Pakistan

Why Fatima Bhutto and other liberals are wrong on the execution issue

It's better to have some deterrent -- would-be criminals may think twice now -- than to have none at all

Omar R Quraishi March 18, 2015

Shafqat is due to be hanged on Thursday morning. PHOTO: AFP

There is a major flaw in Fatima Bhutto's New York Times piece of March 17 "Pakistan's moral compass", when she says that Shafqat Hussain, after nine days of police torture, "confessed to a crime he did not commit". Clearly, unless she was the judge of the case or saw its proceedings at close quarters she would not be in a position to say with any degree of certainty that Shafqat didn't commit the murder in 2004 that he was sentenced to death for.

Yes, the law requires that the charge be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and what better way to 'prove' that than to extract a confession from a suspected murderer.

That police in Pakistan see torture and coerced confessions as a routine part of their interrogative work is not in doubt, but if that is the case then what do we do with people who have killed others as part of a deliberate plan to terrorise an entire society?

The favoured argument of liberals in Pakistan on this issue is that since the legal and judicial system is highly prone to manipulation and manufactured verdicts through corrupt judges, bought/false witnesses and shoddy police work, execution of judgements delivered by the courts especially in cases relating to punishment should be put on hold.

The problem is that for how long should such a moratorium last, given that in the case of the PPP government it didn't lead to any tangible improvements in the country's criminal justice system.

The biggest losers in this are ordinary Pakistanis who on one end suffer from militancy and its practitioners who hesitate not for a second in taking innocent lives, and a gutless and seemingly indifferent state which can't be bothered to even take this scourge head on, or improve its legal justice system.

Won't it be a far better course of action that while making improvements to the system of dispensation of justice - quite clearly a long term process - the state at least gets tough on those who have been convicted of heinous crimes, for which they have been given capital punishment?

Granted, Shafqat's case may be different: in fact, for him one must ask that what is the great hurry in executing him if it can be proved - as his family seems to have done earlier today by releasing his birth certificate to the media at a press conference in Muzaffarabad - that he was a minor when he committed the murder that he has been sentenced to death for?

However, this is an exception with clearly extenuating circumstances. The state can - and should - adopt a humane approach in his case while acting tough on other cases, where the perpetrators have been convicted of particularly heinous crimes and for which the law permits the death penalty.

After all, it is better to have some deterrent -- would-be perpetrators of serious crime may think twice before committing their deeds -- than to have none at all, which was the case when the moratorium was in place.

That is why Fatima Bhutto and the rest of the liberals are wrong on the executions issue; they want a permanent end and offer no alternatives.

COMMENTS (14)

rabia | 9 years ago | Reply 'Won’t it be a far better course of action that while making is improvements to the system of dispensation of justice – quite clearly a long term process – the state at least gets tough on those who have been convicted of heinous crimes, for which they have been given capital punishment? Yes the system of dispensing justice MUST be improved but you can't in the meantime just ''get tough'' on those convicted of heinous crimes! In Shafqat's case for example there appears to be a huge failure of just that justice system that is in need of improvement, so do you say he should be killed 'at least'?! This is ridiculous

Logic | 9 years ago | Reply well Fatima is playing her part of inherited wisdom (which his grand father used to shed during his public appearances). I remember when her father was murdered and she took up the pen on contrary to his father and uncles who sought Indian help to take revenge of their father and a frustration reflecting from her aunts famous saying that democracy is best revenge. One misunderstood but lovely person she is..

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Arbit | 9 years ago | Reply My god, so much bloodthirst among the comments. No wonder the situation is what it is today.

Nabeel | 9 years ago | Reply "The boy was held in solitary confinement, his genitals were electrocuted and he was burned with cigarette butts. The policemen interrogating him removed three of his fingernails." I write only to ask what Mr. Quraishi would do were he under these circumstances, and whether he would count any confession from himself as valid and legitimate in court.

Mohammad Jibran Nasir | 9 years ago | Reply Rather unfair of the writer to generalise every activists working around #SaveShafqat campaign as a liberal who is against the death penalty. The only issue being raised in Shafqat's case is his age not the severity of his crime. If you under law cannot deem a 14 year old to be smart enough to chose a party to vote for or a person to marry then how can it deem a 14 year old to understand the gravity of his actions and a crime. And guess what the law does not. Read up on the Juvenile Ordinance 2002 and the Convention on Rights of a Child which Pakistan has signed. You cannot give a death penalty to a juvenile.

Intelektual | 9 years ago | Reply Fatima Bhutto did provide loads and tons of factual detail in her article that are particular to the case ! Also the case in question was not that of terrorism ! You on the other hand just place your doubt based on a "Unless", You did not investigate her lack of knowledge did not find any actual flaw in her factual reports Yet are casting a Big doubt on her views and the going in the opposite direction of "Innocent until proven guilty" ! Despite all your "granted"s and "Given"s I fail to see the flaw in her article at all (Especially when you are equally un-researched as you only assume her to be)!!

Ali Ahmed | 9 years ago | Reply Even if he did commit the crime. He should not have been given the death penalty due to his age at the time (14). Juvenile's cannot be punished by death. If this hanging does take place, it would set a very troubling precedence for future cases involving juveniles.

Asad Shairani | 9 years ago | Reply The day this system hangs a rich feudal for murder I'll start supporting it.

Naveed Ejaz | 9 years ago | Reply This is an appalling opinion piece, especially more so given that it is by one of the editors of this newspaper. The liberal argument - as presented here in such a derogative manner - is quite simple. If you want to punish someone for a crime by putting him or her to death, then you better be damn sure that the person is guilty, because you don't get to say sorry and bring them back to life. That the justice system is in shambles is not in question. That the burden of proof for handing out the death penalty is lower in the anti-terror courts as opposed to civilian courts is not in question either. Neither is the observation that confessions are routinely extracted via torture, especially from the more vulnerable segments of society. The reality is that tomorrow someone could blame a colleague of blasphemy - without any evidence whatsoever - and the person would legally be on track to a judgement on the death penalty. With the moratorium lifted, would the editor like to clarify how to handle such a case? By all means, lets have an informed discussion on the dealth penalty and whether it serves as a deterrent or not. This piece does none of that. If senior editors of major newspapers cannot understand logic as simple as this, and resort to opinion pieces to put forward their views, then its no surprise that those that drive policy are in the state they are.

Imran Qadri | 9 years ago | Reply Every pseudo civil society activist lobbying for Shafqat should put themselves in the shoes of parents of 7 year old who was kidnapped for ransom by then 14 year old Shafqat and when the 7 year old child raised alarm,Shafqat choked him to death,he was arrested by police when he went to collect ransom money. If leniency is shown in this case then tomorrow all kidnappers would start using a 14 year old accomplice and godforbid me or these civil society activists could also be victim parents just like those unfortunate parents of 7 year old who was brutally murdered by Shafqat.

A J | 9 years ago | Reply When will Shahrukh Jatoi be hanged?

rebellious khan | 9 years ago | Reply if he is culprit than he must be hanged.... and i don't know what these liberals are up to..

Fizza Batool Rizvi | 9 years ago | Reply Totally agreed. For these last many months I heard nothing from the family of deceased - the guy Shafqat confessed to murder. It's a completely one-sided story. I raised the same point when this story was brought up by Fatima Bhutto and other people spread the message on social media without investigating the matter. We don't know for sure that Shafqat is innocent and If he's not we are not supposed to support him

AR | 9 years ago | Reply Clearly the headline is misleading, since OQ admits that Shafqat's case is an "exception" to his main argument that the state needs to be tough with convicted hardened criminals.

Replying to X