Should the Death Penalty be imposed on Habitual Perpetrators of Cold Blooded Preplanned Murders Not Only By Hanging But By The Same Method By Which The Murderer Killed His Victim?(72)


Opponents of the Death Penalty make the misplaced plea for sparing even habitual and cold blooded murderers of it in the name of Humanity,which they do not deserve. Actually, Death by Hanging is too little and lenient a punishment for such unscrupulous and brutal criminals, who often torture their victims before killing them.

Logically, habitual and brutal criminals in the same way in which they have killed their victim. For example, if someone kills his or her victim by burning, he or she should be sentenced to death by burning at the stake. Or if he or she murders someone by poisoning, the criminal should also be put to death by administering the same poison to him or her. So Nirbhaya’s rapist killers should have sticks tearing into their entrails until they become moribund but not killed directly; instead, leaving them to die on their own without help as they did with Nirbhaya, just for their  perverse idea of enjoyment. Many protagonists of Humanity would oppose this idea on the grounds that it is like taking ‘An Eye for an Eye’,that is, ‘Legal Revenge’, but it is not so. The purpose of this suggestion is to make criminal minded people realise and feel for themselves how the victim may have felt like while dying the brutal death, that is, drive in the principle of ‘Do as you would be done by’!

Perhaps, if criminals were brought to understand that if caught and convicted for such gruesome murders, they too would have to go the same way,it might happen that those persons who commit murders     not in the heat of passion or on momentary impulse, but in cold blood after preplanning, might plan to kill their victims in a less, or not at all, brutal or torturesome way, by making killing and eliminating an unwanted or troublesome person their aim rather than torturing him or her before dying, e.g. by Barbiturate poisoning, viz. putting the victim to a sound, permanent sleep, without subjecting the person to suffering by bodily pain or by mental agony of the dreadful knowledge of the death that is going to descend upon him/her, which would be more humane than butchering or burning the victim!

I know this idea will never materialise, but it’s just a passing satirical              ‘Food for Thought’! The real point is that the legal punishment for Preplanned murders committed in cold blood and following extreme torture to the victim/s should be severe enough to make criminals         and terrorists regret their act and have a deterrent effect on others,         and I doubt that life imprisonment, even rigorous, has that effect on habitual hardened rapist-murderers and terrorists, for whom only the death penalty- intended not only to punish the habitual criminal or terrorist, but also to remove the menace from society- is the proper penalty. For such persons are very clever at manoeuvring to get out of jail, either by escape by digging secret underground tunnels below their cell floors, or by blackmail by inducing abduction of some important person or his relatives to demand his release through his terrorist organisation.

Why do Intellectuals from Time Immemorial get persecuted by Society for their unconventional views, discourses and writings?(70)


The recent episodes of murders of prominent progressive minded writers like Prof. Kalburgi, Dabholkar and others, including well known Journalists, have raised a serious question-Why?                                        However, this sort of intolerance and persecution of intellectuals, particularly those thinkers with strikingly unconventional ideas, is not    a new phenomenon of present times. It has existed from the time of Socrates, who was forced to drink a poisonous potion for his strikingly untraditional views by the fanatic religious clergy of those times.

One of the reasons is the tendency of most people to stick to old beliefs   to which they are accustomed, and resist any new and deviant line of thought as blasphemy against the established dictums. Religious authorities too oppose persons with views that radically differ from tradition or Religious Doctrine, as any new idea appears ridiculous to  common people, and outrageous if it challenges or contradicts Religious teaching. A sort of Mental Inertia towards any change.

However, with due respect to the savants, I wish to state my humble observation that many intellectuals have the arrogant and offensive habit of passing disrespectful comments against old and common beliefs,  including the religious faiths of people who subscribe to traditional views which sets off heated revolt against them. An instance of that is a rude and abusive comment passed by Prof. Kalburgi that Idol Worship is senseless and useless. In his words, “One can Urinate on Idols”, which probably led to the outrage against him, and to the unfortunate result of his eventual murder presumably by fanatic Hindu elements.For, the idols may be nothing more or better than ordinary inanimate stone statues to him, but to the believers in Idol Worship, they are very much alive, divine and sacred by virtue of the ‘Pratisthapana Vidhi/ Consecration ceremony done while installing them in Temples or Catholic Churches, or people’s homes, as are their parents, or perhaps more, so that they can pardon an insult to themselves, but not to their Idolised Gods!        

EMy mother told me when I went to Goa the first time, where our family deity’s temples are situated, as I too do not have much liking for idol worship, that “See, if you do not believe in any particular deity or form of worship, you need not go there and offer worship to that deity, or in the particular way practised at the temple,   but don’t insult and  hurt the feelings of those who believe in it!”                                   

This is not to say that the assailants of these Intellectuals are justified in making their murderous attacks .They do deserve to be convicted and punished for their crimes. For after all, a crime is a crime, and the public does not have the right to take the Law in its hands, no matter what       the provocation. What is meant  is that persons with new and progressive thoughts might face less persecution if they on their part also presented their revolutionary and controversial views to traditional society with more tact and reason than just dumping them on the simple and less intellectual masses with a supercilious ‘cleverer than thou’ air.             Above all, consideration for the common folks’ sensitivities is required, AND HUMILITY, OH LEARNED LORDS!