Yakub Memon, convicted in the March 12, 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts, was hanged till death at the Nagpur Central Jail in Maharashtra today morning, officials said.
He was sent to the gallows - on his 54th birthday on Thursday - after several of his court appeals and clemency petitions were rejected by various courts, including the Bombay high court, the Supreme Court, the Maharashtra governor and the president of India.
Memon was hanged at 6.35 a.m on his 54th birthday. A medical team at the jail pronounced him dead a short while later.
His body was sent for an autopsy by a medical team from a Nagpur government hospital, before being cleared for the last rites.
Update 3: Initially, the jail authorities were not inclined to hand over the body and planned to perform the last rites in an isolated spot in the jail campus. After the hanging, Memon's brother Sulaiman submitted an application to the jail authorities, demanding handing over of the body to enable them perform the last rites in Mumbai.
The request was immediately processed and permission - with stringent conditions - was granted and the body handed over. It was taken to Nagpur airport and flowing in an air ambulance for the funeral rites scheduled on Thursday evening.
A group of lawyers - including Anand Grover, Prashant Bhushan, Nitya Ramakrishnan, Yug Chaudhary, Vrinda Grover and Rishabh Sancheti, with advocate-on-record Anindita Pujari - had tried unsuccessfully in the night to obtain a last-ditch stay from Chief Justice of India (CJI) HL Dattu at his residence challenging the President’s rejection of his final mercy petition earlier that same night.
Their attempt follows a dramatic day in the Supreme Court before a three-judge bench of justices Dipak Misra, Prafulla C Pant and Amitava Roy, which failed to win any relief for Memon despite detailed arguments by his counsel, Raju Ramachandran, and TR Andhyarujina, the counsel for the intervenor, NLU Delhi’s death penalty litigation clinic.
Memon was the fourth person to be executed in 15 years, after Dhananjoy Chatterjee in 2004, Ajmal Kasab in 2012 and Afzal Guru in 2013.
Memon was also the first and only convict out of 100 allegedly involved in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts case. The death sentence of 11 others was commuted to life.
A Mumbai Special Court had sentenced him to death in July 2007.
The death warrant was issued by a Special TADA Court judge on April 29, scheduling the execution for July 30, with Maharashtra having started preparations for the noose for Memon almost three weeks ago.
Also read:
- The final judgment rejecting his final petition.
- Complete Timeline of developments in the Yakub Memon
- All stories relating to Yakub Memon
- The Supreme Court’s ever-changing jurisprudence on the death penalty and its recent developments under the current CJI
Reactions
Update 1: #Yakubhanged, a hashtag used by twitteratis to share their views about 1993 Mumbai serial blasts accused Yakun Memon's execution, was a top trend on Twitter on Thursday.
At least three out of the 10 trending hashtags -- #YakubHanged, #IndiaKaInsaf and #Memon at 9.30 a.m. -- were related to Memon's execution.
Congress leader Digvijaya Singh tweeted:
“I hope similar commitment of government and judiciary would be shown in all cases of terror irrespective of their caste, creed and religion.”
Update 2: Congress leader Shashi Tharoor tweeted:
Saddened by news that our government has hanged a human being. State-sponsored killing diminishes us all by reducing us to murderers too.
There is no evidence that death penalty serves as a deterrent, to the contrary in fact. All it does is exact retribution, unworthy of a Government.
cold-blooded execution has never prevented a terror attack anywhere.
Amnesty International India executive director Aakar Patel said:
This morning, the Indian government essentially killed a man in cold blood to show that killing is wrong.
This execution will not deliver justice for the 1993 Mumbai blasts. It is a misguided attempt to prevent terrorism, and a disappointing use of the criminal justice system as a tool for retribution.
Patel said authorities often find it convenient to hold up capital punishment as a symbol of their resolve to tackle crime, and choose to ignore more difficult and effective solutions like improving investigations, prosecutions and care for victims' families.
Update 4: Kashmir lawmaker protests, taken into custody
An independent lawmaker in Kashmir on Thursday criticised the hanging of 1993 Mumbai serial blasts convict Yakub Memon and termed his execution as "a selective one that smacks of communal bias".
"The way government of India and the judiciary showed urgency in convicting and subsequent hanging of Yakub Memon clearly shows a communal bias while dealing with the cases of a particular community," said independent legislator, Engineer Rashid.
"Such an urgency is nowhere to be seen when it comes to cases relating to people involved in massacre of Muslims."
Rashid led a protest rally in Srinagar's city centre Lal chowk and held a symbolic sit-in near the clock tower in commercial hub of the city.
Rashid along with his two dozen supporters were taken into preventive custody by police.
The protestors also raised slogans in favour of Afzal Guru, hanged in 2013 due to his involvement in the 2001 parliament attack case.
"We want to ask Delhi who among Muslims is to be hanged next. As three people executed in the last three years are all Muslims. Why law is made to bend in cases involving people from Hindu-fundamentalist organisations," the lawmaker said.
He said it is ironical that people involved in the Babri Masjid demolition and anti-Muslim pogroms are roaming scot-free and even occupying important positions in the country.
"If this selective targeting of Muslims continues it has the potential of communally dividing the country," he added.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
~ Albert Camus, 'Reflections on the Guillotine'.
www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130210/nation.htm#3
Expert: Guru had no right to challenge mercy plea rejection
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent
New Delhi, February 9
Afzal Guru, hanged to death today for his involvement in the December 2001 terror attack on Parliament, did not have any legal right to challenge the rejection of his mercy petition by the President, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran said today.
“The courts have said in judicial verdicts that even the decisions on mercy petitions are open to judicial review. This is different from saying that the death-row convicts have a right to challenge the rejection of their mercy pleas. There is no law that confers such a right to the convicts,” Ramachandran explained when asked about claims to the contrary.
Ramachandran, who has been Amicus Curiae in the Ajmal Kasab and Gujarat riots cases in the Supreme Court, was asked to clarify the legal position in the light of a claim made by Prof SAR Gilani, an acquitted co-accused in the case, that Afzal should have been given a chance to challenge the President’s rejection of his mercy petition before being sent to the gallows.
