“Mamata’s retaliatory logic is an alibi for revenge”

Counterview Desk

Commenting on the West Bengal Chief Minister's call for the death penalty for rapists, the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) said it was merely “politics of revenge” and a “step backwards for human rights”. It stressed the need to ensure “foolproof investigations and competent prosecution and prevent acquittals” for the accused, who are accused of rape and murder at the state-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata.

Text:

PUCL agrees that this is a cynical and politically motivated attempt by Mamata Banerjee to divert attention from her government's negligence and criminal responsibility in the rape and murder of the 31-year-old medical student while on duty at the government-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata. Instead of taking concrete steps to ensure the safety of the women doctors and ensure a fair investigation into the heinous incident, the government has instead opted for this headline-grabbing move that has grave human rights implications. The frivolous nature of the West Bengal government's proposals is also evident from the absurd proposals of fast-track courts (without any sustainable reform of the judicial system), completion of trials in 7 days and even encounter killing of rape accused! These proposed reforms violate the constitutional requirement to respect the right to due process and a fair investigation without in any way serving the cause of justice for the victim.

In 2013, the Verma Committee in our country considered the issue of death penalty as punishment for rape in light of the brutal rape and murder of the young woman named Nirbhaya. The committee concluded that “in view of the current views on abolition of the death penalty and to avoid the argument of arbitrary verdict, we are not inclined to recommend the death penalty.” The committee also strongly argued that “the introduction of the death penalty for rape would be a step backwards, even if this punishment is restricted to the rarest of cases. It is also observed that there is considerable evidence that the deterrent effect of the death penalty for serious crimes is in fact a myth.”

There is also little empirical evidence to support the claim that the death penalty for rape has deterred rape. The death penalty is purely punitive in nature. The offender must be punished according to the old logic of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. At its core, it is about retribution, the bloodshed of the mob, which is recognized in the logic of the law. As people who care about human rights, we must remember that the punitive logic of punishment is not the logic of justice, but of vengeance. Any decent society must shun the politics of vengeance.

When the politics of revenge extend to judicial killing, the murderer is hardly distinguishable from the state that murders. The death penalty, in its finality, leaves no room for reform and change, which should actually be the logic of punishment.

As Judge Stewart noted in Furman v. Georgia:

“The death penalty differs from all other forms of criminal punishment not in its degree but in its nature. It is unique in its total irreversibility. It is unique in its rejection of the rehabilitation of the convicted person as a fundamental goal of criminal justice. And finally, it is unique in its absolute renunciation of everything that is embodied in our concept of humanity.”

The death penalty, in its finality, leaves no room for reform and change, which should actually be the logic of punishment.

It is important for India to understand that the effectiveness of the proposed solution to the rape problem is disputed in a number of empirical studies. If the death penalty is the only punishment for rape, judges may be less willing to hand down convictions, which would lead to more acquittals. The issue of acquittals needs to be seriously studied and the government needs to devote its resources to ensuring foolproof investigations and competent prosecutions, rather than adopting a measure that does little to make the workplace safer for women.

The world is increasingly recognizing the serious impact of the death penalty on human rights, and the abolition of the death penalty has become a political decision in most countries. In fact, 78% of countries have abolished it as a form of punishment, of which 109 have abolished it completely. 10 countries have it under exceptional circumstances, 23 have stopped carrying out executions in recent years for political reasons, and 53 countries still have the death penalty, including Iran, China and the United States, none of which are role models when it comes to the exercise of human rights.

With its proposal to reinstate the death penalty, Mamta Banerjee's government is taking a step backwards in terms of human rights in India.

We call upon the Government of West Bengal to address the blatant injustice being meted out to junior doctors and take steps to make the lives of other junior doctors safer, instead of compounding its criminal irresponsibility by imposing the death penalty.

— Kavita Srivastava (President), Binayak Sen (Vice President), V. Suresh (General Secretary), Amlan Bhattacharjee (West Bengal Unit Coordinator)