Death Penalty versus Forgiveness: The Gandhian approach

Death Penalty versus Forgiveness: The Gandhian approach

            At a time when, thanks to the remarkable innovations and changes brought in by science and technology which almost at a stroke seems to have struck down several age old beliefs demonstrating the immense possibilities of science and technology to effect far reaching changes, it is natural that serious thoughts go into the vexed question of abolition of death penalty which in simplest terms is nothing other than state killing.

This is a serious question which somehow or other did not receive attention of the civilized world in the all pervading atmosphere of Human Rights violations, human rights protection etc. Without going into the ethical, moral or spiritual aspect of the question, one may ask whether anyone has the right to take another person’s life under whatever circumstances. What Lenin in a different context said about life will be useful to remember in this context;

      “Men’s dearest possession is life, and since it is given to him to live but once, he must so live as not to be scared with the shame of a cowardly and trivial past...... So live that dying he may say: “All my life and my strength where given to the first cause in the worlds the liberation of mankind”.

          Whatever be the justification or otherwise of death penalty when one looks at the emerging scenario, it is gratifying to note that there are more and more people convinced that death penalty is barbarous and hence may be dispensed with.

It might be of interest to note in this context that there are 57 countries and territories without death penalty. They are:

          Andorra, Honduras, Nicaragua, Angola, Hong Kong, Norway, Australia, Hungary, Palau, Austria, Iceland, Panama, Combodia, Ireland, Portugal, Cape Verde, Italy, Romania, Columbia, Kiribati, San Marino, Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Sao Tepme and Principe, Croatia, Luxembourg, Slovak Republic, Mauritius, Czech Republic, Maccedonia, Slovenia, Denmark, Marshall Islands, Soloman Islands, Dominican Republic, Spain, Ecuador, Micronesia, Sweden, Finland, Moldova, Switzerland, France, Monaco, Tuvalu, Germany, Mozambique, Uruguay, Greece, Namibia, Vanuatu, Guinea-Bussau, Netherlands, Vatican city, Haiti, New zealand, Venezuela,

Gandhi’s view on death sentence

          “ I do regard death sentence as contrary to ahimsa. Only he takes life who gives it. All punishment is repugnant to ahimsa. Under a State government according to the principles of ahimsa, therefore, a murderer would be sent to a penitentiary and there given every chance of reforming himself. All crime is a kind of disease and should be treated as such, Gandhi said (Harijan March 19, 1937)

          The one  question  that goes to one’s mind is whether death penalty could be viewed as an isolated phenomenon which no doubt, is to be fought with tooth and nail since it violates the basic right of every human being to live his full life with dignity and honor. Life being a precious gift of Almighty, could not be extinguished by another human being, hence would it not be proper that attention goes to stop all forms of killing which will include death penalty”.

          There is no doubt that capital punishment is an extreme form of State inflicted violence. It is still open to  question  whether one human being has the right to take another’s. The Theory of crime deterrence of the death penalty still remains unproven. We do not have enough statistics to show that in societies where death penalty is in vogue, crime rate has come down because of the existence of death penalty. It is a revenge motive for which that guides those who argue for retention of death penalty and precious little do they realize the poverty and the misery the surviving family of a person executed face Gandhi realized this when he argued vehemently against death sentence. His contention was that it is brave to forgive than to punish an enemy.

The barbarism of the death penalty should be repugnant to any civilized society. One may have to approach this problem within the general context of the theory of crime and punishment. What Prof.Galtung pointed out in this context will be of importance in our understanding of this aspect.

          “ No society worthy of being called civilized would indulge in the barbarism of the death penalty. Perhaps we might profitably approach this important topic within the general context of the theory of crime and punishment”

          Most of the champions of peace all over the world expressed themselves unequivocally against Death Sentence. The most articulate among them is Dr Daisaku Ikeda, the President of Soka Gakkai International, a committed Buddhist Group that strives for social justice and peace. He says,

          “Still another point against capital punishment is the finality of death. An executed criminal can never repent or try to make restitution in some way for the wrong he has done. A criminal who repents of rash or wicked acts, perhaps perpetrated in the recklessness of youth can, if allowed  to live, even in confinement, make a positive contribution to society and ought, it seems to me, to be allowed to atone for his wrongs in this way. I am fully aware that many people fail to share my views. I realize that it must be difficult for families of murder victims to be forgiving towards the killers. A large number of survivors probably suffer such anguish and grief at their loss that they would prefer taking revenge on the murderer with there own hands to allowing the state to try and sentence him. These emotions of vindictiveness and hatred are part of the numerous aspects of human nature which demand deep-reaching correction”.

          From a violent social and political order we have to move towards a nonviolent, non-killing and forgiving society or community. The question that would stare at, is “What kind of justice is at work in the process of forgiving?” this question would, in effect, take care of the first option in that it seeks to problematise the concept while allowing us to approach forgiveness in a more dynamic fashion.

          Let me conclude this argument with a quotation from a Islamic Peace activist from Bangkok, Prof. Chaiwat Satha Anand.

          “In a world bursting with violent conflicts nurtured by hatred which, in some ways, resulted from clash of civilizations, it is no longer possible for those concerned with both the theory and practice of nonviolence to pay no attention to the healing process without which direct violence will eventually reoccur. From a long-term strategic thinking, nonviolence theory needs to incorporate a crucial element which will alleviate, if not solve, this challenging problem. I have suggested here that forgiveness could be that crucial element. The notion of forgiveness, has been critically approached from a non-religious perspective. I argue that with this element added to nonviolence theory, a radical alteration of power relations will occur. In addition with proper understanding of the dynamism of forgiveness the former victim could also free him/herself from his/her past traumatic experience and normally engage in constructive nonviolent actions for a better future. Moreover, contrary to retributive... the forgiving process will allow transformative justice to take place. This kind of politics of forgiveness can also find its cultural nutrients from Islamic teachings and Gandhi’s thoughts.

            Such a modification of nonviolence theory is proposed here because in a fast changing world, nonviolent actions will be badly needed. Not, only does it require to be wisely strategic, it also needs to be constructively strengthened in a way conducive to the just transformation of human society. In order to accomplish this Herculean task, nonviolence theory needs to be critical, constructive, and strategic. In addition, sensitivity is also necessary so that we, the people who cherish the ideal of nonviolence, will not be blind to the pain of the sufferings and deaf to the cries of the oppressed”.