The senior advocate also justified the burial of Afzal’s body within the Tihar Jail complex here immediately after the execution, instead of handing it over to his family. “There is no legal compulsion. The government is free take a practical view. In normal circumstances, you have to hand over the body, but if it is going to result in security complications like the body being carried in a procession and construction of a memorial, I think the state can use its discretion not to hand over the body,” he said.
About another contention that Afzal did not get a fair trial, the Supreme Court itself had rejected it in its August 4, 2005 judgment confirming the death penalty awarded to the convict. “We find no substance in this contention. The learned trial judge did his best to afford effective legal aid to the accused Afzal when he declined to engage a counsel on his own,” the court had said.
Also he refused to issue any statement to the press, why? His client would have been better served by some statement issued in his name.
The two SC judgments from yesterday deal with procedural technicalities and show that Yakub Memon still never got a hearing on the substantive arguments in his favor for clemency.
What about the fact that he conspired to kill 257 innocents?
Pretty rich coming from a guy whose government
Murdered over 400 and maimed 600 in Jalianwala Bagh Massacre (1919)
Murdered over 940 freedom fighters between 1902 and 1947 (in cold blood)
Blew the children of the last Mughal Emperor from the mouth of a Cannon (1858)
and....100 years later
Refuses to apologise for it : www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/david-cameron-visit-amritsar-massacre-1719343
But when Government of Maharashtra executes a low life scum cowardly murderer after due process of law it is termed a "killing". LOL
1. I'm not British,
2. Even if I were, your argument would be just a tad illogical, silly and also just a tiny bit racist no? :)
"Nice Try"
This is the most shameless statement I have seen yet , and not surprisingly coming from an Irish / Scottish / English / French / Dutch national (not relevant).
These self-righteous europeans raped, plundered and pillaged our country for 200 years and were finally kicked out, but not before leaving legacies of famine, plagues and underdevelopment that continue to be a problem.
Now these same fellows who owe their existence directly or indirectly to the Raj (think how many Irish / Scottish / English / French / Dutch nationals would have remained in the gutter without exploiting our wealth) gave the gall to sermonise and give lectures on morality about capital punishment !???
Btw Here is Britain's contribution to torture and death penalty:
1) Murderous and inhumane forms of torture such as the Rack, Flaying, Skinning Alive, Gouging out eyes, disemboweling, etc.
2) Burning on suspicion of witchcraft
3) Hanging and garotting pregnant women and children
4) Execution of thousands of people in the name of religion, heresy, adultery, etc. etc.
The sheer hypocrisy is mind-boggling !!!
The level of your argument makes me sad though.
You're presumably the type who argues that since when the Mughals invaded India they killed and pillaged, therefore modern-day Muslims can't criticise any modern-day human rights abuses?
Two wrongs don't make a right, and that goes both for
1. judicially killing someone does not bring the original victims back to life, nor does it make for a fairer or better society, as countless research has proven,
2. trying to muzzle people from criticising the death penalty because of their nationality or some other prejudice you hold against those other than you.
Ok, bye, I'm done.
The fact that he was convicted for his role in killing 257, or the fact that he was killed by the government by hanging after his death penalty was confirmed?
Would you prefer: Yakub Memon is no more: Victims' families can finally sleep soundly again after the government put him out of his misery with a rope.
Yes, the headline is intentionally slightly provocative but only because so many people seem bizarrely offended by anyone spelling out the fact that yes, the government and the judges have legally ordered the KILLING of someone.
If you're comfortable with the death penalty, then that headline and the word kill shouldn't make you uncomfortable.
If it does make you uncomfortable, then maybe you should reconsider your stance on the death penalty rather then dressing it up in euphemism like 'the noose', 'execution' or 'death penalty'.
Call a killing a killing, and then we can talk.
And my headline (which was in response to your alternative headline btw) is as factual and descriptive as the actual headline of your printed article.
I am very comfortable with my stand on the death penalty. I am not comforatble with LI's (or is it Kian's) bias. I will stop here because you will no doubt want to have the last word.
We must remember that in this country the police and other actors in the criminal justice system are highly corrupt and with an issue like terrorism and the need for the govt to exact revenge, evidence is cooked up, exculpatory material suppressed, right to a fair trial violated, witnesses and accused are tortured, terrified and silenced, and we get the official story in the form of a judgment which nobody looks at closely or questions.
But the SC did order that Yakub Memon be killed in cold blood.
The news today is that he was executed despite last-ditch appeals, etc, and that this is the 4th execution to take place in 15 years.
"Maharashtra Kills" is more in the nature of an encounter.
It is clear that you are driving your views on death penalty to the headlines. Its perfectly fine to have your views and have it. Ideally its suited for the op-ed pages and not the 'news pages'.
Knowing you may not be amenable to agree, have a consistency related comment on the headline- can even mention- 4th 'Killing' in 15 years instead of execution.
e.g:
The driver accidentally killed the cyclist.
The doctor killed his patient because of he was negligent.
She was killed by a tree that fell when it was struck by lightning.
It was the grief that killed him, they said.
The police sniper killed the hostage-taker with a single bullet to the head, saving the lives of 10 with his quick reaction and proportionate response.
The cow had to be killed because it was in too much pain (euphemistically slaughtered / put down)
The innocent child was killed by a stray bullet.
The guillotine's blade severed his head, killing him instantly.
The axe killed him in one clean swoop, in the traditional execution ceremony that was ordered by the king.
The electric chair killed the convict with 10000 Volts.
Death by hanging usually kills a person when the neck snaps.
