Should Kasab be served the death penalty?

What is it with Ajmal Kasab that the judicial system is still not handing him the death penalty? Why are tax-payer's hard-earned dollars going in to look after him for all these years in jail? Why is he not killed cold-bloodedly - as he has so casually and eagerly killed so many of our people?

On the night of 26th November, 2008, all of India felt the tremors from the cold-blooded terror attack on its own soil - in the heart of cosmopolitan Mumbai. The 2008 Mumbai attacks (also often referred to as 26/11) were a coordinated series of bombing and shooting attacks across the largest city in India - Mumbai. These attacks began on the 26th of November, 2008 and went on till November 29th, 2008. In total these attacks left at least 308 people wounded and 164 people dead. The world was left in horror as another September 11, 2001 situation began to unfold in India.

All the terrorists were Islamist from Pakistan, and as confessed by Kasab, they were all trained by the ISI. They were also all given reconnaissance assistance - and a meticulously well-devised plan to destroy and create a path of destruction around high-profile places in Mumbai.

The attacks took place in the Oberoi Trident Hotel, Mazagoan Docks,Metro Cinema, St. Xavier's College,Leopold Cafe, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, the Taj Mahal Tower and Palace, in a lane near the building of the Times of India and Cama Hospital. A taxi in Vile Parle was also attacked. It took endless hours of dedicated men and women to control, capture and kill the attackers and all of India stood by in alert NSG Guards were rushed in and Operation Black Tornado was conducted in an effort to purge the place of all terrorists - this led to the deaths of all the attackers, bar Ajmal Kasab.

Only one terrorist survived the ordeal. His name is Ajmal Kasab. In 2010, on 6th May Ajmal Kasab was found guilty on five counts and sentenced to death. That however, is still to happen!!!:(

According to NDTV, the Maharastra Government has, since 2008 when Kasab was captured, till date paid over 25 crores to keep the mass murderer alive. What justice is that - we have so many, many innocent and hungry mouths, dying due to malnutrition and here the Government spends so many crores feeding and looking after 1 man, who has brought so much grief to the whole nation and to some families in particular. How ironic is it that state is spending so much on security for Kasab when he was the cause of such brutality in the same same state! (1)

The question therefore arises that should we follow through with the death sentence or not? I would be very happy to hear from all my readers whether or not they feel that Ajmal Kasab should be dealt a death penalty or not for his part in 26/11.

(1) http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ajmal-kasab-s-security-food-and-medical-bills-cost-maharashtra-govt-over-rs-25-crores-196451

The death penalty - Should we or should'nt we exercise it?

The death penalty has many names - Lethal injection, execution, capital punishment to name a few. In olden days, capital punishment was prevalent in most societies in some form or the other. However, as societies became more civilized the death penalty was revised and completely obliterated in some countries. Currently it has been abolished in 97 countries, some countries have not had a single death sentence dealt out in the last 10 years. Only 57 countries in the world still allow and practice capital punishment. The only society where capital punishment has never been followed is Kievan Rus.(1)

Amnesty International together with the UN General Assembly are calling for an execution moratorium, hoping eventually to phase it out completely. Currently however, approximately 60% of the world lives in countries where the death penalty is still being practiced. Four of the most populated countries in the world still allow the death penalty, although in 3 of them, the U.S., India and Indonesia it does not happen very often. China is the only heavily populated country in the world that actually, still makes use of capital punishment on a mass scale.

Amnesty International says that in 2011 only 21 countries have actually used the death penalty as punishment for crimes committed. China does not formally leak out information of the death penalty doled out in its country, however, numerous executions have taken place there. If the statement is to be believed then hundreds of people are executed in China each year. The beginning of the year 2012 saw at least 18,750 people on death row globally.(1)

Banner #8 | Size: 125x125 Image ©2011 Carson Services, Inc.

Now the burning question is, should the death penalty be allowed or not. What do you think?

Some of the pros for levying the death penalty, in my opinion, are:

1. Justice is served. When some innocent person's life has been violated then it is only befitting that his killer's life should come to an end as well. Why should he be alive to see the beauty of the world, and enjoy his relationships while the victim lies cold in his grave. Where the punishment is not befitting the crime, justice is not served and that is not fair to humanity at large.

2. If a person is not made accountable for his actions, by counter-actions on behalf of the justice-givers then it leaves the door open for others to follow suite, knowing that they will only get a 'rap on their knuckles' and be let off - therefore it does not act as a deterrent as a death penalty would.

3. When they get away with murder once, why won't they do it again? So, to save the life of this murderer we may put many more lives in danger. Is that fair?

4. The cost of keeping a person alive, just because we do not wish to be 'barbaric' and take his life in return for his having done exactly that to another person - is huge. Why should honest, hard-working tax-payers pay for the criminal's free stay in prison. That money could be much better used elsewhere, including in looking after the millions who, globally, live under the poverty level.

5. In earlier days, mistakes did take place and innocent people 'were sent to the gallows' but now-a-days with the heavy screening and matching of DNA those are things of the past. Should we still hang on to the 'no death-penalty' wagon just because of that?

6. It also helps the victim's family, who have needlessly suffered a lot to know that the person who killed their loved one, was killed in return, so it helps bring about closure and some relief in their lives.

Some of the cons for levying the death penalty, in my opinion are:

1. By allowing the death penalty we actually do the same thing - we kill someone, so we lower ourselves to his level. By allowing it we are as guilty as he was. Should we really do that?

2. The victim is dead already, what good will it do to him if we put his perpetrator to death as well.

3. It is 'barbaric' and 'gruesome' - completely out of the dark-ages; to put someone to death, in such a cold-blooded way.

However, all said and done - in my mind - we as a society, owe it to our citizens to allow them to feel safe and secure in the knowledge that no one will harm them. However, perchance someone does harm them, they need to know that justice will be upheld.

If we let the victims get away, we are actually, in my opinion, accepting what they do and condoning it and encouraging others to do the same. I know it is 'barbaric' to follow this path, however, it seems to me - to be the only fair way of dealing with the situation. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," (Hammurabi, 1792-1750BC King of Babylon) It seems to me to be, the only fair way of deterring people from doing the wrong thing. Innocent lives should not be lost because the law is too lenient in doling out punishment to wrong doers.

(1)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment)