Capital Punishment

Should a State allow capital punishment or not? Probably one of the most debated topics of all time may be next only to 'Love Marriage vs Arranged Marriage' and 'Does God exists or not?' I think the last two questions has reduced considerably in recent times. But realized death penalty is still a lingering question after  its discussion in BBC program 'The Big Questions' a few weeks back.

As I see it, in general there are three sides to the discussion on capital punishment. First is the 'victim's side' - the victim and his/her family and friends. Second is the 'convict side' - the convicted person and his/her families. The third side, arguably the most dangerous side - 'the audience side' - people who are no way related to the case directly or indirectly, but just witness these events through media and eager to provide an "expert" opinion without actually living through it like the victim or the convicted.

Few arguments that's often placed by the audience against the capital punishment are 'Nobody has the right to take someone else's life', 'Capital punishment is an inhuman act', 'Every person deserves a second chance'. When such arguments are placed, there are some questions to ponder.

When a country is at war, is it right to kill the 'Enemy of the State' ? ('Enemy of the State' because the enemies here are not decided by the individual. This clip from Ab Tak Chhappan around the fourth minute talks about it precisely). Comparing killings at the war front and death sentence might not look appropriate, but they are objectively equivalent - taking a human life. Though both have a similar outcome, isn't it strange that we despise one as an inhumane and ornate the other with awards?

Similarly the famous quote by Gandhi "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is often used as a defence against capital punishment. This quote appeals to the masses easily and gains a lot of support like Gandhi himself. But when such quotes are placed under a context, they might not necessarily have the same appeal. Here is a context.

In relation to the late war, one question that every pacifist had a clear obligation to answer was: "What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?" I must say that I have never heard, from any Western pacifist, an honest answer to this question, though I have heard plenty of evasions, usually of the "you're another" type. But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 and that his answer is on record in Mr. Louis Fischer's Gandhi and Stalin. According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly.¹

After reading Gandhi's view on Holocaust, does the above quote still retains its charm? Should the Jews had followed Gandhi's view which is along the lines of "An eye for an eye.."? If Hitler was caught as a Prisoner of War, should he have been given a second chance? These are some questions to ponder for those who oppose capital punishment in the 'audience side'.

Now coming to the proponents of capital punishment in the 'audience side', the usual arguments are of the kind that 'Punishment deters crime', 'The convict loses his right when he violates others rights', 'Its justice done'. For arguments along these lines, my first question to them is 'How sure are they that the convicted was proved without any doubt² ?'.

Not all cases are self evident like 'Kasab's Trial' where there might not be much to prove. But in most other cases, I think that, its not possible for the audience to know the entire truth about the case. The audience's knowledge about the case could be based on media reports and hearsay and their opinion could also be influenced by their prejudice. The media reports are not always reliable, as each one of them carry a version of its own. For example Patrick French's story about the 'Aarushi murder case' is quite different form the stories in main stream media³. This is a classic example for 'what we know Vs the truth'. So how do we know what the truth is?

I think the answer is, except for some clear cut cases, there is no way for some one in the audience side to know whether a convicted person is the real criminal or not. Even if it is proved in a court of law, we often see that a judgement by the lower court is overturned by an higher court. So without knowing the truth should we really advocate death sentence for someone?

Now assuming that somebody is proven beyond doubt and is ordered to execute legally, will the supporters of capital punishment be ready to do the honors in their own hand on behalf of the Government, society or the victim? Being on the receiving side, it wouldnt be a surprise if the victim or victim's family wouldn't hesitate to execute, but from the audience side, I really doubt⁴. If it is only a right thing to do, restores justice and deters heinous crimes shouldn't they be able to do it like doing any other good deed to the society? If they cannot execute on their own hands, then what is the reason? Is it because they dont want to get blood on their hands but fine as long as some poor chap does it⁵?

Now going back to the original question, should a state allow capital punishment? With what I understand, I don't think there is a one size fits all solution for this. A blanket 'Yes' or 'No' might not help I guess. I think it should be only  handled at a case by case level and as much as objectively possible.

When it comes to individual cases, its better if the audience doesnt promote mass movements about whether the convict should be executed or not. For, what we know about the case might not be the truth at all. Moreover how much ever one can empathize with the victim or the convict, its never the same as actually being a victim or the convict. Tinkering with their emotions could only make it worse for them. So a better thing to do is to let the parties involved along with the system of law to judge on how it should be handled rather than we promoting a decision based on our "expert" opinion.