We might have a hundred euphemisms to dress it up in pretty words like 'succumbed', 'friendly fire', 'collateral damage', 'encounter', 'execution', etc, but all those in the context of one person doing it to another, ultimately boil down to killing.
while im at my hourly break, let me try and distinguish your examples (In Caps next to the example)
The driver accidentally killed the cyclist. - ACCIDENTAL
The doctor killed his patient because of he was negligent.- ACCIDENTAL, WRONGFUL
She was killed by a tree that fell when it was struck by lightning.- ACCIDENTAL
It was the grief that killed him, they said. - HERE REFERENCE IS TO THE MERE ACT OF DYING. NO THIRD PARTY REFERENCE.
The police sniper killed the hostage-taker with a single bullet to the head, saving the lives of 10 with his quick reaction and proportionate response. - ENCOUNTER (as I mentioned in my earlier email)
The cow had to be killed because it was in too much pain (euphemistically slaughtered / put down)- HERE KILLED IS INAPPROPRIATE AND PUT DOWN IS BETTER SUITED AS YOU SUGGEST. THEREFORE, BUTTRESSING MY CONTEXTUAL USAGE PLEA.
The innocent child was killed by a stray bullet.- INNOCENT, ACCIDENT
The guillotine's blade severed his head, killing him instantly.- REFERENCE MERELY TO DYING AND NOT AN ACTION OF TAKING AWAY SOMEONES LIFE- WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE IF YOU SAID< YAKUB WAS EXECUTED THEREBY KILLING HIM INSTANTLY
The axe killed him in one clean swoop, in the traditional execution ceremony that was ordered by the king.(SAME AS THE GUILLOTINE EXAMPLE- SEE HOW THIS SENTENCE USES EXECUTION FOR THE CEREMONY AND KILLED AS A RESULT)
The electric chair killed the convict with 10000 Volts. (SAME AS ABOVE)
Death by hanging usually kills a person when the neck snaps. (SAME AS ABOVE)
For instance, phrases such as "collateral damage" are inherently dangerous, because it allows the US army to bomb other countries and dress up civilian death / killing in clinical military words, mostly for propagandist purposes.
The fact is that 'execution' is a euphemism, just as capital punishment is a euphemism (and derived from) literally taking someone's HEAD off.
I gave a variety of examples where the word 'kill' is applicable which do not have any value judgment, I'm not sure why it makes a difference about whether there are synonyms that are more commonly used.
By illustration, compare these:
1. The lynchmob killed him by stringing him up on a tree by a rope.
2. The crazed dictator glanced at the prisoner, and said, I decree that he shall be put to death by hanging. His personal hangman appeared immediately, and killed the prisoner by hanging him from his neck in the throneroom until he was dead.
3. After the judges independently ascertained his guilt and the democratically elected president rejected his mercy petition, the executioner duly employed and empowered by the state, did his duty and killed the murderer by pressing the lever that made him fall from the gallows by a rope.
Are you saying that 'kill' is only appropriate to use in the first case?
Or only in the first 2 case, since they are the only ones that are not democratic?
Imagine if it turns out after the execution that it was a miscarriage of justice. Would we be allowed to use 'kill' then, since his execution was a mistake / accidental?
Language is not black and white, and if you think that an execution is not literally killing someone sanctioned by the state, then maybe you're not being completely honest with yourself?
However, in this case, the objection is on the presumption that his guilt was rightly found. If it wassnt, there are bigger problems than terminology and appropriate words.
Then we have different definitions of the word to kill, clearly. You seem to imply that kill means something close to murder - i.e., taking someone's life unjustly, which I don't think is the definition.
Plus you run into a problem once you accept that one execution can be called a killing by the state, you're on a sliding scale that will never end.
Continuing from there, for arguments' sake, which of the following are killing, and which are executions in your opinion?
1. Mass executions in football stadiums in Iran of homosexuals or political dissidents, etc, as decreed by their courts?
2. An execution by ISIS, carried out in accordance with Shariah law.
3. An execution in Indonesia for drug smuggling or so?
4. An execution in the US of a black man whose public defender fell asleep and where (I'd have to dig out the exact stats), an overwhelming number of those executed are non-white and poor?
5. An execution by the Taliban?
6. An execution by a military dictator during a coup?
7. A soldier executed in court martial?
8. A Chinese businessman executed for food adulteration?
9. A Saudi something or other for whatever they execute for in their shining example of a democracy?
We could go on with dozens of executions that are morally dubious or at different points of the sliding scale.
So who gets to decide when one is allowed to call one a killing and not another?
Either they are all executions and all killings, or none of them are.
www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/kill
Kill
Cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing):
her father was killed in a car crash [no object]:
a robber armed with a shotgun who kills in cold blood
Fish farmers are licensed to kill predators that threaten their nets, pens and fish.
He paid tribute to the two soldiers killed in the crash.
Hamlet is able to avenge his father's death by killing his uncle.
-- Albert Camus
A fuller quote above.
We would all wish for a sudden death, like where a person dies in his sleep.
People with terminal illnesses or injuries know they will die, but not when. The hope for life continues.
A death penalty victim is forced to undergo the extreme cruelty of knowing exactly when his life will be taken and he will be killed. There can be no greater suffering.
None of us had the right to decide that Yakub Memon did not deserve to live.
Your hatred towards few.... seems misdirected
I am no admirer of Gandhi but he said:
"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong."
First I am not convinced about Yakub Memon's exact guilt. Second even if he did all that the trial court said he did, even then he was in jail for 22 years, he could have been allowed to live in jail until he died.
But then I do not expect to convince the bloodthirsty.
What does it take you to be convinced of YM's guilt? Don't you trust our judges, the elaborate hearings, the review petitions and curative petition, and mercy pleas?
The only way, perhaps, is to attend all the court proceedings to know what evidences were produced to prove his crime.
The number of people who were involved in condeming Yakub Memon to die were a mere handful, I might add.
But never mind, such intricacies are beyond you.
www.outlookindia.com/article/camus--the-barbarity-of-capital-punishment/294945
A pertinacious resistance..
An extra-ordinary set of precedents..
