<p>The Supreme Court’s recent observation about hanging as a method of executing convicts marks an important turn in discussions on the contentious topic. Last week, the Court heard a PIL seeking an end to the present method of execution and adoption of alternatives such as lethal injections, shooting, or electrocution that leave the convict dead in minutes. The petitioner also sought for the convict the choice to have a less painful death. </p><p>Following the government’s refusal to engage with these suggestions, the Court posted the matter for a hearing next month. When told about the resistance, the Court observed that the government was “not ready to evolve” even when views on the subject have undergone major changes.</p>.<p>In its affidavit, the government had told the Court that hanging was a safer and quicker option. It also contended, disturbingly, that making the execution process “overtly comfortable, serene and painless” could dilute its deterrent effect. Backing a painful end to a convict’s life to ensure greater deterrence reflects an inhuman attitude. </p><p>The government also needs to explain its statement that hanging is “free from anything that would unnecessarily sharpen the poignancy of the prisoner’s apprehension.” What the petitioner seeks for the death-row convicts is a more dignified and humane way to die. The plea points to the disturbing manner in which hangings are carried out, leaving the body on the rope for more than half an hour after the execution. The methods, the plea noted, are not humane and violate the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.</p>.<p>It is ironic that when the inhumanity of death penalty is itself being widely debated upon, there is a discussion about the right ways to kill a convict, with the government endorsing the most painful among them. Evidence defies the government’s claim that capital punishment leads to greater deterrence. It is unjust and even discriminatory, because most of the people who are awarded the death sentence are from the marginalised sections of society. </p><p>Death penalty violates the cardinal principle that a system of justice should aim at reformation and not retribution. When the world is moving towards abolition of the death penalty, it is unfortunate that the government talks about the problems in providing “serene” and “comfortable” deaths to people. The arguments reflect a skewed sense of justice. The government’s position on the matter, as the Court said, reveals an inability to evolve with the times, and misses the critical element of humanity.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s recent observation about hanging as a method of executing convicts marks an important turn in discussions on the contentious topic. Last week, the Court heard a PIL seeking an end to the present method of execution and adoption of alternatives such as lethal injections, shooting, or electrocution that leave the convict dead in minutes. The petitioner also sought for the convict the choice to have a less painful death. </p><p>Following the government’s refusal to engage with these suggestions, the Court posted the matter for a hearing next month. When told about the resistance, the Court observed that the government was “not ready to evolve” even when views on the subject have undergone major changes.</p>.<p>In its affidavit, the government had told the Court that hanging was a safer and quicker option. It also contended, disturbingly, that making the execution process “overtly comfortable, serene and painless” could dilute its deterrent effect. Backing a painful end to a convict’s life to ensure greater deterrence reflects an inhuman attitude. </p><p>The government also needs to explain its statement that hanging is “free from anything that would unnecessarily sharpen the poignancy of the prisoner’s apprehension.” What the petitioner seeks for the death-row convicts is a more dignified and humane way to die. The plea points to the disturbing manner in which hangings are carried out, leaving the body on the rope for more than half an hour after the execution. The methods, the plea noted, are not humane and violate the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.</p>.<p>It is ironic that when the inhumanity of death penalty is itself being widely debated upon, there is a discussion about the right ways to kill a convict, with the government endorsing the most painful among them. Evidence defies the government’s claim that capital punishment leads to greater deterrence. It is unjust and even discriminatory, because most of the people who are awarded the death sentence are from the marginalised sections of society. </p><p>Death penalty violates the cardinal principle that a system of justice should aim at reformation and not retribution. When the world is moving towards abolition of the death penalty, it is unfortunate that the government talks about the problems in providing “serene” and “comfortable” deaths to people. The arguments reflect a skewed sense of justice. The government’s position on the matter, as the Court said, reveals an inability to evolve with the times, and misses the critical element of humanity.</p>
