Parliament Bombing - Capital Punishment?

When the Supreme Court pronounced it's sentence of death penalty for Afzal Guru, for his role in the 13Dec 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament, it was for me, atleast initially, just another piece of news. A criminal found guilty was being punished, and it was upto the Judiciary to determine what punishment was appropriate. I didn't think so much about it as to form a view.

But what followed - the coverage in the news, the demands for clemency, the viewpoints of several activists on the topic, the demands from some parties that the sentence be carried out, the 'threats' issued if the sentence was carried out, views on capital punishment, the predicament of the President, the dilly-dallying of the government in coming out with a view, all forced me to ponder quite a bit upon this and form a view point. This article specifically helped me a lot in forming the same.

In my view, there are two separate issues here -
1. What punishment for Afzal?
3. Does ANYONE deserve capital punishment?

And I believe that most of the confusion comes from mixing these up. Atleast for me, I had to separate these, before forming my opinion.

First coming to the question of the kind of punishment Afzal deserves. The crime he is accused of is hineous. It is not just a terrorist attack; it is not just an attack that claimed the lives of nine security guards. It was an attack on the symbol of Democracy in India. It was an attack on India itself. And such a crime, in my opinion, as in the opinion of the Judiciary, deserves the severest of punishments.

The second, and more crucial argument is, what I believe, the underlying cause of all the reactions to the sentence - that inherently, many of us consider the death sentence to be abhorable. While I do share the repulsion that the Editor shows in his article, I still do not believe that should cause a change of judgement either.

When a criminal commits a crime, he does so with cognizance of the penalty it may incur. Changing the penalty subsequent to the crime, whichever way, should not have a bearing on the punishment accorded. In other words, a criminal should be tried according to the laws that prevail at the time of commiting the crime, and changing or reversing a law subsequently, should not lead to a change or reversal in a decision that has already been taken.
And if law dictates a death sentence for this crime, it has to be so.

Next, coming to the arguments for clemency - these have hinged on two main arguments - the fairness of the trial and repurcussions it may cause in the Kashmir valley. I do not buy the former argument. This is a case where the guilty charge has been upheld by court after court, and the fact that two of the co-accused were acquitted earlier indicates the fairness of the process.
Clemency, considering the repurcussions in the Valley would set a bad precedent; it would essentially bind the judgement of the judiciary by the ability of the Enforcing Arm.
Neither of these arguments should cut much ice with the President. Thus opinions and feeling aside, rationally speaking, there is no cause to reverse the decision.

If the President were to still grant clemency, it would be his conscience (answering NO to que 2 above) overriding his rational judgement. And that is not something I would like to express my opinion on. That I believe, is almost an individual choice the First Citizen has privilege to, and should exercise.

Two sides of a coin.

Two posts on the same topic, dealing with almost the same facts:

from 'The Economist'
&
from 'The Hindu'

I have always had high regard for these two print houses. Have found them both to be objective, and their reporting to be largely without prejudice. Have trusted them to show me the 'complete picture' without coloring it. In short, have relied on them to give me a fair, unbiased view of the world I live in.
~~~~~
I do not say news should be bland without opinions. Opinions are OK. They are often even good, because they can be thought provoking.
Nor do I say newspapers should not take sides. They can, and sometimes even should. In complete darkness or unknown terrain, a torch shown in either direction can help.

But before expressing opinions or taking sides, I believe newspapers have a duty, an obligation to present facts for what they are, and base these opinions or bias on these facts. So that the informed reader, depending on his own leaning can make his own choice, either to concur, or differ with the opinion expressed or bias taken. Mixing opinions and facts, and presenting the former in the garb of the latter can be very harmful. It can color the mind of the gullible reader and can cause a serious loss of credibility in the mind of the informed one.
~~~~~
As I read the first article, I get the uncomfortable, sad feeling that The Economist has goofed up on this count. And in the process, has fallen short of the high standards it had set for itself and I had expected of it.
The Hindu on the contrary, in my opinion, has a much more mature handling of the topic on hand here. It has presented facts and opinions, trying to substantiate each one of the latter with some of the former. And on top, the entire article features in the 'Opinions' section of the paper. I must say I feel privileged to have grown up reading this paper.

I will not stop reading the Economist going ahead, but I will have to force myself to exercise more caution in getting judgemental based on what I read there. However I do hope The Hindu will continue showing me both sides of the coin going ahead too.