Ares

Life: Is it ours to take? (Part II)

2007-05-28T05:48:00.000-07:00

Some may say that criminals should deal with the consequences of their crimes and the state must make examples out of the few that are imprisoned so that criminals will be vigilant and the rest of society would feel pleased that the government is strict on such offenders. I feel that this may be a false sense of hope rather than a reality, as crime levels have never drastically responded to stricter laws.

For crime control the answer is simply, ‘attack the causes of it’. Crime is not a result of lenient laws. Crime is a cause of poverty, prejudice, greed, discrimination and sometimes even lack of education.

The implementation of the death sentence may only result in two things. One, Crime would reduce insignificantly and may be even momentarily and two, it would result in a generation of smarter criminals.

Some may ask me why the death penalty would not affect crime rates. Everyone fears death. Well it is simple. The death sentence can only apply to a few crimes which may be considered either unacceptably malicious or crimes against the state. Now this only constitutes a very small portion of crime and therefore would not make a significant enough dent on crime. However, improving the lifestyles of so many unemployed people in the ghettos and slums would result in a far greater outcome in terms of crime control and social responsibilities.

If you are under the misguided conception that death is a more intimidating outcome for criminals than life imprisonment, then let me prove to you how the death sentence would not affect a criminal’s mindset.

An individual who willingly commits a crime which is punishable by death is quite well aware of the consequences of his actions. In this situation, the criminal is conscious that if he is convicted his life is thereby ended, whether it be by his hanging or a life sentence. Therefore, the death penalty in its self poses no barrier for such a degree of crime as the alternative punishment would be no easier to bear. In which ever circumstance, the criminal would never pose a threat to society again.

Of course there are other trivial problems such as the risk of an innocent man being sentenced to death, however minute the possibility maybe and the true, genuine reformation of a convict. Although these situations are inconsequential and almost never occur, I must say that if a democratic government lets a few of us fall in between the cracks, then the system is flawed, and lives cannot fall victim to such follies.

Human life is not to be tampered with. If we claim the right to the lives of others in the name of what we think justice to be, then it only proves our ignorance. It is not for us to decide who lives and dies and for what reasons they shall. Wielding that sort of power is beyond our reach. I believe that the greatest error committed by human kind is trusting that life and all its contents, begins and ends with us.

Life: Is it ours to take? (Part I)

2007-05-28T01:08:00.001-07:00

Capital punishment has never really been an issue in Sri Lanka since the death sentence itself is on moratorium. It’s a sort of an automatic procedure, where the criminal is convicted, sentenced to death and then goes on to spend the rest of his life in the confinement of his prison cell.

I remember when President Chandrika Bandaranaike attempted to reintroduce the death penalty in 2005 after High Court Judge Ambeypitiya’s death. After 24 years of the penalty being on moratorium, many considered this a major step back in Human Rights in Sri Lanka.

It’s been over 30 years since the last state hanging took place and there are still certain parties in the government as well as the public that wish to accurately enforce this punishment without the charade.

In fact, this has been troubling me for past few weeks as I pondered whether the reinforcement of the death penalty will just prove democracy an oxymoron. Do we, as humans of the same intellect and understanding, have the right to take the life of a fellow human being?

If a state’s law condemns murder, what validation does it have to murder in the name of justice? Is justice actually ours to protect? And is our human interpretation of justice actually protecting what is just and righteous? Must people actually be exterminated to provide the rest of society a comfortable and secure existence?

The issue in question is a moral one. For the ease of my readers let us discuss the matter in terms of a prisoner put to death for multiple homicides. As many may believe, there are some criminals that must be exterminated in order to withhold justice because they have committed a certain degree of crime. Or in simpler terminology, “they deserve it” or “they had it coming”. As far as this maybe true, there is a line which is crossed each time someone is executed by the state. The moral reality of ‘two wrongs do not make a right’ applies perfectly to this discussion as the action taken by the state is essentially the crime committed by the murderer, except for the fact that justice is the state’s motive

One of my close friends asked me but one question on this topic. “If your family was hacked to death by some robbers tomorrow, will you not want that person to suffer the same fate?” When I was met with this question, I paused and thought to myself that maybe I would want the murderer to suffer an even more ill fated end as he would take away from me more than I would be able to bear.

However, it dawned upon me that at my idea of justice at a point like this would be completely driven by my emotion. I would only want a selfish form of vengeance by which I would still feel no better as it will yet not compensate for what I had lost. So I simply answered him, “I guess that is why affected family members are never part of a jury”.

The next dilemma I faced was whether justice itself was a glorified form of revenge. Was justice just another excuse for man to claim the right to take another man’s life? Was Justice the justification for revenge? And are we living in a world where states hide behind the mask of integrity and carry out a righteous regime of Vigilantism while we nod our heads in ignorance?

Humble Beginnings...

2007-05-24T09:50:00.000-07:00

I recall it was only a fortnight ago that I swore never to indulge myself with such fruitless writing. However, it has dawned upon me that the ‘blogsphere’ is not a mere device used by simpletons to vent out their frustrations but a window of opportunity; a window of opportunity by which one may reach a broader audience and deeper criticisms.

As I stand before the gorge of opportunity, I only pray that this may be a safe haven for profound and reflective discourse, as well as conversations outside the sober borders of mundane life. So as I venture out into what is unknown to me, may this be an enlightening journey; a journey which would lead me to a more liberal perspective.