crime and punishment

There are basic issues.. First, the punishment, according to the basic structure of an enlightened judicial system is meant to deter people from committing crime because such crimes will result in getting severe punishment..

A death penalty may work as a deterrent for others who intend or plan or abet in commission of criems, but everything ends for one who is awarded death..

A dead person cannot reform himself..

Any punishment other than death can work as a deterrent for the criminal himself too..

So for Individual crimes, death penalty should be resorted to in the rarest of rare cases.. and this view is upheld by the Apex Court.

It is a fact that everyone is afraid of punishment..

If people were perfect and do everything for the good of the society, then there may not be any necessity for the control of the state for any purpose..

No one is ever perfect that way..

So control by an authority preferably brought in place by universal suffrage, becomes necessary, so also punishments because punishments are deterrents and well as potent weapons or instruments in the hands of the tate enabling it to exercise its duties effectively....

But terrorist activities, just like war by an enemy is of a different category.. Even the most ardent adherents to peace and non killing, would not ever put forth the idea that the armed forces of a sovereign state should not retaliate and kill the enemies who have trespassed the independent authority and has threatened its existence and interfered with the continuance of that state to remain independent..

Terrorist activity, causing death and damage to the State or part of it and causing damage to it, or even encourage such activity is to be treated on par with declaration of war against the state.. There the so called leniency and abhorrence toward causing death is not called for..