Years ago, when human civilization was still evolving, man did only what was beneficial for him, or at best what was beneficial for his family, his tribe or his clan. However, now after centuries of ‘so called progresses, mankind has been burdened with an added social responsibility; to care not only of himself and his immediate family, but to work for the betterment of the entire humanity.

This has resulted in an artificially induced dichotomy; a sort of conflict of interest among the various hierarchies of this man made social system. Let us be realistic- deep within, even the most kind heart and the purest noblest soul, blazes that primeval desire to take care of oneself .This is indeed in conformity with the laws of nature, where such behavior ensures the survival of the fittest.

This in no way implies that man must not care for society, or live by its rules .What it does, however imply is that such behavior might very well be in conformity with the outlook of most of us, however for a few, this may result in a conflict of interest, compelling them into acts which the civilized world terms as “crime”. It is about these men, and their acts, that this piece of writing, is concentrating upon.

Initially there was no problem with this social system, as all men worked to make both ends meet, taking care of themselves and those few that depended directly on them. However as society began to evolve, and it was expected of mankind to take care of not only themselves, but work for the benefit of humanity, that the so called social ills started occurring.

Men slowly began to steal, lie, commit felonies, betray other humans and by treachery, stated committing sins, in order to improve their lives, thus falling even deeper into the well of vices dug by them.Necessity is the mother of all inventions, and out of this barbarian chaos; where might was always right, emerged the foundation of justice: that wasthe principle “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth!” Punishment was made dependent upon, and commensurate with the crime. A few select men took upon themselves the role of God and assumed rights, not given by God- The right to take lives, disguising it in a socially acceptable form and terming it “capital punishment.”The idea of justice, law and judgment, must be to punish, not seek vengeance.

Many will argue that a taker of lives is a murderer, and he ought to be punished for the crimes he has committed. But doesn’t Capital punishment make the person ordering it a murderer too, and perhaps a greater sinner than the person who killed, as he must have done so in a moment of insanity, hate, evil or malice. A person ordering the death penalty does so, confined in his room, using reason, where he is devoid of such barbaric emotions. In spite of this, if he still orders the death of the sinner, instead of punishment (even though he may say death itself is a punishment); I feel that he becomes a bigger sinner, a bigger murderer, than the person who initially committed the act.

By taking away the life of a criminal, instead of sentencing him to the most exemplary rigorous punishment, you are actually doing him a favor. By killing him you are releasing him of all the hardships he could have faced, and refusing to give him a chance to contemplate, introspect and possibly change.Death is not punishment. It is a sudden dramatic and momentous release from it.

Many argue that no matter what, the death penalty is necessary to deter criminals from committing crime. These people would have a man killed, so that other people do not do so. They are happy in setting an example which is in fact itself a crime: a crime greater then the one being punished. What do you think is a greater crime –to kill in a fit of rage ,a moment of insanity ,vengeance, woe, malice;full of negative human emotions, or to kill after days of deliberation in a court room .Isn’t this a premeditated murder of justice?

I am a Hindu and a staunch believer of “Punar Janam”or rebirth. We are sent to earth to fulfill our role and to improve our next lives by indulging in good deeds. If one errs in this, it is imperative, and also according to the rules of natural justice desirable, that the person is punished, and also given a chance to repent for his deeds. He must be given an opportunity to introspect, reflect on his wrong actions and try to improve himself, so that when he actually dies, he is a better human than he was, when he committed the crime. These thoughts and good deeds, according to the Hindu Shastras, go along with a person into his next life. Thus such a person, who was a murderer in one life, may very well turn out to be a saint in the next, provided an opportunity was given for him to repent, introspect and improve and reform himself. If however, you just go and kill a killer, you are killing him while in his mind he is still a killer, and in the next life he is goingto continue being so, only with added vengeance.Those who support the death penalty also argue that it is a necessary deterrent for others from committing such crimes. I do not want to go into the merits of such a presupposed argument, which over the years has been consistently proved wrong by statistics. Such an argument is based on the false premise that exemplary punishment will definitely act as a strong deterrent. They fail to realize that exemplary acts of crime are committed by insane minds, during temporary periods of illogical thought, or by misguided individuals who firmly believe that what they are doing is right. For such strong human emotions, no deterrent can be strong enough to warrant the reduction of such heinous crimes.

Only reformatory punishment, involving introspection, reflection and reform could possible change the mindset of a few of such people, and that too after very long periods of time.I firmly believe that punishment must bereformative and not punitive. By killing men, by awarding them the death penalty, we must remember we are not bringing the victim back. We are only satiating our own primeval desire for vengeance.

No man is ever born a criminal. It is society, his circumstances and experiences as a part of it, which makes him one. It is thus society’s duty to help such criminals by reforming them and giving them a new lease of life, rather than killing the criminal, and so easily washing off ones hands from ones responsibility.

I must also add that capital punishment can be a terrible mistake too. The greatest argument against capital punishment is that it is irrevocable. Once killed, you cannot get the person back. What happens, if in the light of new evidence, it is proved after the convict was killed ,due to an award of the death penalty, that he was not responsible for the crime? Such cases are not uncommon. Can we then make amends for the wrongfully prescribed punishment to him? Isn’t it better for a criminal to get a so called “lesser Punishment”, than kill an innocent man?

A convict accused of murder, or even one convicted for it, and awarded the death penalty is often kept locked in prison, for years, while the case against him or his mercy appeal keeps lingering on. In such a scenario, his fate is worse than his nebulous future. In the banal monotony of his prison cell, he is left only to contemplate the certainty of his imminent death. This is worse than death itself, for he is then inhumanly left staring at death, which is slowly inching towards him.This is not punishment. This is sadism.Such a punishment can never reform. Such punishment can never improve our society. How can the death penalty punish a prisoner, when all it does, is take away the prisoner to another world, insread of punishing him. I stand, firmly, for the abolition of the death penalty.

Ishan Agarwal