The death penalty of Kasab - Essay Example

Death Penalty Death Penalty Introduction 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack can be considered as one of the most devastating incidents in the book of world history. Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab was one of the major responsible for this attack as he and his other companion crossed the coastal border of India and started blind firing. Several innocent people lost their lives due to this. All the gunmen came from Pakistan. These gunmen were influenced by extremist Islamic terrorist group. The gunmen were dead in the shootout except Kasab. In the year 2010, he was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court of India due to his wrongdoings, and most importantly, despite the continuous international political pressures, Pakistani government denied the citizen identity of Kasab. However, death penalty has been removed from India. Therefore, a major ethical issue is whether the death penalty of Ajmal Amir Kasab was justified or not as several agencies of human rights and the leaders of several minority groups have asked this question against the decision or verdict of The Indian Supreme Court as according to them, death penalty cannot be justified in any case. The death penalty of Ajmal Kasab can be considered as one of the favorite debatable or argumentative topics. The article mentioned in the appendix is full of ethical issues as Ajmal Kasab killed innocent people without any reason only for the sake of terrorism and religion. On the other hand, human rights and the leaders of minority groups demanded mercy of Kasab for the sake of ethics and non-violence. Therefore, it can be considered as an ethical issue. Argumentative Analysis There are two different types of ethical theories regarding the source of value and integrity, such as non-consequential reasoning and consequential reasoning. The ethical issue in the death penalty of Kasab will be discussed through the use of the above mentioned theories. Consequential Reasoning It is true that ethical theorists or thinkers have criticized the effectiveness and justification of consequential reasoning as this ethical reasoning generally ignores the basic value of moral assumptions and categories. A consequential theory generally judges the wrongness or rightness of a particular action based on the consequences of a specific action. Ethical egoism, natural law theories and utilitarianism ethical theories can be applied in consequential reasoning in order to discuss the ethical issues in the Kasab death penalty case. Ethical egoism can be considered as a consequential reasoning theory in which the consequences are taken according to the action of individuals in order to ensure welfare of society and other individuals. In this case, Ajmal Kasab has done awrong thing by killing innocent people without any logical reason for the sake of terrorism and religion. The Supreme Court of India has taken justified action by giving death penalty (Times of India, 2012). Two reasons behind this verdict can justify the ethics. First of all, it will restrain other terrorists from doing such things further. Secondly, it will help to maintain safety of lives of people in society. Most importantly, it will help to maintain social welfare. According to utilitarianism theory, people generally do wrong things by other’s influence or personal interest. Strict rules, policies, ethical operations, and strong legal verdicts have the possibilities to restrain other people from doing wrong things that can hamper the social balance. However, Ajmal Kasab has conducted terrorist activities by the influence of Islamic extremist groups situated in and supported by the Pakistan government. In an addition, this specific activity has influenced several Jihadists based in India to take part in this illogical movement that may cause deaths of innocent people. Humanity has no religion. It is the major thing to understand. However, this verdict by the Supreme Court of India has helped several people of India to change their views regarding taking part in these types of non-sense movements that can cause of deaths of several innocent people. According to utilitarianism theory, it is highly justified and ethically consequential to reject the plea of Ajmal Kasab against the verdict of his death penalty. In terms of natural law ethical theories, it is highly important for the practitioners and the responsible individuals within the society to take care of the social autonomy. In this case, Ajmal Kasab has violated the social autonomy by hampering the social sustainability and peace. In addition to this, in the interrogation process, Kasab has admitted that he is a Pakistani militant and came to India in order to spread error within the society. The deaths and social misbalance are the major consequences of his wrong doings. It is highly important for Indian government to overcome this issue by ensuring accurate and appropriate punishment considering his crime and the consequences of this crime. Social values need to be maintained through each and every decision that is made by any judiciary court. India Supreme Court is higher court among all the judiciary institutions. However, the Supreme Court of India has done right and ethical thing by giving death penalty to Ajmal Kasab for his activity. It will console the family members of victims who lose their lives during the terrorist attack. In addition to this, it will make other individuals within the society to feel safe. According to the humanity principle under the natural rights, this verdict and death penalty is justified (NMSU, 2015). However, it is true that consequential reasoning may not follow the moral values considering the future consequences. Most importantly, these consequential reasoning theories can help the society to maintain peace. In the case of Ajmal Kasab, he got the chance to go for lea against the verdict of Mumbai High Court. In this action, the civil rights of Kasab and other criminals associated with the incident was secured. But, the higher judicial authority cancels the plea in order to maintain social sustainability, which is an ethical thing. In this case, consequential reasoning was slightly maintained as the legal authorities also thought about the mercy option of Kasab considering the pressure of human rights and other minority religious groups. Non-Consequential Reasoning A non-consequential reasoning theory of value can be considered as one of the important theories in the field of ethics. In addition to it, this ethical theory generally judges the wrongness or rightness of a particular activity of action based on the intrinsic to the particular action and related properties to the specific action (QCC, 2002). This particular theory does not depend upon the consequences of a particular action. The ethical issue