References & Links:
1. Reflections on Gandhi by George Orwell - http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/work/essays/ghandi.html
2. 12 Angry Men - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/
3. India - A Portrait - http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/worse-than-a-daughter-s-death
4. But not for the likes of Hazare - http://ibnlive.in.com/news/singhvi-should-be-hanged-if-found-guilty-anna/254810-37-64.html
5. Adoor Gopalakrishnan's Nizhalkuthu - A perspective from the eyes of an Hangman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizhalkuthu

Is Dowry a Crime?

The Hindu opinion column - 'The Other Half: Burn dowry, not women', briefs how dowry is still prevalent in India even in this age. The article also shows numbers indicating how the number of deaths and cases registered against dowry harassment has constantly increased. Definitely burned to death and any physical abuse in the name of Dowry is a crime, but is the act of seeking Dowry itself a crime?

Today Dowry is more or less portrayed as an expectation and demand only from the bridegroom and his family. Also as mentioned in the above article it is believed to an extent that only women are bought and sold in a marriage. Though this might appear to be true at a superficial level, it might not be the case if we look deep inside. There are some obvious invisible hands behind the act of Dowry. Before declaring Dowry as an act of crime one might have to take a step back to see how marriages work in India and the role of Dowry in it.

Arranged Marriages:

Even though love marriages are becoming common in India, still a significant number of marriages are arranged by families. In case of arranged marriages there is no pressure whatsoever for a family to get their children married to a particular bridegroom. Besides, given the population and sex ratio of India, there should be enough bridegrooms available for the brides. So if at all there exists Dowry then it should be demanded by the bride's family and not vice versa. At least this is how it should be theoretically.

What we see in reality is the reversal of this and often the bridegroom's family is held responsible for the prevalence of Dowry in the society. Assuming that the groom's family is the one that is demanding Dowry, is it possible that without a perennial source of supply, such a demand would have sustained for such a long period of time? In other words Dowry itself wouldnt have survived without a constant support from the bride's family.

This raises the question of why something considered so evil for the bride and her family is supported by themselves.

In a typical arranged marriage, the bride's family has a set of expectations about their son in-law and how their daughter's future family should be. This expectation may vary anywhere from a steady monthly income to an accomplished professional with a solid financial background. Of course there is nothing wrong in this as every parent would want to get their children married into a better family irrespective of their own status.

So in order to secure a groom of their expectations the bride's family is ready to give what the groom's family expects and sometimes even if the groom's family doesnt expect anything. This is just to ensure that they get their groom of their expectation and also to make their daughter feel that she has some something to hold on when entering into a new family.

One might state that marriages are union of minds and the groom's family should not insist or demand anything materialistic. But then shouldn't we also insist that the bride's parents should not seek a groom with any materialistic expectations like steady income, family background, type of job etc.? So the price of the groom or how much Dowry a groom's family can demand or insist is to an extent set by the bride's family. So in cases like this Dowry is a mere price for how much the groom and his family is worth of.

Even though the bride's family has no compulsion to get into a marriage with a family who seeks Dowry, they still get into it voluntarily with a desire to provide a life of their expectation to their daughter. In such a non coercive arrangement, where the bride's family has every opportunity to not get into an arrangement with a family seeking Dowry; the dowry is just a voluntary exchange of what the individuals are looking for.

In this case can seeking Dowry be considered as a crime ? If so then seeking a groom of certain expectation should also be considered as a crime ? After all this expectation is the one that sets the price of the Dowry or sustains the Dowry in the society.

Love Marriages:

In case of arranged marriages its not a surprise when parents seek or pay Dowry for the reasons mentioned above. Its really a surprise in case of love marriages. Unlike arranged marriages the bride has more say in a love marriage and the groom is decided irrespective of the parent's expectations. So unlike arranged marriages, here there is no demand-supply or expectations issue. In spite of this if Dowry is transacted in a love marriage, then it must be voluntary. Moreover, in a love marriage a bride has more opportunities to say No to any form of Dowry if she thinks it is is immoral or illegal and so does the groom. So again here Dowry is just a voluntary transaction and there is no compulsion for any of the parties to comply with it. In spite of this if Dowry was taken or given should it be considered as a crime?

Post Marriage:

Not often a prospective groom and his family are accused of seeking Dowry. As long as the groom is ready to get married, the bride's family is happy. The problem starts mostly post marriage when the girl is being physically or mentally tortured for further dowry. Even here the physical or mental abuse is definitely a crime, but the act of seeking Dowry? How something that was not considered as a crime before marriage by the bride's family turned out into a criminal act after marriage?

In cases where Dowry was transacted before the wedding, it is unfair if the bride and her family were silent before the wedding and later use the anti-dowry laws to accuse the groom and his family for seeking Dowry especially when the marriage turns into a failure. Shouldn't the bride's family be accused as well for being accomplice in the first place if Dowry was paid before or during the wedding ?