A death
-Ruth Bader Ginsburg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
-Stephen Bright, human rights attorney
-Richard Viguerie and Brent Bozell, Tea Party supporters
-Ron McAndrew, was a prison warden in Florida
-George Ryan, former Illinois Governor
-Desmond Tutu
-Gerald Heaney, former appellate judge
-Gregory Ruff, police lieutenant in Kansas
-Lewis Lawes, warden of Sing Sing prison in NY in the 1920s and 30s
– Helen Prejean, author of the book “Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the United States.”
– Kofi Annan, Ghanaian diplomat and Secretary General of the United Nations 1997-2007
– John Morrison
– Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1986.
– Auberon Waugh, British author and journalist.
– Helen Prejean, author of the book “Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the United States.”
-- Remy de Gourmont
? Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract
? David J. Martinez
? Anton Chekhov
? J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
? Neil Gaiman, American Gods
? Victor Hugo, The Last Day of a Condemned Man
“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I …appeal…for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”
“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.”
“I do not think that God approves the death penalty for any crime, rape and murder included. Capital punishment is against the better judgment of modern criminology, and, above all, against the highest expression of love in the nature of God.”
Perry Cobb, who spent eight years on Illinois' death row for a crime he did not commit. He was exonerated in 1987.
The Dalai Lama
JOHN KERRY, Wolf Blitzer Reports, CNN, Sep. 17, 1996
WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, judicial opinion, Jul. 2, 1976
and what about the deterrant effect?
YM was behind bars for 22 years, and most people (except victims' families) had stopped following what happened to the case. When his execution came up, he (and his crime) became known to a lot many people. In fact, more people followed the news updates of his execution than of Late.Pres.Kalam's death. I hope this serves as a deterrance to people who have the potential of committing such crime.
btw, I am not in favour of,or against death sentence - but wanted to share above observation.
"I disagree very much with Justice Scalia’s certitude that we have never put to death an innocent person. It’s one of the reasons why I personally am opposed to the death penalty. We have the greatest judicial system in the world, but at the end of the day it’s made up of men and women making decisions, tough decisions. Men and women who are dedicated, but dedicated men and women can make mistakes. And I find it hard to believe that in our history that has not happened."
- U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in an interview for The Marshall Project, Nov. 17, 2014.
If the point is that capital punishment should not exist because the conviction could be a mistake, then is it acceptable to put the (innocent) person behind bars for 20, 30 or 40 years, by mistake?
- Former President Jimmy Carter
- Police Chief James Abbott, West Orange, New Jersey
Eliot Spitzer
-Justice Harry Blackmun's opinion in Furman vs. Georgia, 1972
-Albert Camus
-Rev. Joseph A. Fiorenza, President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, U.S. Catholic Conference, 1999
It is also evident that the burden of capital punishment falls upon the poor, the ignorant and the underprivileged members of society."
—United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall
-Corretta Scott King
-Rabannical Assembly
-Russell Means, First National Director of the American Indian Movement, Activist
-- Thomas B. Whitaker, Texas Death Row Inmate #999522.
-- Mary Sue Terry, former Attorney General of Virginia, replying to an appeal to introduce new evidence from a prisoner sentenced to death.
-- Albert Camus, French writer and philosopher
-- Arthur Koestler, English novelist and essayist.
-- George Bernard Shaw, English playwright
-- Kerry Max Cook, twice convicted and sentenced to death for the 1977 rape murder of a 21-year-old secretary in Tyler, TX. Cook was released after 22 years
-- Dr. Stuart Grassian, psychiatrist and expert in death row inmates; about prisoners who "volunteer" for execution
-- Andrei Sakharov, Russian nuclear physicist, Nobel Peace Prize laureate
Desmond Tutu, South African Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
-- Feodor Dostoevsky, Russian novelist
-- Donald A. Cabana, former warden of Mississippi's State Penitentiary (Parchman) who supervised two executions in the prison gas chamber before quitting his job and publicly opposing capital punishment
-- Albert Pierrepoint, Britain's last official hangman, in his 1974 autobiography
Imposing Death Penalty is part of the laws we live by and the Supreme Court and the Maharashtra Government is well within their rights to implement the law. All supporters of banishing the Death Penalty have to push for a change in law as opposed to blaming the mechanism that implements the existing laws.
CHRISTIAN NESTELL BOVEE, Intuitions and Summaries of Thought
2. Your argument doesn't make much sense.
As far as I can tell, all the hang-em-high types are purely arguing that emotional satisfaction and suffering requires retribution by killing the one responsible for the death of their loved one.
I understand the impulse.
But I would argue that while retribution is something that the justice system should take into account, we can not leave the decision about killing another person to someone who is so close to the matter because that person is clearly and understandably biased, because they are emotionally too close to it.
Otherwise why bother with the courts for sentencing - we could just let the victims of a crime decide the punishment?
My personal view - hang the bastard
Finally, debate should never end; it is fundamental to democracy.
The resolution, set to be discussed in the Upper House on Thursday, quotes former President A P J Abdul Kalam’s support for abolition of the death penalty.
- See more at: indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/rajya-sabha-to-debate-death-penalty-today/#sthash.5ZVdYpr3.dpuf
Should death penalty go? Law panel begins review
"Almost half a century after it said the time was not right to abolish the death penalty, the Law Commission of India has embarked on an exercise to take a relook at the issue. The Law Commission has issued a public consultation paper on capital punishment with a detailed questionnaire open to the public to send in their views on the issue.
The move comes close on the heels of the Supreme Court commuting the death sentence of 19 persons after their mercy pleas were rejected since January this year. In one of the cases, the apex court referred to the conundrum and observed that "perhaps the Law Commission of India can resolve the issue by examining whether death penalty is a deterrent punishment or is retributive justice or serves an incapitative goal".
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Should-death-penalty-go-Law-panel-begins-review/articleshow/40862013.cms
"Law Commission member Professor Mool Chand Sharma noted that the day-long discussion seemed to suggest that there was a need to consider a moratorium on executions till the problems in the legal system are removed. Law Commission Chairman Justice A P Shah also said that there was a “serious need” to re-examine the issue of death penalty, since there were several “inconsistencies in the system” which led to arbitrariness and discrimination in the imposition of death penalty."
