Pune’s Tour Ride to Death – Is Judiciary Litening?

Well, this can probably be called a sequel of my earlier article – “Is India Scared of Executions?”

The other day, done with the episodes of Big Bang Theory, I decided to start with “House” – an American TV medical drama centered around a diagnostician Dr. House (the central character) and his team that solves cases through on medical diagnostics (one case per episode).

This was the first episode of the second season where a guy on a death sentence suddenly finds himself rushed into the hospital by House after he diagnosis him as hypoxic after his heart starts beating abnormally high enough to pump air instead of blood. Going through a series of brainstorming on the symptoms and the causes, not to forget the discovery of new symptoms and causes, House finds out that the prisoner (convicted for four murders – his girlfriend, a rival gang member inmate, a guard and a second inmate) is suffering from pheochromocytoma – a rare form of tumor that sits on top of the adrenal gland and randomly dumps adrenaline into the body. However, the best (and the most thought worthy) part of the episode was the conversation between House and Foreman (Diagnostician in House’s Team) in the last minutes of the episode. It goes something like this:

Foreman: Looks like they got the pheo out successfully. So, what now?

House: Clarence goes back to death row.

Foreman: Just like that?

House: He’s cured.

Foreman: That tumor caused random shots of adrenalin, which obviously led to the rage attacks that made him become a murderer in the first place

House: My God, you’re right!!! Let’s call the surgeons, we gotta save that tumor. Put it on the witness stand.

Foreman: We could testify at Clarence’s appeal.

House: You smell that? I think that is the stink of hypocrisy. You wouldn’t even consider the notion that Clarence’s social upbringing was responsible for what he became, but now you’re sprinting to the witness stand to blame everything on a little tumor.

Foreman: A person’s upbringing and their biology are completely different.

House: Yeah. Because you only overcame one of them. Well, let’s just give Clarence a free pass. Which is probably gonna piss off all those other pheo sufferers who managed to control their rage attacks and become lawyers, race car drivers, or even doctors. Removing that tumor puts a stop to those random shots of adrenaline. IT DOESN’T ABSOLVE HIM.

This made me think of the premises of justification of crimes, especially heinous crime like murders. The premises frequently used by the defendants, their lawyers in the court – medical illness, upbringing, family background, age etc. And these premises have been the basis of court verdicts as well. Going one step ahead, human rights organizations even cite laws specifying “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty” as the basis for acquittals of the accused. But how much is this justified? Especially the last dialog of Dr. House hit the nail when he mentioned about others who have managed to control their illness and live as normal life as possible.

What about those millions of Pakistani youths who did not go Kasab or Afzal Guru’s way? What about those millions of Tamilians who chose to excel in science and technology instead of going for Rajiv Gandhi assassination? What about those millions of people in the country who have very justifiable reasons to kill someone but instead prioritize their self-development to become a better human being? Doesn’t acquitting the murderers on medical or social grounds a contempt of all those who could have chosen the same path but didn’t? At the end of the day, it is the person’s own choices that make him what he is.

The conversation of the episode also reminded me of the Pune bus driver who went on a rampage, a day before I watched the episode, killing 9 people and injuring around 27 others. It was later on revealed that the driver was mentally ill. This made me wonder what is going to happen to him. While the Pune lawyers refused to represent him on humanitarian grounds, it brings in a legal deadlock where the trial cannot proceed without a defense counsel. If Santosh Mane finds a legal representative, who is really in a mood to actually defend him, the later would surely to exploit the point of mental illness to either move the verdict in favor of the accused or at least reduce the possible death sentence to life sentence.

India is a perfectly safe heaven when it comes to crimes equating to death penalty with only one execution in the last 17 years and none in the last 7. Surely, he is not gonna get hanged even if he is sentenced to. Doesn’t matter if he kills 9 or 90. The details of his mental illness or what exactly happened on that ill-fated morning is not out but it cannot be anything that wouldn’t have happened to any other bus driver in the country or, for that matter, any other person in this country. It was Mane’s choice to lose his mind and go on a rampage for about an hour. If he gets acquitted or anything less than death sentence, it would be an insult to all those who are as mentally ill as he is but did not opt for a killing spree. It would be insult to all those who lost their lives in that carnage for no reason.

Is India Scared of Executions?

As of September 01, 2011

 

Yesterday, I was came across a newscast on the stay order of Madras(shouldn’t we say Chennai???) High Court on the execution of the three convicts of Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. While the honorable President rejected the mercy petitions in August 11, Tamilnadu legislative assembly passed a unanimous resolution asking the government to commute the death sentences which was followed by the HC stay order. This reminded me of the numerous mercy petitions that are currently in pending in various courts, MHA and President over the death sentences already declared. It also brings in a question in my mind that why is executing capital punishment so difficult in this country? And if the country is so much against it, then why do we have it altogether when we cannot exercise it? In addition, there are three major concerns, I would like to discuss further.

