Thursday 20 November 2014

DEATH SENTENCE

DEATH SENTENCE

By
J.L. Gupta

What is the most difficult thing that can confront a man? To sit in judgment over another human being. To determine whether the person is guilty or innocent. To decide whether the man should live or die. To Pronounce, "You are awarded - death sentence."

Man is not an uncivilized brute. Nor a mere animal. He is civilized and sensitive. Some may feel sick at the sight of an abattoir. Many may not be able to stomach the sight of an animal being slaughtered. And life is God’s gift. No man should have the right to take it away from another human being.

Yet, the world is not a convent. It is not inhabited by nuns. Nor is it a monastery managed by monks. It has its share of deviants. Children, men and women who do not value life. They wield weapons. Would stab another for the smallest thing. Kill for a few coins. They take away the life of another person to satisfy their own ego. We cannot visualize all that one human being can do to another. Let me illustrate.

A man and his brothers owned a piece of land. Adjoining that of their uncle and cousins. He started installing a tube well. Just next to his uncle's. His cousin requested him to shift the site so that both could get adequate supply of water. He did not agree. The cousin went to the Court. He got an injunction. Even that was violated. The cousin sought police help to ensure compliance with the court’s directive. He got it. The police intervened.  It took steps to ensure compliance with the Court’s Order.

In the evening the man picked up his gun. He let loose all hell on his uncle’s family. He killed his uncle, two cousins and their wives. One of the ladies was eight months pregnant. The sight of close relations bleeding to death did not even bother him. He had just walked away. Six precious lives were taken away in less than six minutes. Three generations were obliterated without a thought. In anger. In a moment of madness. To avenge an imaginary insult. To be one up on the other members of the family. Just to be able to install the tubewell at the place of his choice. He was not bothered as to whether or not they would get sufficient quantity of water.

Then, followed the arrest. Interrogation. Investigation. Commitment. And the trial. The process of law is really trying and tiring. Finally, the trial concluded. The Court recommended the award of death sentence to the accused. The case was placed before a Bench of two Judges of the High Court. The entire evidence was examined. Re-examined. The Counsel did the hair-splitting. Then came the moment. A trial for the two judges. Should the death penalty be confirmed? The accused is young. In all probability, he would have a young wife. Small children too. Aged parents as well. What would they do? How would they live? The Judges imagined and examined everything.

All in all, it appeared to be a traumatic experience. And then, with a grim and solemn look, one of 'the Judges wrote - "Death sentence is confirmed." Both signed it.


Just a sentence? Or, is it a Just sentence? Should a man and a monster be treated alike? It never ceases to trouble me.

9 comments:

  1. Ponder, reflect, cross, but there must be no room for guilt when certain individuals choose a sentence for themselves rather than just one word, 'LIFE'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is insightful to see Judges agonise over a decision. Even in face of irrefutable evidence! Goes to show that they, and the Judiciary aren't the unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring mechanical morons they are made out to be. On the contrary, they deal with every case humanely as, more often than not it is a human problem, involving the life and livelihood of a human being. It is heartening to see such sensitive dispensation of justice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It makes a delightful reading to see a judge being so sensitive to all aspects of human life-not many are! Many climb the ladder through means that may not be fair and then enjoy the power ruthlessly, which has been bestowed by the majesty of law, without blinking an eye. This write up should be an eye opener to this class of judges....

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can only imagine what a painful and harsh decision it must be for the Honourable Judges, as we doctors, professionally, have a duty to save lives. Even then, in case a patient doesn't survive, despite our best efforts, it leaves us with a question in our head- could we have done more? Deep down, a feeling of sadness and sometimes guilt haunts us whenever a patient dies for reasons beyond our control. I guess it is even more troubling to pass on a death sentence, in a clear state of mind after balancing and weighing all the facts. Hats off to your guts!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The clear message is the innocent must be protected . And those who cause injury to the innocent must be punished.
    Equal concern for the accused and the victim is the evidence of real justice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It has taken me many days of thought wether the sentence was 'just' or just a sentence . as in this illustration by milord or maybe in the senseless 16 december imcident, the sentence is 'just'. Brutes should be held accountable for their actions. I have learnt a lot from milord. Humbly , i give my opinion on this issue .

    ReplyDelete
  8. The death penalty for killers of human beings may be constitutionally right but morally flawed. The focus should be on protecting the public and not on killing the killers. This simply perpetuates the culture of death. Capital offenders must be severely punished and habitual murderers incarcerated for life without a release on parole. The history has shown that the habitual murderers rarely rehabilitate and once released would commit similar offences soon after. Some might argue that sparing a murderer the death penalty would show profound disrespect to his victim.

    Judges play God and consider themselves controlling the life and death of a human being under the umbrella of the Constitution. After the pronouncement they might even inflect like Uncleji. They might say it was very difficult for them to pronounce a death sentence and they only acted based on the arguments advanced by the prosecution and defense lawyers and the witnesses 0n both the sides. They cannot gauge the truth and many a times innocent have been executed. Whether or not the death penalty is required as a matter of strict retributive justice, in my view it is morally repugnant.

    Jai Hind

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is such a difficult topic and even in debates one is not sure what is right or wrong. I was remembering the movie " Dead man walking" when I read this write-up. Also thinking that many countries in the west with the exception of US have banned the death penalty as inhuman. Others such as China have death penalty even for tax crimes. The world opinion is divided. To be a judge and to have to deliver such a judgement must be very tormenting. To be a judge and to sit over even other judgements must also be so very difficult when one knows that either way someone will suffer. Hats off to you uncle for doing your duty with so much dilligence and care taking into account all aspects.

    ReplyDelete