presented in the Ajmal Kasab’s death penalty verdict by Supreme Court of India will be discussed through the application of Kantian Ethical theory of values. This theory can be considered as an important non-consequential ethical theory, in which the wrongness or rightness of the activities or actions does not depend on the related consequences. It only depends upon the responsibilities or duties (CSUS, 2001). Kantian ethical theory generally refers to the deontological moral theory. Most importantly according to this theory, wrongness or rightness of any activity does not depend upon any kind of possible consequences of any activity. Kant’s ethical theory based on strict morality and it supremely decides the goodwill and welfare of the society. According to this theory, certain types of actions need to be seriously prohibited, such as lying, theft and murder in all the cases. In this particular case of death penalty of Ajmal Kasab, the individual confirmed that he is responsible for all the incidents that happened during the 26/11 terrorist attack. Most importantly, the individual denied that he did not commit any kind of crime through the shootout as he tried to give lessons to the people of other religions. Moreover, he also shared that the people of Islamic religion was in Identity crisis not only in India but several countries across the globe. According to him, his activity will take care of the safety aspects of people of Islamic religion. However, Supreme Court of India had to ensure death penalty for his activity as he was against humanity. Kant stated that laws and rights of humanity need to be considered in the application of ethics against any kind of action. Kasab did wrong thing by taking the lives of innocent children, women and other individuals humanity has no religion. In that particular shootout several people of Islamic religion lost their lives too. Therefore, this typical mentality and action can be termed as ridiculous. Kantian ethics simply acts based on the moral philosophies and justification of the actions. Considering the case of the death penalty of Ajmal Amir Kasab, several consequences would have been considered. It is true that, consequences were considered indeed. But, looking into the humanity values and moral philosophies, death penalty has been given. Most importantly, it is right, appropriate and ethical to do so as people should think twice before committing this type of crime in future. It is a long debate and argument, whether the taken decision was appropriate or not; but considering the aspect of humanity the verdict was ethical and appropriate for the maintenance of social balance (Wood, 2007). Critical Thinking It is clear from above analysis and evaluation that several people lost their lives during the shootout on 26/11. It is highly important for the theorists to consider both consequential reasoning as well as non-consequential reasoning for each and every action. Considering the case of the death penalty of Ajmal Kasab, non-consequential reasoning would be justified for this particular action. It is true that India is a democratic country. Being a democratic nation and one of the developing countries, the government and other public agencies including legal institutions need to consider the fact that such types of terrorist attacks may hamper economic, social and political growth of the country. It is true that Ajmal Kasab belonged to an economically poor family in Pakistan. The militant group gave huge amount of money to the family of Ajmal Kasab to do this nuisance activity. If that guy would have belonged to a stable family background both economically and socially, then he would not have commit this crime as he accepted that he had done right things as he was rewarded money (Lovelock, 2012). On the other hand, consequential reasoning may influence other individuals of the similar family background in different places of the world to these types of activities against impressive financial reward. But, for the sake of principle values, humanity and morality; these activities cannot help any nation to attain neither economic growth rate nor the social growth rate. Therefore, some parts of Pakistan are seriously suffering from social and economic crisis. These things need to be considered ethically by the people living within the society. In terms of value assumptions, it can be stated that people should consider non-consequential reasoning while solving these types of ethical issues as it may help to maintain social and communal balance considering mentioned death penalty case (Day, 2005). Conclusion It is clear from above analysis and discussion that both consequential and non-consequential reasoning can be considered while concluding the assignment. Both these ethical reasoning theories have individual advantages as well as disadvantages. In terms of consequential reasoning, it can help to lead to a particular action considering welfare of the society as well as mental satisfaction of people of some of the groups within the society. On the other hand, in terms of disadvantages, it may influence some of the people of different groups to repeat the wrong doings or unethical activities that can hamper the social balance. Most importantly, non-consequential reasoning ethical theory will be justified in the particular case while discussing the ethical issue. In terms of advantages, it may create fear among the people who will think about the similar activities in near future. Despite the disadvantage of social or communal chaos, it will be helpful for a long-run for the society as the people will start to act morally with integrated value and humanity principles. This will help a nation or a society to ensure social as well as positive economic growth. References CSUS. (2001). Kantian ethics.[Online]. Retrieved from: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm. Day, L. (2005). Ethics in media communications. New Jersey: Pearson. Lovelock, B. (2012). The ethics of Tourism. London: Sage. NMSU. (2015). Utilitarianism, kantian ethics, natural rights theories, and religious ethics. [PDF]. Retrieved from: http://web.nmsu.edu/~dscoccia/321web/321ethicstheory.pdf. QCC. (2012). Ethics.[Online]. Retrieved from: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_4_Ethical_Theories/Consequential_or_NonConsequential.htm. Times of India. (2012). Kasabs death sentence in 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks case upheld by Supreme Court. [Online]. Retrieved from: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kasabs-death-sentence-in-26/11-Mumbai-terror-attacks-case-upheld-by-Supreme-Court/articleshow/15930306.cms. Wood, W. A. (2007). Kantian ethics. London: Cambridge University Press. Appendix News Article: Kasabs death sentence in 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks case upheld by Supreme Court. Available at: Read More