The depravity and desperation
DISCERNING observers would agree that we are passing through excruciating times, ravages of which will surely have deep repercussions on our society for long. Responsible people dressed in formal authority are imploring for extreme actions, being oblivious of the deadly consequences. Some are pleading for summary actions beyond the ambit of law. All these are happening in the name of protecting the citizens of the republic whose miseries continue to multiply with each passing day.
The much talked about issuance of order to shoot at sight is admittedly a risky proposition as the chances of causing wrongful deaths are greater than thought. One has to bear in mind the legal restrictions pertaining to the right of private defense of the body being extended to cause death. It is indeed difficult to prove reasonable apprehension of danger as legally stipulated, particularly when operating in built up urban area wherein most of the incidents are taking place. It is indeed difficult to justify a homicide in public interest.
While the law justifies killing of another human being in compelling circumstances, it also impresses upon taking sufficient precautions before resorting to such extreme action. In our situation, we already have the misfortune of suffering from the ill effects of the so-called crossfire culture that in reality meant the malady of operating beyond the law. Strident reactive voices of an influential minority demanded that what could not be dealt within the law had to be dealt beyond the law. It was indeed a suicidal recipe to slide into utter lawlessness.
One has to bear in mind that howsoever well-intentioned the draconian law or the directive for shoot at sight may be, the ultimate test of its suitability rests upon the discretion and judgment of the law enforcer in the field. What is the guarantee that lawmen will not be influenced or misled in our sharply politically polarized society? The temptation to physically do away with the suspected miscreant dispenses with the legal necessity of establishing real culpability.
The arsonist violence that we sadly witness now has its roots in political disagreement. It is thus strongly likely that political vendetta may work in settling scores without the lawmen knowing the background and the actual motivation behind the action. Additionally, in physically liquidating the perpetrator one is perhaps looking at the foot soldiers with the planners and the masterminds remaining unscathed in comfortable security.
The question is, are we witnessing demands for ruthless counter measures irrespective of the price that has to be paid in terms of human rights? Abuses of authority can flourish due to official negligence or acquiescence and also due to the belief of many people that in spite of their excesses the police are carrying out an important and unpleasant task for the preservation of society and State.
Are we passing through an emergent situation when demands for order should override those of liberty? Some are saying that the safety of the people is the highest law and as such in grave situations special emergency measures have to be adopted curtailing rights of people. These people are forgetting that even in the time of emergency there are certain non-derogable rights to life and liberty.
The right to protection lawfully provided to law enforcers cannot be extended beyond the necessities of the incident; otherwise it will encourage a spirit of lawlessness and disorder. The law has, quite logically, restricted this protection in respect of offense against the human body and those relating to transgressions on property only.
Legally speaking, a man is justified in resisting by force anyone who manifestly intends and endeavours by violence or surprise to commit a known crime against his person, habitation or property. A person so threatened is not obliged to retreat, and may not merely resist the attack where he stands but may indeed pursue his adversary until the danger is ended, and if in a conflict between them he happens to kill his attacker, such killing is justifiable.
In the ultimate analysis, it has to be borne in mind that law enforcement is a field of activity in which most often interaction between the world of the powerful and the world of the powerless are manifested. Hence, in has to be ensured that law enforcement emphasizes principles of purpose and principles of values. We need to come out of the degrading thought that those who cannot be taken care of within the ambit of law have to be dealt beyond the law.
The writer is a columnist of the The Daily Star.
Comments