Capital Punishment - Why Yakub Memon's hanging should have been telecast live

Mike Ghouse for India | http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-yakub-memons-hanging-should-have.html

I am pleased to share my thoughts about Capital punishment and the deliberate killing of the criminal Yakub Memon, as this has become the most talked about death penalty in the nation. 

I have been opposed to Capital punishment from the early 80�s, however, I have slipped twice since then; first when I heard about a guy who raped my friends� daughter, and a Houston woman who killed 7 of her children for claiming insurance. All other times, I have stood firmly with the idea that the society cannot act like outrageous beasts and we cannot deliberately kill an individual no matter what caused him to be a killer.

In a democracy, civility goes hand in hand. If everything is just in a society all goes well, but when injustice occurs directly, indirectly or remotely, bad things multiply in the society, and it will take time to restore dharma � the righteousness. Justice and Fairness are the pillars of any society; a good system ensures trust, prosperity and peace for all.

Who do you blame when some punk shoots the cashier at a 7/11 for a few bucks? His parents, his community or his situation? What if that man or woman was raised where you and I were raised? Is society responsible for creating such a monster? Should we punish that monster? Will that end more monsters?

Of course the state shamelessly kills its criminals either through a lethal injection as in Texas or chopping the head off in public as in Saudi Arabia. Both acts are disgusting and barbaric. In the early 80�s I was appalled with an Indian judge who was visiting,  his unflinching take on death penalty was just plain shocking, I thought being a judge, he would have debated, hesitated or would have reservations� NONE Whatsoever!

I have written quite a lot on the topic, but the following paragraph expressed my sentiments very well. �Today, the Indian state has shown itself to be no better than Tiger Memon. Tiger planned the bombings in retaliation to the terrible violence against Muslims that followed in the wake of Babri Masjid demolition. We have terminated his brother's life to extract vengeance for the blasts.

Tiger's act was a reaction of a hotheaded criminal; we sent his brother to the gallows after keeping him in jail for 22 years - what could be more cynical and cold-hearted than that. What ends of justice does that serve now? Are we safer from his judicial elimination? How have we shown ourselves to be different from those we condemn? �

I am citing a beautiful example, which you will find them in all societies. This by no way exonerates any society; criminals are in every group of people.  Hazrat Umar once commuted an order to cut the hands of a thief as a punishment. He discovered that the man stole the food to feed his children. Umar took the blame on the society for creating such a desperate situation for individuals to resort to such a thing.  I hope we all start thinking what is just instead of blindly applying the laws. We the Americans are no exception to that.

The following column is a compelling article to read.

Mike is a speaker, thinker, writer, pluralist,  TV-Radio commentator and a human rights activist committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. His info in 63 links at MikeGhouse.net and writings at TheGhouseDiary.com

# # #

Why Yakub Memon's hanging should have been telecast live
Courtesy of Catch News. com

MANISHA SETHI@catchnews

|30 July 2015

The verdict

• Supreme Court's late night hearing on Yakub Memon's punishment was a charade
• It was a way of projecting that we give a fair trial "even to a terrorist"

The double standards

• While we celebrate Yakub's execution, we are asked to forget the 1992 Mumbai riots
• We speak of "closure" for blast victims but ask riot victims to "move on"

The bloodlust

• On television, there were grotesque blow-by-blow accounts of the run-up to the execution
• Given our vicarious pleasure, his hanging should have been public, preferably telecast live

Till the end, till the very last minute possible, the charade of due process was played out. Three judges who had rejected Yakub Memon's petition in the day deliberated upon his lawyers' plea once again till early morning. Some were irked by what they saw as Memon's delaying tactics - as though a condemned man should go gently into the night, without fuss, abandoning the human instinct for self-preservation. Others gushed at the greatness of our judicial system. The Supreme Court by constituting a bench in the middle of the night had displayed extraordinary accommodation towards Memon. What further proof did we need that we give a fair trial "even to terrorists"?

First, there was nothing unprecedented about a late night sitting of the Supreme Court. In 2014, Chief Justice HL Dattu stayed Surinder Koli's imminent hanging through a late night order after his lawyers woke him up at 1 am.

Second, though Yakub's death warrant was issued before he had exhausted his legal rights - a clear violation of the 'procedure established by law' to precede a death sentence - the Supreme Court finally upheld it, both in the day, as well as in the dramatic early morning hearing.

