<p class="bodytext">The death penalty awarded to the nine policemen convicted for the 2020 custodial killing of a father-son duo in Sathankulam, in Thoothukudi district, Tamil Nadu, is rare and inhumane. The killing presents no compelling case for the death penalty, though it was a crime that involved exceptional cruelty – the men were detained, tortured, and killed for violating Covid lockdown restrictions, a charge that was later found to be false. There was extreme custodial violence and clear abuse of authority, but these transgressions still do not make it the rarest of rare cases, which, according to the Supreme Court, should invite the death penalty. Custodial killings are not rare in India, as reflected in official and independent reports that underline alarming numbers and call for systemic reform. To sanction the killing of the convicted policemen for their act amounts to answering a wrong with another wrong.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Madurai court said if ordinary citizens had committed the crime, it would have invited ordinary punishment, underlining that here, the police were convicted of the killings. By drawing this parallel, the court implies that the case called for extraordinary punishment. But that contention inherently validates unequal punishment for equal crimes, which the country’s justice system does not approve of. It also extends a flawed rationale that death for the convicts would deter custodial torture and killing. Multiple studies have concluded that the death sentence does not prevent crimes. Real deterrence is ensured not by the severity of punishment, but by its certainty. The conviction of the accused police officers was a welcome and uncommon judgment, considering police officers rarely face consequences for custodial torture and killings. But the death sentence dilutes the strong messaging of that ruling.</p>.Artemis and the great Moon race.<p class="bodytext">Capital punishment is not the answer to any crime, however heinous. Justice is not made of retribution. No enlightened system of justice should be based on revenge, calling for an eye for an eye. Its aim should be the reformation of the criminal. Over 100 countries have abolished capital punishment, and a few others are actively considering it. Some countries that have the death penalty in their statutes have suspended its use. India should abolish it. Unfortunately, the calls for instant punishment are getting shriller in the country. India’s courts must resist this trend and set the tone for a judicial approach reaffirming that death to the criminal does not further the cause of real justice.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The death penalty awarded to the nine policemen convicted for the 2020 custodial killing of a father-son duo in Sathankulam, in Thoothukudi district, Tamil Nadu, is rare and inhumane. The killing presents no compelling case for the death penalty, though it was a crime that involved exceptional cruelty – the men were detained, tortured, and killed for violating Covid lockdown restrictions, a charge that was later found to be false. There was extreme custodial violence and clear abuse of authority, but these transgressions still do not make it the rarest of rare cases, which, according to the Supreme Court, should invite the death penalty. Custodial killings are not rare in India, as reflected in official and independent reports that underline alarming numbers and call for systemic reform. To sanction the killing of the convicted policemen for their act amounts to answering a wrong with another wrong.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Madurai court said if ordinary citizens had committed the crime, it would have invited ordinary punishment, underlining that here, the police were convicted of the killings. By drawing this parallel, the court implies that the case called for extraordinary punishment. But that contention inherently validates unequal punishment for equal crimes, which the country’s justice system does not approve of. It also extends a flawed rationale that death for the convicts would deter custodial torture and killing. Multiple studies have concluded that the death sentence does not prevent crimes. Real deterrence is ensured not by the severity of punishment, but by its certainty. The conviction of the accused police officers was a welcome and uncommon judgment, considering police officers rarely face consequences for custodial torture and killings. But the death sentence dilutes the strong messaging of that ruling.</p>.Artemis and the great Moon race.<p class="bodytext">Capital punishment is not the answer to any crime, however heinous. Justice is not made of retribution. No enlightened system of justice should be based on revenge, calling for an eye for an eye. Its aim should be the reformation of the criminal. Over 100 countries have abolished capital punishment, and a few others are actively considering it. Some countries that have the death penalty in their statutes have suspended its use. India should abolish it. Unfortunately, the calls for instant punishment are getting shriller in the country. India’s courts must resist this trend and set the tone for a judicial approach reaffirming that death to the criminal does not further the cause of real justice.</p>
