The Sheik Up

WTF would YOU do?

Imagine all of your family members had been murdered thirty years ago, and you and your sister survived the massacre only because you were out of the country. Your father was the first Prime Minister of your country, who worked for independence. Imagine that some of the men that had murdered your family had gone on to become high ups in the military. Only in the last decade has the trial begun to punish these men, and only because you became the Prime Minister of your country and pushed for the trial to take place. The men are now facing the death penalty, and they have thirty days to appeal to the Prime Minister (you!) for leniency. Though the President will make the final decision, he will do so on your advice. Do you recommend the death penalty for the group of men who have boasted about the murders for the last thirty years? Or do you grant leniency and find peace in forgiveness?
This is the decision facing Bangladesh’s Prime Minister, Sheik Hasina. Whatever she decides, it is a fascinating and illuminating question for debate, and no doubt everyone has their own opinions. I’d love to hear them. To get the ball rolling, here are the questions that went through my head when I heard the news story.

MY THOUGHTS

If I were faced with this decision, these are the thoughts that would plague me:

Politically: I would be concerned about public opinion because this is such a political and public trial. Would I lose respect for granting leniency to the worst of criminals? Or would I, by deciding on the death penalty, vindicate the supporters of the six men and create further divisions and violent disruptions in Bangladesh?
I would also be concerned either way about the supporters’ reactions further down the track. If appeal were granted, would the murderer’s supporters continue their attacks in an attempt to see their release? Would their deaths spark rioting or a coup?

Morally: Do I go with my gut instinct that tells me that to cause death to another person is wrong? This is a decision which will stay with me for the rest of my life, and it is a decision which will be made in cold blood and though ultimately the final choice rests on the head of another, it is on my advice that the decision is made.
The desire for revenge on men who show no remorse for merciless killings would be strong, but would it justify my decision to punish them with death? Should one man die because he has taken the life of another? I have the authority to make that judgement, but does that mean that I have the right? Is life imprisonment a clearer punishment to give?

Psychologically: I would certainly feel survivor’s guilt, guilt for not being with my family when they died, for being out of the country. I would feel horror for what was done to them, and I would not want it to happen to anyone else. As the men will be imprisoned if they are not hanged it is unlikely they will be in a position to commit atrocities again. But does it bring to a balance the things they have done if they are simply faced with life imprisonment? Or do I want them to feel the fear of death my family must have felt?

Is time a factor in my decision? I find it very hard to imagine that such a loss becomes any less real over time. But perhaps the lives of the men have changed. I would have to look very hard at their histories and families before deciding on each of their cases. Is their lack of remorse a just reason for siding with the death penalty? If they had repented would this change my decision about their appeal?

For more information on this story visit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8366329.stm

So…there it is…wide open for debate. What would your decision be?  I want to hear opinions (or at least read comments), and lots of them!

Advertisement

2 Comments

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI