A NEW age calls for new rules. There have been several cases in the last few years of internet fraud in which credit cards and ATMs have been misused, confidential information robbed electronically, and the happily democratic and largely unpoliced medium of the worldwide web exploited to disseminate messages of hate and terror.

No doubt there has to be a check on such flagrant abuse of the internet and the many services that an increasingly large number of people are availing electronically. But while we welcome the government's decision to crack down on cyber crime, this paper reiterates its stance that the death penalty should have no place on the statute books.

A human being has no right to take another person's life, irrespective of the barbarity of the crime committed. To do so would involve extreme hubris and almost God-like powers to which none of us are entitled. At the same time, while the Prevention of Electronic Crimes law does address specific concerns, and rightly so, it also opens up a huge grey area called 'national security'.

Anyone of political bent knows all too well how national security and national interest can be construed to fit the interests of the ruling party. Taken to an extreme, the new law can be used to collar even bloggers who are opposed to the government's policies. Precise definition is needed here if throttling freedom of expression is not what the government intends. Given her background as a former journalist of some repute, the current minister for information knows full well how rulers abuse laws and suppress dissent. This must not be allowed to happen in a democratic dispensation.

We support the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in its criticism of the death penalty for cyber crimes. Who gets to define what a 'cyber terrorist' really is? Should we put to death a person who mouths off in the heat of the moment only to regret it in the cold light of day? Should we execute impressionable teenagers who may have been misguided by the hate-mongers among us? And do we really have enough confidence in the investigation procedures of the police in this country to put to death a person who may have confessed to a crime under duress?

Torture is routine in Pakistan, everyone knows that. Yet there are people who believe in an eye for an eye, even when they are unsure if the accused is really guilty. The prime minister has said on a number of occasions that the death penalty should be abolished. He should live up to his word. Besides saving lives, the move will only improve Pakistan's battered image in the comity of nations.