1. Why is there a biased morality when it comes to mercy petitions for the convicts?
2. Does the government need to revise the considerations on mercy petitions? Why is the country not clear on its stand on death penalties?
3. Can our country afford to keep such petitions pending that take a toll on country’s exchequer (which is essentially tax payer’s money)?

 

The senior counsel of the three convicts of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, which includes eminent lawyers Ram Jethmalani, R Vaigai and Colin Gonsalves, argued citing violation of Article 21 of the constitution which cites “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty”. On the other hand, the human rights organizations express concerns on death penalties as they violate a person’s right to live. However, this is looking only on the one side of the coin. If we look into the crimes executed by the convicts, it mainly involves homicides and murders. From the victim’s perspective, the convict has also violated the victim’s “right to live”. It is amazing how HROs, polity and the supporters of the convicts completely overlook this perspective while lobbying for the mercy petition in the court or to the President.

Looking into the history,India has a terrible record in executing the executions (not something to moan about but delving into further details reveals it as a terrible record). Looking into the number of death sentences awarded, there is no concrete data available. However, according to Amnesty International, more than 378 death sentences have been ordered as a total of six years between 2001 and 2010 but none of them have been executed. Last execution that took place in the country was seven years back when Dhananjoy Chatterjee was executed in a rape+murder case. As per the latest news, there are 17 mercy petitions pending before the President (this does not include Afzal Guru since his petition is still decaying in the offices of MHA and yet to be forwarded to the President). The current president has, so far, disposed off three petitions – Mahendra Nath Das, Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar and the three assassins of Rajiv Gandhi. However, if someone feels that the story ends once the President rejects the petition, hold-your-breath. All the three rejected petitions have found rescue squads in their respective states. While Guwahati HC stayed the execution of Mahendra Nath Das even after President’s rejection; Tamilnadu HC stayed the execution of the three assassins by eight weeks. On the other hand, stage is being set for the clemency petition of Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar as the Punjab CM Prakash Singh Badal wrote to the President to re-examine the mercy plea of Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar. Looking at the history, it won’t be surprising if Punjab HC does the Guwahati and Tamilnadu. These are just the three of the 17 pending petitions. And we are not considering the ones that await recommendation of MHA, like that of Afzal Guru. There are more in line like Ajmal Kasab, whose petition is currently in Supreme Court. Looking at the route, if SC rejects the plea, the petition will go to MHA for recommendation after which it will reach the President’s table. The entire process is easily expected to take at least 10 years.

The question is why this country is having such a high level of sympathy for gruesome murderers? Killing, in any form, is a violation of a person’s right to live. By morality or by religion, none of the human beings have any right on another one’s life. However, when one human violates this right to the other, does the former deserve enough for a consideration on the same right? Rights are always accompanied by duties. If we enjoy the right to live, it is our duty to let others live. Keeping such convicts alive, that too because of this loophole in the system, can set a dangerous precedent and a potential threat for the national security where the murderers will be sure that they would be allowed to live for free (inside the jail) for many more years, no matter how grave their crime is. The mercy petitions also questions the morals of the people involved in filing these petitions. While having sympathy for these convicts since they share the same state or religion can be understood, but having blind sympathy that surmounts all ethics and values is what is baffling. The supremacy of human life should not hold true in these situations.

The concern here is not only on the moral grounds but also on the financial grounds. In May 2011, the ITBP (Indo-Tibetan Border Police) sent a bill of Rs.10 crore to the Maharashtra government behind the expenditure on guarding Ajmal Kasab. Similar, probably little less, goes for Afzal Guru as well. Let us just say Rs.7 crore. Now, multiply this by 10 years. That amounts to whopping Rs.170 crores combined, only for two of the convicts. If we add the three convicts of Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, it will multiply, probably, 1.4 times, which means Rs.238 crores. The question is, can our country afford to keep these convicts for such a long time? If we divide Rs.238 crores by our population, it would come to be roughly Rs.2 per head. It would be interesting to do a survey and ask people if they would like to give Rs.2 to the government for guarding terrorists like Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru (or for that matter, any grisly murderer). Anyone wonder, what will be the answer?

To conclude, it’s time, the country should clear its stand on executions and show the convicts their right place. There is also a need to fix a timeline for President to decide on mercy petitions and a clear law that states the President’s decision as supreme and non-appealable. This will help in faster resolutions of the cases and will save a considerable amount of taxpayers’ money which is wasted in harboring the evils of the society.