Psychopathic justice

Cutting up a killer doesn't serve the cause of justiceThe sentence awarded to Pakistan's serial killer, Javed Iqbal, is both a travesty of...

Cutting up a killer doesn8217;t serve the cause of justice

The sentence awarded to Pakistan8217;s serial killer, Javed Iqbal, is both a travesty of justice and bizarre in the extreme. This is not to say that the convicted man does not deserve the severest punishment for deeds that defy description in terms of their sheer depravity. This is also not to deny society the right to make an example of such an evil individual. But surely the state, that is if it presumes to be a civilised one, has to abide by accepted norms of retribution. There is a simple question that needs to be answered here: if the state performs acts that mimic those of a psychopath, how is it any different from the psychopath? Iqbal is believed to have killed over 100 children, whose bodies he cut into pieces and placed in a jar of acid. This is psychopathic behaviour, of that there can be no doubt. After going through the evidence Lahore-based judge, Allah Baksh Ranjaordered that Iqbal be strangled before the parents of the children and that his body be cut into a hundred pieces and put in acid. Clearly, Iqbal is a psychopath. A psychopath, let it be remembered, is defined as a person suffering from a chronic mental disorder who indulges in abnormal social behaviour. The recommendation that the same gruesome acts be repeated, albeit for purposes of punishment, clearly exposes the state to the charge of acting in a socially deviant manner.

Justice in this case required that three broad parameters were addressed. First, that the killer is punished in a manner commensurate with the enormity of his crimes. Second, the relatives of the children who were done to death in this brutal fashion must believe that their trauma and loss is in some small measure compensated by the punishment awarded to the guilty man. Third, that society at large perceives this as an extraordinary crime in terms of its diabolic intent and one that invites exemplary punishment.

All three parameters would have been addressed by ensuring that Iqbal is either hanged or electrocuted. After all, a person can be punished by being deprived of his or her life only once. Destroying Iqbal8217;s body in the manner advocated by Judge Ranja does not amount to heaping more punishment upon him. At best, it punishes his close relatives 8212; but they are, after all, innocent. To expose the close relatives of the child victims to the wholly gruesome sight of a man being strangled before them is to revert to a barbaric era when men and women applauded the sight of people being fed to lions or having their heads chopped off by Dr Guillotine8217;s miraculous blade. As for the necessity of ensuring that such crimes are not repeated, society would be better served by keeping the horror of the killer8217;s actions alive through public debate and discussion. It is useful to recollect here the case of child killers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, popularly known as the Moor Murderers. Some three decades ago, this fiendishcouple gained instant notoriety for having tortured and killed children and then proceeding to bury their remains. Hindley continues to serve time in prisons in the UK. The fact that she is alive does not in any way mitigate the enormity of her crime. Indeed, to this day, the British public remember with grief and horror little Lesley Ann Downey8217;s pleas for mercy, which were recorded by the couple before she was so cruelly killed.