Obviously there may be cases where the groom's family didn't seek or promised not to ask Dowry initially and later when the marriage is over start insisting on it along with physical and mental abuse. Cases like these are no different from extortion and are clear violation of individual and property rights. No individual has any form of right over the other's property unless it is voluntarily given. These cases might most likely fall under under any existing laws for manhandling and property disputes.

Moreover, another question to be asked here is, is Dowry the only reason woman being abused in a household. Earlier there were cases about women being abused for not bearing a child, then for bearing a female child, then not bearing a male child, for their social behavior etc. So if not not Dowry then there is going to be something else as long as woman are being dependent on their husband's and in-laws and treat them as demigod. As Amit Varma writes here Women should learn to be independent and able to walk out of bad marriages if required. Only when women especially wives are not taken for granted in a household, that's when all these abuse and burning to death will actually come down.

Now going back to the original question, is Dowry still a crime? Given that in most cases its been a voluntary transaction between two families which doesn't affect the society itself as such, and any coercive way of seeking another person's wealth would/should fall under existing property laws, do we still need to criminalize Dowry and have laws to control it?

Dowry may be a moral or ethical issue depending upon an individual's standard of ethics but definitely not a legal or criminal issue when it is done voluntarily without affecting others rights.

Enforcing moral correctness by means of man made laws is not only a violation of individual rights by itself but will eventually result in abusing the law as well.

Anti Dowry laws are no exception to this and has already gone through a lot of criticism for its misuse.

Links:

Amit Varma article in India Uncut:

http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/we-should-celebrate-rising-divorce-rates/

On Dowry Law Criticism in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry_law_in_India#Criticism

Conviction and Sentence

Felton spent fourteen years in isolation in a supermax, where he was repeatedly refused to let out of solitary confinement by the state prison director in spite of a request form the senator.

Few years later the same prison director was convicted and sentenced on a different case. When Felton was asked if he would release him from solitary if he wrote to him, his reply was spontaneous.

Felton didn't hesitate for a second. “If he wrote to me to let him out, I’d let him out,” he said.

This surprised me. I expected anger, vindictiveness, a desire for retribution. “You’d let him out?” I said.

“I’d let him out,” he said, and he put his fork down to make the point. “I wouldn’t wish solitary confinement on anybody. Not even him.” *

I was wondering what made Felton to let the prison director go. From the above statement, it doesn't look like a forgive and forget kind of thing.I only think it is because Felton didn't want any one else to go through what he had experienced.

Assuming so, given an option, how many would actually let some person go free, who was fully or partly responsible for what they had to experience.

In other words, in a hypothetical judicial system in which the victim is allowed to sentence a convict, how many victims would want the convict to go through what they had experienced physically and mentally.

Will the judgement and conviction be aimed only to correct the convict or will it have a sense of revenge (fairness ??) that would make the convict to go through what the victim had experienced.

Now exaggerating a bit more, what if, the victim or the people associated with the victim has to execute the sentence themselves , in case of death sentence or something similar like solitary confinement, will the victim(s) be able to execute the sentence themselves ?

Convicting some one with death sentence or something similar seems easy to say, but if one has to do it on their own hands, I wonder how many will be able to do it.

I guess the human mind should have experienced extremes in order to do something like that.

*The complete article on Felton and Solitary confinement http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande

Why?

A moment of silence was maintained today to honour the people died in the Mumbai terror attack. People around me were praying(atleast thats what i thought), but i end up only with my usual unanswered questions. To whom i should pray, What for and Why for? 

I dont know if i will ever get an answer for this...

Section 377

Looks like the Government of India has decided not to scrap the controversial section 377 of  the Indian Penal Code. 

It should be interesting to see the Government's argument to retain the law. Possibly the Government might argue that criminalizing this practice might reduce STD and AIDS in the society. Surprisingly the NGO's and other human rights organizations also quote the same reason for scrapping the law, along with the recogonition to these people in the society.

Irrespective of whether the law will increase HIV awareness and  prevent AIDS or not, the question here is whether is it  right to criminalize an induvidual based upon his\her sexual orientation ?

I dont feel it is OK to criminalize some one based upon their sexual orientation. Irrespective of whether it is against natural order, moral ethics or causing health issues, i dont think it is OK to brand them as criminals. 

Rather than defending the current law, the Government and Health Ministry can seriously think about scrapping the current law and enact new laws  to recogonize such practices and insist on monogamy among them. This might have a positive impact on their relationship as well as in the health issues of the society.

Green Vs Red

This one came to my mind, when i saw the symbol in the pizza box differentiating a Vegetarian Pizza and and a Non Vegetarian Pizza . The Vegetarian one had a Green colour and the other one had a Red Colour..

