Mumbai Attackers Should be Hanged

The attackers of Mumbai got finally the punishment they deserve. Their should not be any mercy or delay in delivery them their due. In case their punishment is delayed the terrorists can hijack a flight and demand the release of the jailed killers. In the best interests of the humanity they must be hanged at the earliest.

The Times of India writes (7 August 2009)

Six years after the bomb attacks in Mumbai killed 54 people and injured over 180, a special court has sentenced three people to death. The
investigators and the jury deserve praise for completing the trial in reasonably quick time and in a transparent manner. Terrorists do not deserve any sympathy and attempts to politicise or communalise terror trials must not be encouraged.

It is important that all terror-related cases are fast-tracked without compromising due process to ensure that justice is delivered quickly. In many cases, avoidable delays in investigation and trial have resulted in innocent people spending years in jail as undertrials. These compromise the credibility of public institutions and provoke a sense of victimhood among people and communities. There are groups that exploit such sentiments. If better infrastructure material and personnel is provided to the police and the legal system, it would be possible to reduce the time taken to conduct terror trials in a fair and transparent manner. Speedy disbursal of justice can limit the spread of complaints and conspiracies.

Terrorism is an inhuman act and exemplary punishment must be meted out to terrorists. The legal system in India sanctions death penalty as a punishment in the 'rarest of rare' cases. However, this newspaper has for long argued that death penalty has no place in a liberal society. No crime is deserving of death because the premises for death penalty, such as retribution, deterrence and incapacitation, are flawed. Retribution is a base instinct. The idea of justice must not be driven by the primitive urge to seek revenge. Procedural or juridical sanctions are not sufficient to justify an act that seeks to exterminate a life as punishment however gruesome the crime is. No murder can be condoned and nation states can't claim exemption to the moral logic that human life is precious if not sacred.

One may argue that death is the most powerful deterrent against crime. But the existence of death penalty has not prevented people from plotting and conducting massacres in the name of religion and ideology. Crime must be punished and punished in an exemplary manner, of course. And punishment in cases of terrorism must be severe enough to deter prospective terrorists and sufficient to incapacitate a convict. Life imprisonment, in the true sense of the term, could satisfy these considerations. It is time our lawmakers revisit the legal provisions for death penalty and make changes to the law in accordance with enlightened liberal practices elsewhere. That only 58 countries follow death penalty in law and practice as against 94 that have abolished it should serve as a wake-up call for us.