Tuesday 29 April 2014

VICE OF A VIRTUE

‘Vice of a Virtue’
By
J.L. Gupta

I have been to jail. Several times. Often, in august company. And every time it has been an exposure to a catalogue of wrongs. Be it food, hygiene or other conditions. Nevertheless, each visit has been an experience. The memory of one visit comes alive.
It was a high security prison. A part of the jail had the condemned prisoners’ cells. For persons sentenced to death. To keep them in solitary confinement. Away from all others. Even from the other convicts and under-trials. Having not seen one earlier, I was curious. Wanted to see the cell as well as the inmate. I wondered if those who commit murder actually look like the butcher in a meat shop. So, I had walked to the section. The cell looked very small in size. Cramped. Just a raised platform made of brick and mortar. It was the bed and bath room. All in one.  Behind iron bars. And a sentry outside with a gun to keep constant vigil on the inmate. Day and night.
The occupant was a young man. In late twenties. Or possibly, even in early thirties. A handsome face. Chiselled features. Fair complexion. Tall. Almost athletic in appearance. I was told that he had been there for quite some time. The pale face was once pink. What looked a bundle of bones was once a well built body. He had really ‘lost weight after the court had dismissed his appeal.’ Now his petition for the presidential pardon was pending. Probably, it held some hope for him.
Instinctively, I felt concerned. Despite the knowledge that he must have committed a heinous crime, I tried to make some conversation with him. The response was one of total indifference. Asked him if he needed anything. “No! Now nothing makes any difference.” And saying that, he raised his shirt sleeve. Pinched his arm. Pulled the skin off his forearm. Not a drop of blood oozed out. There was not even a suggestion of any pain on his face. Surprising? Yes! But true. Probably, this was the young man’s way of saying that solitary confinement kills. The lurking fear of death destroys the body cells. Bit by bit. It deadens the nerves. Also that the fear of impending death had freed the body from the sensation of pain.
Yet, the petitions for presidential clemency remain pending. Interminably. For long periods of time. Even years. In Chatterji’s case from Calcutta, the solitary confinement had lasted for more than a decade. The journey from decision to death is long and arduous. Why?
Clemency is an act of kindness. Do we not make it a cruel curse by delaying the decision? Are we not prolonging the agony of uncertainty? Are we not making a vice of a virtue? It is no wonder that the Supreme Court in the case of Shatrughan Chauhan & Another versus UOI was persuaded to commute death penalty to that of imprisonment for life in a number of cases where the Government had delayed the decision for years without any justification.

The government's reticence, seems to question the validity of the verdict. It suggests that since the Constitution does not lay down any time limit, the view taken by the Court is not correct. It is also suggested that the exercise of clemency jurisdiction is not questionable before courts. The argument is, in my view untenable, legally as well as morally. Legally, because when the Constitution vests the power in the high dignitaries like the President or the Governor, it expects them to act efficiently and reasonably. Also morally, because in matters of life and death, no authority, howsoever high, can adopt a lackadiasical attitude in dicharging a constitutional duty. Secondly, judicial review is a basic feature of our Constitution. Hopefully, the executive shall do its duty without delay or demur in future. It shall not continue to make a vice of virtue.   

4 comments:

  1. I was wondering if giving the final decision to someone outside the actual process isn't in some ways a failure to take responsibility. I made my decision, but just to be safe I will let someone else overrule my decision. Okay, the check and counter balance is a basic principle in a democracy and when it comes down to it, it is more counter balance than authenticative in nature.

    A recent study estimates that one in 25 inmates sentenced to death in the United States has been wrongly convicted... the news article had the headline "More than 4% of death row inmates [in the USA] likely innocent"... well, wrongly convicted and innocent are not necessarily the same except in some legal sense.

    While I don't know the system in India, it's been reported that in the country where I reside that convicted individuals tend to linger and in some cases die of old age while pondering their fate...