What does these colours signify..?
Green for vegetables and Red for the blood?
Is this a global representation used by the food outlets and manufacturers?
I remember seeing the similar green color symbol in a chocolate wrapper...

When i tried to Google for the global standard symbols, i was able to find a set of symbols for Vegetarian . But none for Non Vegetarians :(

Spoons and Forks

Why do we use spoons or forks while eating ? Back in India most of us don't use forks or spoon while eating at home.. But when we go out to restaurants or parties we manage to use them efficiently ;). What is the reason behind using this..?

If eating with spoons or forks is a good or healthy habit then why we are not following them at home ?

or

Its just a dining etiquette to be followed in public places ?

or

Is it just a eating style being followed from the western or the other parts of the world ?

Considering them as a healthy habit is a convincing reason, because our hands are maximum exposed to germs and dirt compared to the spoons and forks. In fact these utensils are sterilized in most of the places which makes them more safer..

Here is an article which speaks about the different ways of eating various kinds of food. Just curious to hear the history behind the usage of these spoons and forks.. :)

Can You?

Recently when i was commuting to office, i happened to see a small kid (should be around 5-7 yrs old) with an innocent face in a local bus. All of a sudden something made me feel how this kid is going to be after few years..May be a respectable person in the society or may be an anti social element (my 12 std master Mr. Sella paandi use this word very often :)) . This event triggered me a sequence of questions and facts.. Everyone is innocent when they are born. In that case, what makes them turn into a terrorists or anti social elements.

Is it the background they are born ?

Is it the environment they grow?

The extra ordinary circumstances or events that changes their course of life ?

I feel that the surroundings (which includes all the above) in which the child grows plays a vital role in determining his\her future.. Born in a decent background, with all conducive environment and factors to grow better, am sitting in LA and writing this blog.. What if i had born in a remote village of Kashmir or Sri Lanka with an environment that is not as conducive as i have now ? It is quite possible that i would have become a member of Al Quaeda or Tamil Eelam and fighting for its ideologies ?

Let us assume people like Osama, Prabhakaran, Phoolan are the victims of this vicious environments and background. Is it fair enough to judge and brand them, just because we had a better environment to grow?

I am not able to say for sure that I would have not become another Osama or Phoolan, if i had been brought up in their environment. Can you?

Hey Ram

When i was listening to this song "Gokulathu Kanna " from the movie Gokulathil seethi, this lyric "Raavanan nenjil Kaamam illai (Ravana had no lust in his mind) struck me something. As far as what i have heard about the epic Ramayana, Raavanaa captured Seetha and prisoned her in Sri Lanka.. And later Ram rescued Seetha and from their she took the Agni Test (Not the one Abdul kalaam tests, this is kind of fidelity test) to prove her integrity

Coming back to the lyric

The line "Raavanan nenjil kaamam illai" made some sense to me.. Though he captured Ram's wife (which cannot be justified for any reason), i am not sure if he did forcefully exhibited his desires\lust on her when seetha was in Lanka.. If it is true then so is the lyric.

When i felt Raavanaa's act of capturing Seetha is not justifiable, I felt that Ram's act of Agni Test is also not justifiable.. Was it really necessary ? Once you lose faith on your partner, their breaks the relationship then why need a test? May be Ram trusted her but to prove to this world, he wanted seetha to take it.. But again why do you want to prove to this world about someone whom you know better than the world....? An why it is only Seetha, and why not Ram's integrity is questioned here.. ?

One reason may be Ram is another man made God, or because Ram belongs to one of the most powerful dominating genre of the society,"The Men". I am not able to find a better answer for this. Do you?

Stance..

Here is an equation. A is in love with B , But B only likes A, but not in love with A. You should understand here the difference between love and like. When a person say they like you, it is not equal to or almost equivalent to loving you. Both are different. So get yourself cleared when some one says they like you :) . Coming back to the equation again, B only likes A. A is disappointed with B because B is not understanding or accepting the love of A. But B has its own valid reasons not to accept A.

To make this equation little complex, here comes C. C knows A is in love with B. In spite of that, C is loving A, like how A is loving B. When all the three comes to know about each other, what stance should they take?

A knows the pain of waiting for B. So A can easily understand how C will feel. Understanding C, should A accept C's Love?
or
Sticking to its stance, should A go ahead and keep on waiting for B? Doing this A is reacting to C, the same ways how B is reacting to A..
or
C knowing what love is, should it help A in its love for B?
or
B, coming to know C's love with A, should persuade A to accept C?

What will be your stance if you were A, B or in C's position?

How do you convey?

When you feel bad for what you have done to someone and you want to let him know that you regret for what had happened but you don't want to speak with him for other reasons, how do you convey?