As a physician, I have spent most of my adult life fighting against what we physician types call a ‘preventable death’. Preventable death is of course an oxymoron since we must all die so at best death can be delayed but not prevented. And yes, I am also opposed to the death penalty as punishment on humanitarian as well as rational grounds. There are many civilised countries in the world that have already banned the death penalty and there are others moving towards that goal.

Here perhaps a bit of recent history is in order. While Asif Zardari was president of Pakistan, there existed a moratorium on executions. This was lifted soon after the present government came to power. At present more people are being executed every year in Pakistan than in many other countries including quite possibly the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The recent controversy about executing a ‘schizophrenic’ male convicted of murder has brought the subject of the death penalty up for discussion again. Recently there was also a discussion about executing a paraplegic (paralysed from the waist down) convict. It seems that just as that paraplegic person was eventually executed so will the schizophrenic convict be executed soon enough.

Before talking of the execution of a person with mental problems, I want to present some basic reasons why execution as retributive justice has many flaws. First of course is that execution is a final and irrevocable punishment and if any evidence subsequently surfaces proving the innocence of the executed convict, it is much too late to reverse the punishment. This fact is becoming more important in countries like the United States which has a death penalty and where DNA evidence has recently proved some convicts on ‘death row’ innocent of the crime they were convicted for.

Concerning the Pakistani system of ‘criminal justice’ I would hesitate to call it just. Some of the most egregious murderers in Pakistan that go around killing people in the name of religion are virtually allowed complete freedom. The police and even the lower courts are afraid to touch them out of fear for their own safety. Many local big shots and major landowners can do much of whatever they want without any fear of being caught and convicted. And yes, I also do not remember anybody ever being convicted of ‘honour killing’ and then being executed.

Also execution as a punishment is often selective and most of those executed in Pakistan are poor and have little resources to defend themselves in the courts or pay off the families of the victims. As far as memory serves, no rich or important person has ever been executed for murder in the history of Pakistan. The only exception is of course Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Personally, I support the Islamic alternative that ‘forgiveness’ by relatives of the victims, or ‘blood money’ paid to a victim’s family can prevent execution of a person accused of murder. Prevent executions yes, but not imprisonment.

Retributive punishment as derived from the Code of Hammurabi, ‘eye for an eye’ sounds pretty moral but then as Gandhi supposedly pointed out: "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind". Also, there is no evidence in any of the countries where the death penalty has been studied that executions are an effective deterrent to crime.

As far as I am concerned, executions are really the expression of a vengeful society against those that offend it and transgress rules that a majority wants imposed. Locking up convicted criminals and throwing away the key is in my opinion a much better option than execution. Here perhaps the Christian quote that "vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord" is worth remembering, especially when it comes to transgressions against religious mores.

I am not a lawyer and have little expertise in the intricacies of the Pakistan penal codes. But I know this much that most of the laws other than the ‘Islamic’ edicts added on under Ziaul Haq are still the same as the ones imposed by the British during the early days of the ‘Raj’. And indeed the Brits have probably given up on most of them but we in our colonial mentality still cling to them. So I have no idea if the mental status of an accused has any relevance in our criminal proceedings. Even the most modern Brits from the late nineteenth century had never heard of schizophrenia for after all schizophrenia was not even given its name until the beginning of the twentieth century.

From what little I know of the US criminal justice system, after indictment three things are needed before a person can be tried for a crime. First, the person must have legal representation if asked for, second the accused must be capable of assisting in his or her own defense and that the accused must have understanding of the alleged crime and its consequences. Clearly the last two requirements exclude young children from being tried for any crime. Also, these exclusions apply to individuals that do not have the mental capacity to assist in their own defense and have no demonstrated ability to understand the nature of the crime they have committed or of its consequences.

Even in the US many persons with severe mental problems are convicted by courts in certain areas, more often than not for political reasons. In the US prosecutors are often elected and their ability to get convictions especially in cases that catch the public eye improves their chances of re-election or moving up the electoral food chain. But in more optimal conditions, mentally disturbed persons accused even of major crimes might escape jail but will most likely end up confined to some form of psychiatric institution. An appropriate example is that of John Hinckley Jr. who attempted to assassinate President Reagan in 1981. Hinckley spent the next 35 years confined to a medical institution.

Since most Pakistani criminal codes are still the same as they were more than a century ago, I would be surprised if ‘modern’ forensic methods of evidence acquisition and presentation are being done especially in the lower courts in the non-urban areas. So I have little faith in how evidence is collected and presented. And except for ‘open and shut’ cases, questions probably exist about the validity of conviction in many cases. The Punjab police as is well known has one primary method of ‘evidence’ collection and that depends on applying considerable amount of physical discomfort to recalcitrant ‘witnesses’ and to the ‘accused’ to produce an early and comprehensive confession. And yes an ‘appropriate’ infusion of cash can change the trajectory of almost any murder investigation.

As far as the schizophrenic convict up for execution is concerned it seems that all appeals have been exhausted and he will be executed soon enough. Evidently the honourable court of final appeal suggested that most criminals have mental problems anyway. If that is the case then the honourable court has a valid point. Some fifty odd years ago when I was reading Psychology, many psychologists felt that murder in most cases was a sign of temporary insanity.