Death penalty debates: a note to the supporters

http://www.cybervictims.org

Since the news of execution of death sentence of Afzal Guru, one of the prime accused of Indian Parliament attack case came out, India as well as the world seems to be divided into two groups: one who is saying no to death penalties, and the other who is saying yes to the death penalties. Unfortunately India is witnessing a killing spree which has become almost viral right from 16^th December,2012 when the Delhi gang rape victim was brutally raped. The 23 year old young woman was raped, stripped off and thrown out of the bus where she was raped. Huge numbers of protesters showed their protest against this cruel torture on the woman by saying yes to the death penalty. Internet was swept by such ‘demands’. One experienced woman journalist of a national news channel shared with me personally  her fear that from now on all news papers/media channels will show case rape cases and their handling by the government agencies. She sadly told me that most media houses will go ahead with such news mainly to grow their TRP rates, but at the same time she feared that the result would be devastating. She was true! Anger of people kept on rising whenever there was any news of sexual assault and related death of the victim. The last was none other than the acid attack victim from Chennai who succumbed to death just a few days ago. Unfortunately   there is an extremely dark history in our country which would show that many raped and subsequently dead women victims are extremely neglected by the criminal justice machinery. The Mathura rape case stands as the ugly evidence of abuse and misuse  of power when it comes to providing justice to rape victims such as Mathura. The law has been amended time and again to test the strength of S.376 IPC which prescribes punishment for rape and its series which includes intercourse with a woman misusing the accused person’s designation (even that of a husband  when he involves in intercourse with the wife during  separation ) and its punishment. .While in some cases of brutal rape and then subsequent murder of the victim, the lawyers appearing for the victim (as well as the State) could actually convince the judges to award the death penalty (see Dhananjay Chatterjee Alias Dhana vs State Of W.B. on 11 January, 1994, 1994 (1) ALT Cri 388, 1994 (2) BLJR 1231), with the help of S.302 of the Indian Penal Code, S.376 originally did not prescribe death as the ultimate punishment for violent rape. As it can be seen, India does have death penalty and it is used for rarest of the rare cases. The language of Section 302 of the Indian penal Code prescribes death penalty as the first preference for punishment for murder. The second preference remains life imprisonment which is shown as a substitute to death penalty by adding an  “or” in front of the words “life imprisonment”. The pecuniary punishment of fine comes as an added prescribed punishment  with it. While this provision is a common punishment provision for ‘cold blooded’ murders (which actually excludes culpable homicides not amounting to murder, or cases of causing death by negligence etc), S.121 of the Indian Penal Code also prescribes death penalty as the first preference (again linguistically) and life imprisonment with fine as the second preference for (i) waging war against the government of India, or (ii) attempting to wage such war, or (iii) abetting the waging of such war.  It was not till  the recent Criminal law(amendment )ordinance, 2013 which   mention awarding death penalty for brutal rape which would leave the victim dead or in a vegetative condition(see s.376A of the Indian penal code of the Criminal law (amendment ) ordinance,2013, published on 4^th February,2013 in the Press Information Bureau of India, available @http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=91979) that death penalty was accepted as the extreme punishment for rape of such nature. On a personal note, I  actually support inclusion of this penalty as the last option especially for rarest of the rare cases if taken in its true meaning (the framers of the this ordinance has kept the option of ‘death’ as the last option in line, beginning with prison sentence for twenty years as the first option, which may extend for life). The ordinance made a sect of people happy as it carried out the retributive aspect of sentencing violent crimes against women. Apparently this section comprised of people who went for  on-line petitions, debates and write-ups which actually wanted the prime accused of this rape case to be hanged  or chemically castrated.   The  ordinance  simultaneously made another sect of people disappointed as it upheld ‘constitutional murder’. Immediately after the publication of this ordinance, came the ‘shocking news’ of execution of Afzal Guru which was done without any prior publicity. Actually it was highly speculated in the internet especially after the hanging of Ajmal Kasab in 2012. I came across so many cartoon and  images, short notes and write-ups in the Facebook itself and also in the Twitter which indicated that many people wanted to see the terrorists hanged. The on-line debates brewed up on the sentiments of people. Undoubtedly the demands of hanging of  the brutal rapists and dangerous terrorists who have caused bloody death to many found their own ways of convincing ways. Such posts in the social media did not get removed, but it was seen as a plain case of   freedom of speech and expression which expressed anger and frustration over the delayed process of law in seeing the result  of the rape law amendment or parliament attack case or 26/11 case. These  demands of death penalty especially for the gang rape accused got almost viral in the social media. I find the supporting grounds behind this ‘desperateness’ in some of the land mark death penalty verdicts which considered rarest of rare cases to award the penalty such as  in Machchi Singh Vs. The state (1983)3SCC,470 etc.