    The question before us is not correctness of a judicial process, which is obviously a critical matter that in principle resides within the legal branch, albeit not behind closed doors. A judge cannot abdicate that process/decision. In some sense we are considering an administrative issue of high order. No one expects the executive body to be more intelligent or insightful in a judiciary sense. Execution of the executive responsibility is different, the decisions are of a different nature and viewpoint. Maybe there should be guidelines and maybe the judiciary has an obligation to raise the point, not from a perspective of offloading a decision nor as a corrective measure for a process gone bad, nor as approval of a judgment.

    No matter how they frame it, the executive is not exercising it's responsibility in this matter by giving a legal opinion, as such they are not actually questioning or agreeing with the validity of the verdict... they are taking an "executive decision", which is not subject to the framework of justice, but to the timing and intensity of the winds of political office... which is a valid consideration in a strong democracy...

    ReplyDelete
  2. What does it mean to endure absolute loss of liberty and freedom? For those of us who have not encountered such a prospect, it may seem like something which happens to other people. We after all are the lucky ones who live in our dreamworld. We have the audacity to dream. We have that unyielding hope.

    What about the person who undoubtedly deserves much worse? He after all should have thought better before committing such a heinous act. He does not deserve any sympathy. His dreams have to die a dog's death. His tiny trickle of hope needs to be snatched.

    In a democracy, however flawed, the legal process of the law needs to be followed and upheld. It is after all the essence of democracy. When we opted for democracy we adopted that "Lex is Rex" and not that "Rex is Lex". The law is the king. This subversion of the law at the discretion of the executive needs to be questioned. The judiciary, the guardian and the protector of the Constitution and the rights of the people has rightfully stepped in and given an alternative to the executive process on the issue of clemency. Thank God for the sense of justice of the Indian judiciary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Every crime committed by a criminal is also a reflection on the Society that we live in. While it is fair to punish the criminal within the framework of law, timely and decisively without executive intervention, it is equally important to reflect on the why of crime. Anger and hatred must be directed at the crime and not the criminal. The law too, I believe, punishes with the intent to reform and deter. Death penalty as handed out in extreme cases also is meant to deter similar action by others. The criminal deserves as much sympathy, love and understanding as any other while the punishment meted out to him serves a larger purpose of deterrence and reformation and natural justice. We must hate the wrong and not the wrongdoer. Society irrespective of the times that we may be living in, needs to be compassionate and kind. This is also what our scriptures teach us. Rama bore no ill will against Ravan. He punished him for his wrong but never hated him.

    Coming back to the topic, the judges know best and certainly better than the President. He is no God that he can pardon when the judge has sought to punish. The criminal deserves punishment for his good and for the society's good. There is no virtue in Presidential pardon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Only the few who attained sameness & oneness could instantly forgive from within like Mahatma Gandhi forgave his assassin. Jesus prayed to God to pardon his tormentors & Buddha forgave Angulimala and accepted him as his disciple even though he had killed several people.
    Title vice of a virtue by the writer shows his inner spiritual awakening . It is at par with the all time great saints. Though flowing with laws for more than 50 years his vision is purely divine & beyond the popular concept of justice.

    Punishments does give a feeling of safety & security in the society but severe and harsh punishments have done little to transform the victims.
    Conditions in the jail and delayed decisions are causing havoc on their mental and emotional well being . They die every moment much before they are sentenced to death .Even clemency after a gap of time cannot fill their heart with gratitude and they continue to do the evil once they are set free.
    His vision remind me of a movie ," Doe aankhen baarah haath" released in 1957 in which the director picturised out of the way technique in transforming, not punishing 6 criminals
    In the end it showed the positive & permanent change in their attitude .

    His observation & deep thinking expressed wisely, wants us to see that criminals are not inherently bad and they do not deserve such treatment. By focusing on the condition of inmates his words are giving his own introduction & his love for the whole humanity. One can feel the joy of meeting the living god while going through this article.

    Person who is not bound by the knowledge of law can only dare to care for the inmates. The purpose of law and Government gets defeated when decisions to be taken becomes issues to be solved. When God is ever forgiving its pity that humans are creating Vice of a Virtue.

    ReplyDelete