- See more at: indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/law-commission-consultation-from-varun-to-tharoor-voices-emerge-against-death-penalty/#sthash.SbdB4usv.dpuf
"... only six members of Parliament, from a full 900 or so in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, attended the Law Commission's public consultations on the abolishing of the death penalty in early July - Kanimozhi of the AIADMK, Manish Tewari and Shashi Tharoor of the Congress, Varun Gandhi of the BJP, Majid Memon (and early counsel for Yakub Memon) of the NCP and Ashish Khetan of the Aam Aadmi Party.
It is not known what the influential Law Commission is going to say when it gives its report next month. Suffice to say that most of those who participated in the consultations, with the exception of the Supreme Court lawyer Dushyant Dave (no relation to Justice Anil Dave who rejected Memon's curative petition a few days ago) were against the death penalty. The gathering also included people like Julio Ribeiro, the man who successfully dealt with the insurgency in Punjab in the wake of Operation Blue Star, as well as the first chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah."
www.dailyo.in/politics/yakub-memon-nagpur-central-jail-bhullar-rajoana-afzal-guru-ujjwal-nikam/story/1/5326.html
www.outlookindia.com/article/death-penalty-is-judicial-murder/285079
K T Thomas on the death penalty - "Yes. I believe it is judicial murder. Punishment should be corrective and reformatory in nature, not retributive. Death penalty does not help a convict. The law should have scope for reform of the convict’s mind. This is not to condone the convict. Pronouncing death for someone is not an acceptable situation for any kind of crime."
He also believes that persons who have spent 20 or more years in prison should not be hanged.
From May 2015 interview
Would that apply to Hitler, Pol Pot, Radic, and countless people who never moved a finger but resulted in the deaths of hundreds... oops millions? Arguments can be shared till dooms day approaches, but is it not clear that they did it?
By extending that logic, how can anybody KILL any living being... stop all meat eaters.
Please, you really don't need to visit here anymore, there are many other websites you can read where you can be venomous and nasty to people, ok?
Thanks bye
Kian - just so I get your stand right - killing 257 people deserves incarceration for life (where your family can visit you (however rarely), you can interact with other people (however constrained), and you are, above all, alive)? If you were the sole judge on the sentencing, what would the sentence be?
Let's not punish death with death ... (the old MG "eye for an eye" argument) - I agree with that generally - in this case, though, anything other than death seems a tad too lenient? A wanton disregard for life cannot be rewarded with life (however constrained) in return?
If I remember my basic crime & punishment from law school properly, punishment exists for several reasons:
1. Retribution (eye-for-an-eye argument),
2. Protecting society from harmful members,
3. Deterrence, and
4. Rehabiliation.
Protection can be achieved as well by life in prison as by killing someone.
Deterrence has been proven in study after study not to actually work in the case of the death penalty for the most heinous crimes. Do you think the Delhi gang rapists would have been deterred by the death penalty? Do you think a suicide bomber, who seeks glory in death anyway, would be deterred by death? Do you think a psychopath mass-murderer serial-killer would be?
(That said, I do think the death penalty would work to deter petty crime, like shop lifting, littering or internet piracy, but for the most heinous cases or even for plain murder, it usually doesn't.)
Rehabilitation is literally impossible once someone is dead.
The only argument for the death penalty to exist is 1, retribution, really, both from the perspective of victims' families' and to still the blood thirst of society at large. Both are understandable, but neither should be a solid underpinning for legalised state killing.
www.livemint.com/Opinion/X89EsbD5U0fcWvqRok4IYN/In-the-end-vengeance.html
Quote:
OK he mentions a few other names but gives no citations and selectively quotes what suits him.
This article by Dilip D’Souza has no authoritative value as research on this issue.
He was a software engineer and now an author. He is not qualified to undertake such research or peer review such research.
I think we can find much better citations and material on the deterrence issue which will establish the now mainstream opinion that capital punishment does not work as a deterrence.
I misread it at first to mean that he was arguing that research does show a deterrence effect for the death penalty.
In fact, he dismisses Ehrlich's study and then relies upon the following to form his opinion that there is no deterrence effect.
"Well, compare murder rates in the 31 American states that have the death penalty and the 19 that don’t. Since 1990, states without the penalty have consistently recorded significantly lower murder rates, and it’s a gap that has grown.
For the record, I find that persuasive."
The thing is that D'Souza looks at a very old study from 1975 and then only at mathematical analysis.
I think behavioral studies will be a better source of material to support the right conclusion (in my opinion) that the death penalty has no deterrent effect.
If I find the time to do a quick literature survey, I will post some links.
My point being that there exist strong research studies, opinion, anecdotal studies etc to establish pretty conclusively today that the death penalty has no deterrent effect at all. And D'Souza has not found it.
I.e., research has failed to prove a deterrent effect. Likewise though, that doesn't mean that it's been proved that there's a lack of a deterrent effect.
I think there are so many factors at inter-play that it's really hard to draw watertight conclusions.
Perhaps psychological / behavioural studies could shed more light, but even with that it would be hard to conclude that DP is never a deterrent. There are surely isolated cases of premeditated murderers whom the DP scares sufficiently that they say, it's not worth the risk killing XYZ.
Likewise, it's possible that death begets more death, but again, causality between legality of DP and incidence of murder is very hard to draw.
So I do not agree that research has been inconclusive on this issue.
I believe that research has conclusively established that there is no deterrent effect and as I stated I will try and do a literature survey to post links here.
Even intuitively, I don't think any murderer thinks of the consequences before committing murder. Most believe they will not be caught, others don't think, and some like suicide bombers are ready to die.
For someone scared of consequences, the thought of life imprisonment would constitute enough deterrence as the death penalty.
Capital punishment serves the need for vengeance and nothing else. Retribution also involves vengeance and has therefore no place in a modern criminal justice system.