But, more importantly, we would do well to remember that Yakub was tried and convicted under TADA, a law that was allowed to lapse less than a year after his return to India.

In May 1995 - as the Mumbai blasts trial was proceeding in the TADA court - the Parliament decided not to grant extension to this law. The law was not renewed because it militated against every shred of the values and principles embodied in our Constitution.

Burgeoning evidence of rank prejudice in its application, its rampant use as an instrument for witch-hunting and vendetta, forced us to acknowledge that such a law could not have a place in a democracy.

However, cases such as Memon's, already filed under TADA, continued as though the draconian law was still in existence.

So let us disabuse ourselves of the notion that law - objective, blind, undiscriminating law has spoken.

Today, the Indian state has shown itself to be no better than Tiger Memon. Tiger planned the bombings in retaliation to the terrible violence against Muslims that followed in the wake of Babri Masjid demolition. We have terminated his brother's life to extract vengeance for the blasts.

Tiger's act was a reaction of a hotheaded criminal; we sent his brother to the gallows after keeping him in jail for 22 years - what could be more cynical and cold-hearted than that. What ends of justice does that serve now? Are we safer from his judicial elimination? How have we shown ourselves to be different from those we condemn?

Yakub was tried and convicted under TADA, a law that lapsed less than a year after his return to India

The sanctimonious bile of media commentators asks us not to think of the Muslim victims of 1992 riots or the Srikrishna Commission Report, to forget that only three people were ever convicted for the anti-Muslim violence, one of whom, the Shiv Sena MLA Madhukar Sarpotdar did not serve a single day of his one-year sentence.

To raise the question of selective justice is to 'politicise' Yakub's hanging, which has after all, gone through all the legal motions.

Only the deliberately blind will fail to see that there are two parallel worlds of law: one affords 'closure', the other urges you to 'move on'; one, which grants last minute clemency and reprieve, the other, determined to sacrifice a life.

Law will take its own course surely, but the course it charts will be strikingly different in different cases.

And then there are our lynch mobs. On television, there was a grotesque, almost orgasmic obsession with the "last hours of Yakub Memon".

Blow by blow accounts - graphically and dramatically rendered - of how Yakub would be given a new set of clothes, how he would be provided with a copy of the Quran, what breakfast he might be offered, were aired non stop.

In one, an officer who had been on the investigating team of the 26/11 attacks, excitedly showed how Yakub's hands would be tied at the back when he takes his last walk - from his cell to the phansi yard.

Have we plumbed the depths of our moral abyss? Perhaps not. But it's still possible to.

Why did they execute Yakub inside the walls of the jail? His hanging should have been public, preferably telecast live. The keepers of our collective conscience should have cheered as Yakub walked to the gallows, his hands tied at the back. We could have swooned and thrown stones and bottles at him as the hangman covered his face with a hood.

We could all have held our breath as his neck snapped, and then broken into a raucous cry as his body turned limp. Surely, in such a carnivalesque celebration of death, we would have deepened our sense of justice, our faith in the processes of law, and in the fairness of our democracy.

Why stop at vicarious pleasures. Let us degrade and debase ourselves completely.

The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect of the organisation.

Opposing death penalty doesn't mean support for Yakub Memon: State influences delivery of justice after verdicts, create perception of bias

(C) Indscribe

Firstly, let me make it very clear that opposing death penalty doesn't mean that it is a voice in support of Yakub Memon.

It is simply against death penalty to him. Keep him in jail for the rest of his life, just like others.

But here you are are baying for his blood, while going extra-mile to save other hard-core terrorists' lives.

The yardsticks are not the same, not at all. Rules are soft for one set of people, tough for another set, though crimes are same.

There are a host of reasons why death penalty is being opposed vehemently in this case.

People from all cross-sections are opposing it, not just those who are Muslims.

And, as a democracy we should be mature enough to listen to dissent and voices opposing a decision.

Death penalty has been abolished in around 100 countries, and there are individuals who oppose it on principles.

It is also a fact that people from certain sections get death, others don't. A major factor is poor financial condition as person can't afford lawyers. As many as 94% who got death penalty in India were either Dalits or Minorities.

10 REASONS: WHY YAKUB MEMON SHOULDN'T BE HANGED

1. But there is another big issue. State plays a major role in it. They can definitely influence the processes that can delay investigation and the judicial process. Further, they can stop or delay executions.

