The murder, in broad day light, of a 25 year old boy, Sarfraz Shah, has shocked and shamed many of us; despite our best intentions though, we cannot rationalize this loss for his grieving mother or brother.

It brings back tragic memories of the not-very-distant murders of Mughees and Muneeb; the similarity being that both cases provide a microcosm of the idea of popular justice in Pakistan at its worst: a group of thugs who brutalize the innocent whilst being cheered on by spectators, devoid of any sense of reason or shame. This killing has again raised questions of whether we should ever consent to the use of illegal force by uniformed men who promise us security at the expense of liberty.

The murder of Sarfraz was not an assassination of some notorious “fugitive” in Lyari; it was a disgusting and arrogant show of brute power by security forces in full daylight within a public park in a relatively peaceful area of the city. Worryingly, it was not the random act of a maverick Ranger acting in a fit of rage, but appeared to be collective punishment meted on a much weaker opponent by a group of bullies; I, at least could not see any regret or shame on the faces of these men before or after the boy lay dying in blood – conversely, the men appeared quite upright and confident, happy for the Awaaz TV cameraman to continue filming their brave antics.

Of course some amongst us still think there is no reason for shame: Mr. Rehman Malik, for instance, implied that the killing was somewhat justified because the deceased was a “criminal”. I understand that the division of authority in Pakistan is often fluid, but last I checked, the interior minister was not competent to declare someone a criminal; that still remains the exclusive prerogative of the courts. And let us assume that Mr. Malik is correct and that the boy was in fact a thief, since when and in what society in the world today is death prescribed as the punishment for theft?

Whilst no doubt convenient, I do not, however, want to focus too much on the moral arguments as they are common knowledge. Instead, I want to tackle the functional justification advanced by some; that due to an incompetent justice system in Pakistan, extra-judicial killings are sometimes the only way to deter crime. Such claims, whilst plausible, are over-stated; extra-judicial killings almost always make for inefficient criminal policy.

Cesare Beccaria, perhaps the most influential thinker on penology, wrote that to deter crime, punishment should be predictable rather than arbitrary and harsh; this is hardly ever the case in extra-judicial killings. The chance of error is extremely high; much higher than in a court trial that affords the suspect minimal procedural protections. Thus, since the deterrence of crime requires that only the guilty face punishment, society has a very strong incentive in ensuring that there is accuracy in the process, and extra-judicial ‘justice’ clearly robs us of this assurance.

Equally important, as Gary Becker, the Nobel laureate in economics, has argued, punishment should be proportionate to the harm resulting from the crime committed, for if every crime was punishable by death, as is the case with extra-judicial killings generally, there would be little deterring future robbers from engaging in murder during robbery because the punishment for both is the same.  So, set the punishment too high and you risk losing deterrence – that is exactly what extra- judicial punishments do.

In Sarfraz’s case, there is no conceivable defense the Rangers could advance – in fact, their later contradictory narration of the event i.e. that he was armed or that they acted in self-defence smacks of guilt. Let there be no doubt: if we forgive the occasional extra-judicial killing sold to us in the false guise of providing us security (even in the name of fighting terrorism), it will not be long before the many innocent will suffer from a tyranny that will be a far worse threat to our life and property.

Whilst it is commendable that the National Assembly has demanded that the perpetrator be punished, such simplistic and politically convenient justice misses the mark; it is highly unlikely that a group of Rangers could execute someone with such impunity in an affluent area without approval from senior officials – perhaps a private decision was made that the protection of the rich folk of the locality justified the use of cruelty, who knows? Responsibility and punishment should therefore be directed at those who issue the orders, not just the ordinary foot-soldier – otherwise there is no incentive for senior officials to ensure that this does not happen again.

In the long run though, such ex post, ad hoc accountability cannot work. Unless people are certain that crimes will be punished, extra-judicial killings will tend to be defended by some frustrated segments of society.

The only sustainable way to increase the probability of punishment is to improve judicial performance and the quality of law enforcement. Only then will we arrest the frustration that provokes people to fill this lacuna of law enforcement themselves. Let’s try to sanitize society before such killings become the acceptable norm in our already tense society.