So I disagree also with one of your earlier comments where you listed retribution as one of the objectives of punishment.
Would that change human behaviour? I think it would.
Yes, murder and certain other violent crimes 'of passion' are not necessarily comparable to these, but I'm sure you'll find a rare isolated case or other where the death penalty does deter.
I think the flipside is interesting too though.
Does killing a terrorist create a martyr and other terrorists? Again, I think it might, but I also imagine that causation will be really hard to prove, except for anecdotal evidence here and there.
On retribution, you might think that it has no place in the justice system, and I'd personally agree with you, but traditionally retribution is certainly important to many people and what they perceive 'justice' to be.
Most people who do not murder behave that way because they are law abiding or generally mindful and fearful of consequences or find it morally repugnant to kill, etc.
People who might commit petty crimes but go no further are also generally law abiding and have a moral code and conscience that stops them from committing more heinous crimes. Such people who are very unlikely to commit murder in the first place because they always think of consequences (moral and legal) will be equally deterred from committing murder irrespective of whether the punishment is life imprisonment or death.
Would such people stop committing petty crimes if the penalty was death? Perhaps some might but that is because such persons are already inclined to weigh risks of behaviour.
Will not the same principle then apply to murder? I don't think so. The reason being that if deterrence by way of punishment worked, then life imprisonment without possibility of release is harsh enough to deter.
Also the punishment for murder is always life imprisonment OR death. Most murderers would believe they would not get caught or punished. And probably no murderer expects that he will get life imprisonment instead of death. This choice between life imprisonment and death being a lottery dependent upon so many factors.
What we need to keep in my mind is why people murder. Some believe they can get away with it. Others never stop to analyse the consequences. Some have very strong motives for murder that consume them. Some are ready to die. Some end up committing murder due to circumstances, black inner city boys forced by social circumstances into drug dealing, gangs and a life of crime. They get caught up in this violence and cannot get out and their moral compass becomes irrelevant. There are other reasons why people murder.
I strongly believe that the death penalty is wrong.
On the flip side, killing a terrorist or alleged terrorist does create a martyr and will be used by other terrorists to recruit potential terrorists to the cause they claim.
Also, unjustified killing of an alleged terrorist or a killing that appears to be colored by prejudice and/or injustice would alienate young people from minority communities who feel they are under siege thereby making them more amenable to recruitment by terrorists or people who want to sow discontentment.
& to your last point, if traditionally people feel entitled to retribution then they need to be educated that retribution has no place in the moral universe of the criminal justice system. The anti-death penalty movement aims to do so.
Khoon ka badla khoon se lenge cannot be the law.
I think your argument that the death penalty would deter petty crimes like shop-lifting, drunk driving or graffiti and that this has some bearing on the debate as to whether or not the death penalty deters henious or mass murder is fallacious.
If the death penalty would deter petty crimes like shop-lifting, drunk driving or graffiti, then even life imprisonment without possibility of release would also deter petty crimes like shop-lifting, drunk driving or graffiti.
And there are very strong ethical reasons why the death penalty is an "obscenity" to quote Desmond Tutu as the various quotes I reproduced in this thread establish.
So if alternatives can do the job, there can be no justification for the death penalty.
"Also the punishment for murder is always life imprisonment OR death. Most murderers would believe they would not get caught or punished. And probably no murderer expects that he will get death instead of life imprisonment. This choice between life imprisonment and death being a lottery that is dependent upon so many factors."
An addition
There will be murderers (like suicide bombers or the 26/11 killers) who are already so alienated that they don't care if they die. To them the possibility of the death penalty would in any case be irrelevant.
May I add a commoner perspective to your learned arguments?
Until now, most common people believed that the highest order of culpability lies with people who directly commit crime such as planting bombs or preparing explosives, etc whereas providing backend support (logistics, training, indoctrination, finance) are not(or less) culpable. YM (with his education background) perhaps thought that he could get away with it as he had no direct involvement.
But the final sentence, and outcome that ended up with YM getting hanged while the directly involved culprits serving life imprisonment sends out a message that you can try to be smart, but don't think you can get away.
This message, in my opinion, is very important because there are many sympathizers for 'such' crime in the society. And such 'white collared' sympathizers are likely to extend backend support thinking that they aren't really doing anything directly which can land them on the wrong side of the law!
But will be mistaken- and that's what the court's sentence implies.
I hope the courts display the same consistency when it comes to other cases such as mob violence, rioting etc
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Yakub-Memon-hanging-Kanimozhi-to-move-private-members-bill-in-Rajya-Sabha-to-abolish-death-penalty/articleshow/48283942.cms?
What we also need is for some High Court and Supreme Court judges to speak up in general against the death penalty on moral grounds in some judgments.
www.icj.org/india-the-icj-condemns-the-execution-of-yakub-memon/
"The ICJ strongly condemned the execution of Yakub Memon, who was hanged in Nagpur Central Jail, India this morning.
“Yakub Memon’s execution is a distressing and regressive move, keeping India in the minority of countries which continue to carry out executions,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director. “While Yakub Memon was convicted of terrible crimes, executing him was not the solution. India should immediately put in place a moratorium on the death penalty.”
..."
The death penalty fails to deter crime.
"A July 2009 study titled "DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE RATES?: THE VIEWS OF LEADING CRIMINOLOGISTS" by Michael L. Radelet and Traci L. LaCock, demonstrates an overwhelming consensus among criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question strongly supports the conclusion that the death penalty does not add deterrent effects to those already achieved by long imprisonment.
..."
www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=82
www.thetablet.co.uk/blogs/1/692/the-tide-turns-against-the-death-penalty-in-the-us
"On ... 29 June, the nine-member Supreme Court ruled against the three death-row inmates in Oklahoma who had sought to bar the use of the drug Midazolam in lethal injections. But participants took heart in dissenting opinions by Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsburg, who called the death penalty’s constitutionality into question and signalled the interest of America’s highest court to revisit the issue.
