Settlement risks
Without some deterrence, crime will only increase.
Screenshot from video which captured the murder of Sarfraz Shah in 2011. PHOTO: EXPRESS
According to reports, the brother of Sarfraz Shah, the 19-year-old shot dead in Karachi’s Benazir Bhutto Shaheed Park in June 2011 by Rangers personnel, has announced that he has chosen to “forgive” the seven men convicted in the case by an anti-terrorism court. Salik Shah also submitted an application before the Sindh High Court (SHC), seeking a settlement of the matter. He insisted no money had changed hands and his decision had been taken in the “name of God”.
We must hope the application filed is not accepted by the SHC. Murder is a crime against the state in most legal codes, rather than one committed against an individual. The fact that this issue tends to become somewhat confused within our own legal system, with, at times, even “blood money” playing a part under the Qisas and Diyat laws, sometimes leads to miscarriages in justice. The role of the state should loom even larger in this case since the unfortunate Sarfraz was killed by one of its agencies. The Anti-Terrorism Court condemned one of them to death, the other six to life-terms. The extra-judicial killing was captured on video and the clip broadcast over the media. It shocked many at the time, with the Supreme Court taking suo-motu notice of the horrific incident.
It is crucial that offenders in such cases be punished and an example set for the future. The fact that all too often this does not happen can only encourage others to act in an equally brutal fashion. Without some deterrence, crime will only increase. This indeed is one reason why even decades after they were first heard of, extra-judicial killings continue in our country. There have been many victims besides Sarfraz Shah. It is important the courts recognise the need to treat such crimes as one committed against the state. No individual should be able to simply forgive, brushing a terrible act of murder aside, given the implications this has for other citizens who could just as easily fall victim in such a manner.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 18th, 2013.
We must hope the application filed is not accepted by the SHC. Murder is a crime against the state in most legal codes, rather than one committed against an individual. The fact that this issue tends to become somewhat confused within our own legal system, with, at times, even “blood money” playing a part under the Qisas and Diyat laws, sometimes leads to miscarriages in justice. The role of the state should loom even larger in this case since the unfortunate Sarfraz was killed by one of its agencies. The Anti-Terrorism Court condemned one of them to death, the other six to life-terms. The extra-judicial killing was captured on video and the clip broadcast over the media. It shocked many at the time, with the Supreme Court taking suo-motu notice of the horrific incident.
It is crucial that offenders in such cases be punished and an example set for the future. The fact that all too often this does not happen can only encourage others to act in an equally brutal fashion. Without some deterrence, crime will only increase. This indeed is one reason why even decades after they were first heard of, extra-judicial killings continue in our country. There have been many victims besides Sarfraz Shah. It is important the courts recognise the need to treat such crimes as one committed against the state. No individual should be able to simply forgive, brushing a terrible act of murder aside, given the implications this has for other citizens who could just as easily fall victim in such a manner.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 18th, 2013.