Hang Yakub Memon if there is profit in it

This is not about whether Yakub Memon is guilty or not, this is about whether he should be hanged or not... for that matter, whether anybody in India or anywhere should be hanged or not.

While "hanged till death" is an archaic phrase carried over from the times of colonial repression, it is still often argued as being humane and instant. However, I don’t agree with this flawed premise.

What is humane about the procedure? The night spent in abject fear? That inevitable early morning sound of the cell door opening for the last time? That ritual bath and clean clothes? That last walk along the corridor? That localised silence magnified by the sounds of prison routine? That hushed whisper of a passing presence quickly cut off? That subdued early morning light of breaking dawn? That excruciating finality of climbing the steps to the gallows? Those upturned expressionless faces of official witnesses? That sudden darkness of black cloth covering the head or those last interminable seconds ticking away in expectation of the crank of a lever – that would make the floor fall away? This isn’t instant... this is a lifetime of suspense crunched into a few moments of extended terror. This isn’t humane; this is getting back at a felon by subjecting him to psychological agony aimed at making him realise the fallout of the crime he had committed.

A public hanging, from a psychological point of view, would be more humane. Imagine the same condemned man, in this case Yakub Memon, walking out of his cell, to hear the sound of the baying mob waiting outside to watch him die. His brain would have more information to process, more stimuli to distract him in his last moments. Imagine him walking into a circular arena where the gallows had been set up and a mass of humanity ranged all around kept in check behind strong iron nets. On his sight the crowd would go wild, and with every step that he took towards the hangman’s noose the sound would increase. There would be expletives and missiles hurled at him, rotten tomatoes, eggs, clumps of grass with earth sticking to the roots, pulled out from the field below. Memon would have to dodge, would feel the sharp stinging pain when something hit him, he would feel the spreading wetness and the smell of rotten vegetables, his nostrils would crinkle at the stink of eggs and through all this he would have no time to reflect on his own doom. All around him would be the increasingly dreadful sound of hate, flowing in waves towards him. Maybe he would get angry, maybe he would shout back, he would let lose a stream of swear words or maybe he would just stiffen his back and head towards his waiting noose, to get away from this madness. The minutes, the moments would pass in a rush; that would be humane, albeit apparently also very uncivilised.

But what is civilised about a killing? It is not civilised when an individual does it and it is not civilised when the state does it. Why does the state have to kill? There are many points of view on that, the primary being that it is punishment. But where is the punishment if a person ceases to be? It is punishment only when you add up the things he is going to miss out on, for the years that he might have lived but since he is dead, by state decree, all the things that he is missing out on is notional. So how is it punishment? It would have been punishment if he was kept alive and not permitted to do the things he might have done. He would not marry, he would not know love, he would not see his children grow up, he would not see his parents as they die, he would not play football, and he would not see a film in a theatre. He would do nothing other than live out his life behind prison walls. If punishment is what the state is seeking then that would be punishment... not his hanging.

Another point of view is retribution. But the state cannot be involved in retribution on the Biblical theory of an eye for an eye, a life for a life. If that were so then why criticise the Taliban style of justice? Why criticise the law as it is in certain orthodox Muslim countries where stoning takes place, where limbs are cut off? There cannot be degrees of state retribution; one state-sanctioned cruelty can not be bad and the other good.

The third point of view is of deterrence... the sending out of a strong message that if you commit such crimes the state will hang you. But when did that ever deter crime, heinous or otherwise? If hanging effectively worked as a deterrent then there would have been a significant fall in gruesome murders every time convicted murderers were hanged. Statistics proves otherwise. If hanging was going to stop other people from committing the same crime, of taking life, India’s militant freedom fighters would have dried out after the first couple of them were hanged. Most terrorists consider themselves to be "freedom fighters". So if hanging did not deter one group of freedom fighters from 100 years ago how would an Afzal Guru’s state decreed death stop terror?

There is another point of view in support of state-sanctioned killings and that is economic in nature. Why spend tonnes of money keeping a convict alive? Why spend lakhs of rupees in feeding an Ajmal Kasab? This would be the sanest argument in favour of hanging convicted felons. Why should the exchequer bear the cost of someone who rejects the premise of the state itself or has chosen to work outside its set rules? The earlier such persons are disposed off more are the savings in taxpayers accounts. But if money is the only consideration in deciding between life and death I feel the state should go one step further and try and recover as much of the cost as possible. Treat the hangings as money-raising events, make a spectacle out of it, have the hangings inside a stadium, auction ringside seats to the highest bidders, and have only the back row or standing room be sold at fixed rates. Television channels could be sold the rights to telecast the hanging live. Hoardings and advertisement could be put up all around the gallows. A televised public bidding could be held where the highest bidder would get the chance to pull the fatal lever. Most of these death row convicts are otherwise healthy; so why not sell their organs after they are hanged? I am sure that through these measures the state would recover more than it had ever spent on the convict in the years that he spent in jail trying to wriggle out of his death sentence. Also the more high profile the death row convict, more the scope of earnings and a money-minded state machinery could potentially reap a tidy profit from these hangings. So if this be the case, I am all for hanging Memon and the faster the better it is for us - the living taxpayers of the country.

But till date, I have found no claims by this government or the previous, or any before them, of ever linking hanging to economic considerations and so regrettably, I find no justification for a state to indulge in the taking of life - be it judicial or extrajudicial. There is no doubting that Memon is guilty of the crimes that he has been charged with. There is no running away from the fact that directly or indirectly Memon has been responsible for the death of some 257 people. But let us be clear that there is no punishment, no glory, no moral value, no retribution, no deterrence in killing Memon... if there is anything, then it is just the logic of economy. Let us not spend any money in keeping Memon alive. Let us save the cost of feeding and housing him. Let there be one less mouth to feed... let there be one more death.