Several states have abolished the death penalty in recent years, most recently, Nebraska in May. And everywhere, even in Texas, death sentences and executions seem to be slowing down. With botched executions, prosecutorial misconduct, and exonerations (155 to date since 1973) covered regularly in the press, all sides of the political spectrum are realising the senselessness of the death penalty.
Bonowitz told me: “As more states abandon their use of capital punishment either in law or in practice, it’s fair to expect the Supreme Court to apply its 'evolving standards of decency' doctrine to the death penalty as a whole, and strike it down the same way they disallowed the execution of juveniles and those with intellectual disabilities. Hopefully the right case will come along soon.”
..."
firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/24/glossip-lawyers-challenge-death-penalty-itself-as-cruel-unusual/
"
Lawyers for Richard Glossip and two other men on Oklahoma’s death row, who last month lost their challenge to their state’s controversial lethal injection protocol, have again asked the Supreme Court to consider their clients’ plight.
But the petition, filed Friday afternoon, does not ask the justices to reconsider their June 29 decision in Glossip v. Gross, which cleared the way for Oklahoma to use midazolam — a drug implicated in a number of botched executions — in its lethal injection protocol. Rather, the petition attacks the death penalty itself as a cruel and unusual punishment that violates the Eighth Amendment.
“It would be appropriate for the Court to use this case to address the constitutionality of the death penalty,” the pleading reads, “because the outcome will turn not on facts specific to any single litigant, but on circumstances common to the administration of the death penalty.”
The new petition, filed by federal public defenders, was written in direct response to a request by Justice Stephen Breyer, made as part of a 40-page dissent filed in Glossip, and joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Breyer’s dissent was a detailed, exhaustive attack on the death penalty’s many proven flaws, from its racial bias to the problems of error and misconduct. “[R]ather than try to patch up the death penalty’s legal wounds one at a time,” Breyer wrote, “I would ask for full briefing on a more basic question: whether the death penalty violates the Constitution.”
Today’s filing seeks to affirmatively answer that question, addressing several persistent pitfalls of the death penalty that were raised by Breyer and are embodied in the Oklahoma cases of three named plaintiffs — Richard Glossip, John Grant and Benjamin Cole. In particular, the petition picks up on Breyer’s criticism of the death penalty for its “lack of reliability, the arbitrary application of a serious and irreversible punishment [and the] individual suffering caused by long delays.”
In Glossip’s case, the petition directly addresses Breyer’s concern for the innocent people who have been sent to death row — and some potentially executed. Glossip has consistently maintained his innocence of the crime that sent him to die: the supposed murder-for-hire of his boss, Barry Van Treese, in 1997.
..."
Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent: Death penalty may be unconstitutional
By ADAM B. LERNER 6/29/15 1:09 PM EDT Updated 6/29/15 5:35 PM EDT
The death penalty may be unconstitutional, two of the Supreme Court’s liberal judges suggested on Monday.
In a dissent to the majority’s opinion in Glossip v. Gross, which upheld Oklahoma’s use of a key drug used for lethal injections, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, called for a renewed legal debate over the death penalty.
The court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the death penalty at-large since Gregg v. Georgia in 1976 — though it has examined various aspect of death penalty protocols, including applying the punishment to the mentally handicapped, to minors, and via various methods — and Breyer wrote that “[t]he circumstances and the evidence of the death penalty’s application have changed radically since then.”
“Given these changes, I believe that it is now time to reopen the question,” he wrote, adding that the past 40 years of the death penalty in America have led him to believe “that the death penalty, in and of itself, now likely constitutes a legally prohibited ‘cruel and unusual punishmen[t].’”
The fact that the death penalty is applied so sporadically “is the antithesis of the rule of law,” Breyer wrote. Citing numerous studies, the justice concluded that “the factors that most clearly ought to affect application of the death penalty — namely, comparative egregiousness of the crime — often do not. Other studies show that circumstances that ought not to affect application of the death penalty, such as race, gender, or geography, often do.”
Breyer also cited concerns about “excessive delays” in death penalty proceedings and observed that around 20 states have abolished the death penalty outright, while many more have not executed an inmate in years. And he pointed to an emerging global consensus on the death penalty, noting that a clear majority of United Nations member countries have ceased executions over the past few decades.
Sen. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, flips through several redistricting maps during a special legislative committee hearing to discuss the a state commission's proposed maps of new congressional and legislative districts, at the Arizona Capitol Friday, Oct. 21, 2011, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
Breyer and a number of other justices have previously expressed their personal opposition to the death penalty, but few have expressed outright the belief that the punishment violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. At one point in 2011, Breyer told an audience at the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia that “[o]nly the legislature can abolish the death penalty,” before arguing that public opinion could be swayed on the issue via politics.
But Breyer, in his dissent in Glossip v. Gross, recognized that while the issue of the death penalty, in and of itself, perhaps could be viewed as a legislative matter, “the matters I have discussed, such as lack of reliability, the arbitrary application of a serious and irreversible punishment, individual suffering caused by long delays, and lack of penological purpose are quintessentially judicial matters.”
He concluded, “At the very least, the Court should call for full briefing on the basic question” of the death penalty.
The larger case at hand, Glossip v. Gross, did not deal explicitly with the constitutionality of the death penalty per se, but rather whether or not the state of Oklahoma’s use of the drug midazolam as an anesthetic before executions prevented cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, argued that it did not, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court’s three other Democratic appointees, dissented. (The decision “leaves petitioners exposed to what may well be the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake,” Sotomayor wrote.)
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, in separate concurring opinions, were the only two to respond directly to Breyer’s arguments regarding the overall constitutionality of the death penalty.
In typically colorful prose, Scalia said that it was “Groundhog Day” and that Breyer was trying to revive a long line of anti-death penalty activism even though the Constitution states that “no person … shall be deprived of life … without due process of law,” effectively referring to death penalty practices in place at the time of the founders.
Scalia referred to Breyer’s argument as “gobbledy-gook,” while Thomas called it “pseudoscientific” and based upon an “imaginary constitutional rule against ‘arbitrariness’.”
