuriam (out of error or ignorance). In November, the Supreme Court conceded that the “rarest of the rare” standard has not been applied uniformly over the years and the norms on death penalty need “a fresh look”.
It is thus essential that India demonstrate that Kasab’s execution was an aberration rather than a return to the days of widespread application of the death penalty. The government should now announce an official moratorium on the death penalty, and then work towards abolishing it altogether. The death penalty is an act of cruelty that should never be used, not least because of its negative and brutalising effect on society.
Former Time reporter Meenakshi Ganguly is South Asia director, Human Rights Watch; E-mail your columnist: gangulm AT hrw.org
Apropos Meenakshi Ganguly’s Jump Cut (The Question Hangs), human rights people are welcome to give their valuable opinion after some of their own become victims of terror.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Jean Jacques Rousseau used to sign off his letters as the "Citizen of Geneva". It is always good to observe how columnists and writers identify themselves. Publications usually have a tag line at the bottom of the article, which introduces the writer. A short sentence or two or sometimes three tells us that the writer is a research fellow in a university or think tank, or author of a book or holding a senior position in an institution. In this particular article, I find it interesting to note that the writer still identifies herself as a fomer reporter of the weekly newsmagazine 'Time'. Not sure, but it is almost a decade since I would have read her article in Time,
I do not care about detterent... but at least we tax-payers are not paying more than 10 crores per year to keep that B@$**** alive.
>> "....is it their contention it is okay for the Government to hang an innocent person?" - Suresh
If they believe that they have been wrongly convicted, people have the choice to appeal to the higher courts, all the way to the Supreme Court. Specific to this case, the seculars are jumping as if they were being hanged yesterday.
>>> One of the strongest cases one can give for the abolition of death sentence is the possibility of innocents being hanged. Recently the Delhi High Court acquitted two men who were sentenced to death by the trial court.
For those who dislike the post from Saroja above, is it their contention it is okay for the Government to hang an innocent person?
Human Rights Watch is opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances as an inherently irreversible, inhumane punishment."
Is HRW opposed to abortion-which after all is baby killing.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT