Opinion Discipline and punish
A focus on punishment in sexual assault cases may be deflecting attention from real reform.
A focus on punishment in sexual assault cases may be deflecting attention from real reform.
The awarding of the death penalty by the Mumbai principal sessions court to three individuals convicted for the gangrape of a photojournalist in August last year may well be a reflection of a worrying trend: mechanical application of the 2013 criminal law amendments is ensuring that the focus of reforms which were meant to legally reinforce the equality, dignity and freedoms of women has been narrowed to the sentencing of rape-accused.
In the present case, the Mumbai court deemed it fit to apply Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code, which extends the punishment for those “previously convicted” of rape to death. Among the four persons convicted for the gangrape of the photojournalist, three were found guilty of raping a telephone operator a month earlier, also in the Shakti Mills’ premises. Section 376E clearly deals with repeat offenders and is meant to prevent recidivism, that is, the commission of offences after serving out a sentence.
Its application in the current case is moot: the Mumbai police had simply clubbed together the Shakti Mills cases for trial since the accused in both were the same. How can these individuals be called “repeat offenders” if they are yet to serve the sentence in at least one case?
Notably, the Justice Verma committee, which served as the fountainhead of the 2013 reforms, had steadfastly opposed the imposition of the death penalty for rape. In its recommendations to the Union government, the committee suggested that the maximum punishment for repeat offenders under Section 376E be life imprisonment — meaning “the rest of that person’s natural life”. Parliament, however, sought to add more teeth to the provision, enacting it in its current avatar. There was a clamour for “tough punishment” for rape convicts in the aftermath of the 2012 Delhi gangrape. By all accounts, the political class pandered to the illiberal sentiments of the moment.
The Verma committee too, unfortunately, lent its weight to “quick-fix” solutions in adopting stringent definitions and enhancing punishment for sex crimes even as it rightly focused on the need for placing such offences within an anti-discrimination framework. There can be no legislating away sexual assault until there is an enabling environment for women — whether it is to report offences, be guaranteed privacy safeguards and non-invasive investigations, or fair trials. The current offender-centric jurisprudence does little to address these needs.
Share