Later, Scalia wrote that Breyer’s logic saying excessive delays, caused by anti-death penalty activists, make the practice unconstitutional “calls to mind the man sentenced to death for killing his parents, who pleads for mercy on the ground that he is an orphan.”
He concluded, “Justice Breyer does not just reject the death penalty, he rejects the Enlightenment” for arguing against a punishment that even the acclaimed moral philosopher Immanuel Kant supported.
Though the case ultimately left the feud between the two Republican appointees and two Democratic appointees unresolved, Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center, which largely opposes the death penalty, said the vigorous debate sets up a future challenge.
“The death penalty itself, I think, is in trouble,” Dieter said, pointing to previous decisions from Justice Anthony Kennedy suggesting he might someday side with Breyer on the issue. Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Dieter added, are likely sympathetic to Breyer’s reasoning despite their decisions not to sign the tangential dissent.
“[Breyer’s dissent] says the court should be ready to debate the very constitutionality of the death penalty,” considering it as it’s applied in the 21st century and not as it was debated in the 1970s, Dieter concluded. “Times have changed.”
Read more: www.politico.com/story/2015/06/supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-death-penalty-may-be-unconstitutional-119547.html#ixzz3hOVqmlRb
"...the American public seems to be changing its mind. A 2014 Washington Post poll reported that a majority of Americans favored life without parole over death as a penalty for murder. Over the past fifteen years, both death sentences and executions have dropped dramatically. Thirty states have either abolished the death penalty or not conducted an execution in more than eight years. Those states that still execute have become outliers even within the United States, which in turn is an outlier in the developed world. Considering these trends, the abolition of capital punishment is probably only a matter of time. Whether its end will come at the hands of the Supreme Court or the people remains to be seen."
www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/justice-breyer-against-the-death-penalty
www.businessinsider.in/Justice-Breyer-perfectly-captured-the-major-problem-with-the-death-penalty/articleshow/47868863.cms
www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/29/breyer_and_the_death_penalty_the_justice_calls_for_its_abolition.html
edition.cnn.com/2015/06/29/politics/scotus-death-penalty-justice-scalia-breyer/
Was aghast to see that you equate capital punishment for the gravest crime as killing.
Sad. Very Sad. Respect lost.
An apalled reader.
I still don't think anybody has managed to explain to me to any satisfaction what the difference is between killing someone without cause and killing someone via an execution?
Merely that one is legal, the other one isn't? Sure, but the effect of both is the same: a human being is killed. It's that simple.
And what of killing someone in self defence? That is legal, so therefore according to your standard, it'd be rude to call it killing?
Also, I can argue whether killing someone in self defence is legal termed 'legal' as opposed to self defence being a defence for killing someone- which would result in you not getting punished. Slight difference. But a big difference. (just like neil armstrongs step- one step- also a giant leap at the same time).
while everyone is quoting left right and centre, with respect to your unwillingness (note use of unwillingness instead of inability) to open up to a different but potentially metitworty view, let me quote one as well-
"Tumse Na ho Payega!"- Ramadhir Singh.
1. without moral culpability (accident, etc)
2. with justification (self-defence, a police encounter, etc)
3. with slight moral culpability (negligence, etc)
4. with moral culpability (recklessly, or intentionally).
I still don't see why capital punishment wouldn't neatly slot into any of these categories, however you feel about the DP.
Just because you're uncomfortable with the word doesn't make it incorrect.
Anyway, I think we've discussed this issue to death (pun intended), I guess I'm happy to agree to disagree.
You also heard middle of the night, might have also consulted with prachi and other friends to find merits in my arguments. unfortunately you didnt. but you followed due process. Hence punished by executing dissent as opposed to killing it.
;-)
Appreciate Kian standing for himself. Like it or not, there is clarity of thought in his comments - not just in this thread but elsewhere too.
I have a feeling that any of the more big & mainstream stories we do end up with lots of traffic via social media and Google News, which results in an influx of angry non-lawyers and/or political trolls in the comments section. :)
Normal LI readers, as trolly as they are, usually (/occasionally?) seem more amenable to reasoned debate.
now people advocating abolition of death punishment please provide any proof to establish that soft punishment is more effective in reforming the criminals..??
is this a trend to criticise every thing to prove your self "enlightened than thou"
Other than that, yawn, even I'm starting to get bored of this high-school-debate-level discussion...
Knock yourself out and comment as much as you like, but any ad hominem or insulting others commenting under the real name won't be published.
People like who, Scooterette.
Care to share your real name so we also know who people like you are.
And several people have terms for people like Arun Jaitley. Twitter especially is abuzz on this. Maybe you wouldn't want to get into that.
The rest of your comment is nonsensical.
"When you execute a man who has been on death row seven, eight, 10 or 12 years, you are not executing the same man that came in."
Don Cabana, former warden of Mississippi's Parchman Penitentiary
indiatoday.intoday.in/story/bombay-serial-blasts-search-on-for-bombay-12-member-memon-family/1/302029.html
It appears that law enforcement agencies do not crackdown on small time criminals (which Tiger was when he started off) , which results into such major incidents.
The Yakub Memon story: The man who helped India expose Pakistan's role in 1993 Bombay blasts
www.scroll.in/article/744801/the-yakub-memon-story-the-man-who-helped-india-expose-pakistans-role-in-1993-bombay-blasts
Deterrence lies not in the severity of punishment, but its certainty. When the Constitutional Court of South Africa abolished the death penalty, it said: “The greatest deterrent to crime is the likelihood that offenders will be apprehended, convicted and punished. It is that which is presently lacking in our criminal justice system; and it is at this level and through addressing the causes of crime that the State must seek to combat lawlessness.”
Please do not quote US figures as the costs are not the same in India.
(read that the platform fabrication cost for YM was 26 lakhs. Add a few crores for security in their week. Hangman etc specialists deputed from Pune)
For a government that weighs economics over anything else, this can be a good point in favour (or against) DP. :-)
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first