I sadly observe that this turn of events actually made some people or groups of people obsessive with death penalties. Many are attacking activists who are against death penalty with harsh and extremely humiliating words in the web platforms such as Twitter. Such activists, especially women activists are targeted by trolls in very offensive words. It needs to be remembered that  if supporters for death sentence can use their freedom of speech and expression in the social media, supporters against death penalty are no aliens who would be rejected this prime right. This pseudo anger over non supporters is carried out through peculiar ways ; some call these non supporters ‘traitors’, some openly throw challenges to breach the dignity of the person (this especially happens for women activists). While all of these sorts of speeches can actually be booked under S.66A of the Information Technology Act, I am yet to research on how many targeted non-supporters have actually taken this path. But at the same time, I would not be surprised if any of the non supporters is again dragged to the police station for expressing his/her views against death penalty as had happened for the Palghar girls’ case who was arrested for their Facebook remarks against the Mumbai shut down due to the death of veteran political leader BalSaheb Thackeray.   Judicial investigation revealed how the law was misused by political goons who forced the police to book the false case.

But, one serious note for the supporters of death penalty: stop throwing threatening /humiliating words to the non supporters. If they are really “traitors” let the court( and not the police only) decide it. Instead of taking law in your own hands or throwing it aside for the sake of hailing the capital punishment , test the power of  the law to judge whether their ways of protesting the death penalties really attracts the ‘protected speech’ category or not.

Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2013), “Death penalty debates: a note to the supporters”, 16^thFebruary,2013, published in http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/”

The online abettors for suicide : examples of extreme (mis)use of internet

http://www.cybervictims.org

The past week saw an array of editorials and headlines on cyber security, free speech in the internet and government’s decision to ‘do some thing’ for checking internet contents for curbing hate speech etc. A very small news clipping caught my eyes on 23^rd  November which read “man checks net for suicide tips before hanging himself.”(seehttp://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Chennai/article2652331.ece). The man in the news had apparently everything anyone would have wanted to live a good life. But what I got from the news report is that the police on a first hand search for evidences, found out the internet pages that he was supposedly checking before his death. The pages spoke about suicide, death by hanging, common mistakes people make while hanging themselves etc.  The police booked the case under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation on unnatural death, which suggests that they are investigating on the issues as why and how did  he commit suicide and whether it was really a death by self strangulation or a cold blooded murder. But what the police would not note was, if this was a death by self strangulation, would the creators of the web-pages, that he was seeing before death,  be taken as ‘aides’ or abettors  for his death? Most of the free speech advocates would laugh at this ‘ridiculous’ point raised by me. But think, how the *right* to expression of some body  has pushed a man to extreme steps.  Still then, to clarify, I had a quick view of  some of the pages which speak about suicides. Some are really dangerous, as they show how to make the death painless. Any human being suffering from extreme depression probably would not stop in testing these steps. But, a further reading showed me the conclusion stanzas of most of these write-ups direct the reader to think something positive. Most of them speak of *living* , leaving these dreadful thoughts. But anyone in ‘madness’ to die, would hardly look at the conclusion. Mostly they will look for the steps to quick ending of the ‘disaster’ called life leaving endless web –writers  in the danger of being called ‘provocative’ or ‘suicide predators’ .

Now that internet is being used for anything and everything, this presents a potential danger for young people, adolescent teens especially who turn suicidal at the slightest of unhappiness. But thinking from the other side, the creators of the web pages who speak about suicide are practicing their own rights to express and their write ups don’t really fall under the category of unprotected speech unless these write-ups are not accompanied by some positive notes or warnings. Under the Indian Penal Code, abettor for suicide is liable for an imprisonment term which may extend to ten years and which may also be accompanied by pecuniary fine under section 306. I don’t know what the investigation reports would suggest for this particular case. But if it is proved that this youth took his own life ‘provoked’ by the suicide method write-ups (off course this may not be the only ‘provocation’) due to extreme depression, could section 306, I.P.C be extended to tap those writers? Probably no, probably yes. Nonetheless,  if the answer is yes, there would be huge hue and cry to fit this Indian provision in the light of US free speech guarantee and safe harbor policies, but this could definitely send a message to the ‘suicide predators’ on internet who specifically target their speech to particular person/s to provoke for suicide.

