IN 2018, seven-year-old Zainab of Kasur was murdered after being raped. According to some reports, she had been tortured horribly before death.

How could a human have been so savage and beastly?

Feelings of outrage and revenge rightly arose. A post on social media went viral, ‘I demand that Zainab’s killer be cut into pieces and dissolved in acid… .”. Many on TV agreed that the murderer should be hanged seven times in public and his body strung up in the marketplace so that people would draw a lesson and no other brutal person would think of such an act in the future. Her murderer, 24-year-old serial killer Imran Ali, was arrested and executed later that year.

However, there is no let-up and in fact an increase in cases of rape, child sexual abuse, and murder. In 2021, 5,200 rapes were reported in the country, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. Another report from a private TV investigation unit claims that as many as 21,900 women were reported to have been raped in the country from 2017 to 2021. This meant that around 12 women were raped across the country daily, or one woman every two hours.

Brutal punishments do not stop brutal criminals.

The intensity of the emotions that poured forth in the Zainab case, and subsequently, in other instances of rape and/or murder, as seen in the Noor Mukadam case, with demands for justice is understandable. The louder the voice of the aching heart for the oppressed, the better. But on the other hand, is it possible to end violence with violence? Does punishing criminals after severely torturing them stop crime? Can any social reform be possible by creating fear and terror? Criminal justice researchers say that not only are harsher punishments unsuccessful in preventing crime they may, in fact, have the opposite effect. Emeritus professor of law, University of New South Wales, David Brown claims that “harsher punishments that both aim for general deterrence — that is to deter the population at large — and specific deterrence to deter the individual, from re-offending in future is unfounded.”

It is generally assumed that harsher and more painful punishment, especially meted out in public, can ensure a decrease in crime. This assumption may appear valid to some extent, but often the evidence does not support it. Crime rates are often lower in countries where the death penalty is banned. In fact, contrary to what many people may think, crime did not increase after capital punishment was banned in many countries such as in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Switzerland, as well as a few states in the US, while in countries where there is a practice of administering harsh, gruesome and public punishments, the crime rate has not decreased. Every harsh punishment followed by another crime of the same type is proof that the criminal mind does not think as it is supposed to. China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen are among the countries that carry out the highest number of death sentences in the world.

In Pakistan in the 1980s, during the rule of military dictator Gen Ziaul Haq, a few executions were carried out in public in front of thousands of people. But that hardly had a deterrent effect on the rate and nature of crime. Brutal punishments do not stop brutal criminals. Crime reduction has to do with ensuring just punishment, and not harsher punishments. Meanwhile, justice that is not even handed destroys trust in the justice system. Societies are built on the edifice of justice, not revenge.

Another aspect of harsh public punishments that is more worriso­me is their impact on the individual and society. If the state here was to cave in to pressure for public punishments, it would normalise the scenes of violence and agonising death; the whole idea of punishment would lose its deterring effect and would leave society brutalised and ready to accept public executions as a way of life.

This in itself can lead to an increase in violence which would also be mainstreamed. Secondly, the scenes stick to the minds, especially of young people, and can leave some permanently traumatised in a way that it becomes difficult for them to lead a normal life.

There is a difference between revenge and justice. The delivery of justice is not possible in the raging currents of emotions. State decisions are made with a cool heart and mind per the basic requirements of the law, and considering the best interest and best future of the country and the people living here. Our demand should be that criminals should be brought to justice as soon as possible, but God save the nation from becoming mentally ill in the process.

The writer is a consultant working on social issues, including building resilience and cohesion in stressed communities.

Published in Dawn, August 1st, 2023