2. All those including killers of our former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the man who assassinated former chief minister of Punjab Beant Singh, the person involved in bomb blast killing 9 persons in Delhi, were NOT HANGED, because the state governments didn't want them hanged.

It's so easy. They can delay it for years and years. Governments finally decide it, even after court verdicts.

3. The 'nationalist' BJP has an alliance with the Akali Dal in Punjab, so it can be 'tough on terror' but that's pure nonsense as we all know, how it is complicit in saving others in Punjab.

It never made an issue about Rajiv Gandhi killers as it didn't want to anger Dravidian parties, whose support it needed for alliance at national level.

But in Maharashtra, it wants to hang Yakub Memon, fast, as soon as possible. So law is applied selectively.

4. Courts give verdicts but governments have their own privileges and ways to delay or speed up the executions. Is that fair?

The State--the might of the establishment, through prosecution, investigating agencies, can speed up or slow down any case.

In the case of Babri Masjid demolition, CBI has failed to convict anyone till now. The situation is same in Mumbai riots 1992-93.

Travesty of Justice

5. Cases of massacres and riots seldom reach the stage where the perpetrators could be convicted. Unimaginable things happen in case of mass killers like Babu Bajrangi and Maya Kodnani. They don't get death penalty, fine.

But, they are even saved from jail terms, as they get released on parole due to 'State'. The officials in the government and jail, allow parole and don't appeal against relaxations in their cases, even if it is a double lifer.

6. So people like Kodnani and Babu Bajrangi even come out of jails within a short time (on parole) after they are convicted (28 yr sentence to Kodnani, yet she gets released). State doesn't oppose, it is helping them. Other prisoners can't think of such relaxations. Is that fair? Where is justice, now?

7. In the case of Rajiv Gandhi's killers, state governments in Tamil Nadu stood up for them. Even J Jayalalitha tried to release them. In the case of Balwant Singh Rajoana, the jail authorities refused to hang him, as the entire state was behind him.

Similarly, in the case of Bhullar norms were violated and now he has been shifted to a comfortable jail in Punjab. The death sentence was not executed for years, through delaying tactics, and hence Supreme Court, commuted it.

8. Governments can play with the law, it's a fact. Those who are not in government, can't do it, naturally.

This gives a sense of victim-hood. So much concern is shown for poor health of Kodnani, loss of vision of Babu Bajrangi, but not slight mercy to let Afzal Guru meet his wife and kid, last time before death!

It is a fact that there is a perception building up among Muslims that it is unfair to hand Yakub Memon, who had cooperated with Indian authorities, and came to India.

So Maharashtra government, the 'rashtrawadi' [self-styled nationalist] won't delay, rather, hang him readily.

Congress can't speak up for Memon, as it long back fell into the BJP's 'nationalist' trap. So in UPA tenure, it had to hang Kasab and Afzal Guru, fast, so that BJP couldn't have political gains. Memon has no one to back him.

9. No wonder, when MIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi speaks, there is immediate response from 'bhakts' is that he is supporting 'terrorist'. No, this is against death penalty to him.

Many people don't want death penalty and feel that there is injustice in this case and they feel just Owaisi is speaking what they feel. Is that a good scenario, when people have such a strong perception of state bias?

[Do we need to remind you that Muslims don't even allow terrorist's burial on the soil of Hindustan. How can you forget this?]

10. Then, the media, particularly, loud TV channels create majoritarian opinion--refusing to give space to the 'other', plays a major role in deciding who gets death sentence and who doesn't. Alternative opinion must also be heard.

Investigating agencies failed to catch the main perpetrators in the Mumbai blasts case. Yakub Memon's entire family came back, and Menon, through a certain dealing with investigating agencies, with a trust on Indian state, its judicial process, and his coming to India (with his entire family), helped India in its case against Pakistan on the international forum.

When governments, through the might of the state, influence justice after the verdicts, it is also contempt of court. Law is blind, but the courts aren't deaf. It is time they hear the voices, take note of how governments misuse their powers in influencing justice.

1. 94% who get death penalty are Dalits, minorities Link

2. Kodnani, Bajrangi get released from jails on 'medical grounds'. Link

3. B Raman's article. First rediff introductory Link & then the article Link
4. Jailer had refused to hang Rajoana Link