Think twice before exercising your free speech right. It can take some one’s life.

Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2011), “The online ‘suicide predators’: examples of extreme (mis)use of internet ”, 10^th December,2011, published in http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/”

The café with better responsibility

http://www.cybervictims.org

Not very long ago, a pub in western India witnessed violent harassment of women. The media showed the glimpses how women were literally thrown off from the premises by some religious extremist groups. Their only ‘crime’ was they entered the premises to have hard liquors. The fundamentalist group contended that drinking culture among women would spoil the Indian cultural heritage, maximum of which is carried out through the behavioral aspects of women in the society. These groups were angry with the pubs ; but they were more angry with the women who ‘dared’ to drink hard liquor in public. This incidence evoked a huge debate in urban Indian societies regarding the pub –culture and also the café culture to a certain extent. I am including café culture here intentionally to denote the growing culture of ‘addiction’ among men and women and legal powers or licenses of the cafes and pubs to provide people some thing to rest their nerves.

It is ironical now as how addiction to cyber space has started getting recognition from behavioral scientists. Not long ago in India cyber cafes were the only places where people could access the internet. Within 4-5 years cheaper rates of broadband had made almost every moderate Indian household to have internet connection. But, cyber cafes still remain as a chosen place to rest the nerves for some. Many visit the local cafes as an alternative when their home net connections are disrupted, some visit the cafes as halt inns when they are on move and are reluctant to carry mobile nets, some visit the cafes to see and connect with the world under camouflage. The last category of people can be dangerous. The recent news about terror threats through the emails showed that many of such incidences have taken place from cyber cafés. People who intend to create trouble with the help of their cyber identities may take to cafes in order to misguide the procedural investigations of the police, for cafes have their own IP addresses which may not match with the actual residing places of the users. No doubt, the government has become strict and vigilant enough in ordering every cyber café to have user’s data written separately in log books through the proposed Information technology guidelines for cyber café rules ) 2011 (section 2bb of this proposed rule defines log register as “a register maintained by the Cyber Café for access and use of computer resource”); the rule has also proposed that the cafes responsibility must also include prohibiting any user from accessing the computer or computer networks established in the café unless

1. the intended user produces a valid identity proof as has been specified under section 4(1) of this Rule;
2. the intended user actually allows the café to store his data through photocopy of the same , as has been specified under section 4(2) of this Rule;
3. if the intended user is a minor , he/she is accompanied by an adult as has been specified under section 4(4) of this Rule;
4.  The accompanying person (if any) of the intended user produces identity data   as has been specified under section 4(5) of this Rule.

This proposed rule has also specified that cyber cafes may also use web cams to have more authentic information about the intended user. In other words, cyber cafes may get full legal recognition under Indian information technology act ,2000( as amended in 2008). Now it is important to note what is the typical legal definition of  ‘cyber café’ under the Indian laws. Section 2 (na) of the Information technology Act . 2000 ( as amended in 2008) defines cyber café as “any facility from where access to the internet is offered by any person in the ordinary course of business to the members of the public.”  Cyber café therefore has been analyzed as a ‘facility’ by the Indian laws, or rather a service provider.

Coming back to my point on real life pub and café culture in India and the protests by the self declared guardians of civil society, it could be seen that whereas real life cafes need only the valid license to serve good and healthy  food , drinks and hot beverages to rest the nerves of common people, the proposed Rule has made these cafes even more responsible towards protection of civil societies. The users of the facilities offered by the café wont be thrown out by the so called guardians of the civil society for their ‘dare devil’ intentions, but these Rules emphasize that this very responsibility should be shifted to the provider of the facility, i.e the cyber café when the users intend to cross the limits to create real harm to the society.  But the message of the law is clear… unless we the common people are not becoming aware of the ‘happening’ hi-tech thefts; no one can save the world from extremism…remember ‘prevention is better than cure’.

Wishing all my readers a belated very happy friendship day.

Please Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use informations provided in this blog for your own assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2011), “The café with better responsibility

”, 8^th August,2011, published in http://cybervictims.blogspot.com/