THIS is apropos of your editorial ‘Humanity required’ (June 30) which recommended abolition of death penalty for the various reasons cited, including faulty investigation and the morality of the punishment itself.
However, while advocating abolition of death penalty the extreme side is also taken by activists that it should in no circumstances be awarded. This, in my view, poses the very logical and equally grave question: should the right to live off the murdered person taken away by the murderer on his sweet will be acceptable?
The murderer under no circumstances and excuses has the power to take the life of any person. If he is relieved of the punishment in equal measure, he may resort to doing such act on calculated risk, i.e. only of imprisonment, and that too if he is unlucky to the extent of being proved guilty given the faulty and lengthy investigations spanning over years.
Please do not term it as equating with the so condemned principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ as such damages could somewhat be bearable, besides being recompensable.
But life is the only ultimate right which once ended cannot be revived whether all the resources of the world are put together and all the remorse and regrets the murderer could express afterwards.
The distinguishing factor we need to realise is that it is the life of a human being that one has taken to satisfy one’s emotions and outrage and not some other crime causing monetary loss or some social damage to society which is retrievable.
Furthermore, we need not blindly follow the West as laws are framed to cater to the peculiarities of societies and, therefore, a law thought suitable for one society may not be found acceptable by the other.
The right to live is the basic fundamental right of a human being remained fully guarded only till the other person’s right to live is respected but one surrenders it knowingly and deliberately when one takes the life of another human being.
There could be no other interpretation and if made, then it is misinterpretation only.