Two cases of capital punishment

Two high-profile death row cases in the United States hit the headlines recently: those of Christa Pike and Nidal Hasan. Both, for different reasons, sparked a debate over how justice is administered.

THE CHRISTA PIKE CASE

Colleen Slemmer

On 12 January 1995, 18-year-old Christa Pike, her 17-year-old boyfriend Tadaryl Shipp, and their 18-year-old friend Shadolla Peterson — all students at the same school in Knoxville, Tennessee — lured 19-year-old classmate Colleen Slemmer to a desolate, wooded area and murdered her in a gruesome manner, over a conflict that stemmed from jealousy.

The nature of the crime was horrendous, making it one of the most sensational teenage crimes anywhere in the world.

Christa Pike

Christa Pike and Tadaryl Shipp pleaded guilty. Pike was sentenced to death in 1996. Since Shipp was a minor, he escaped the death penalty, as the law does not allow capital punishment for minors. Now around 50 years old, he remains in prison after one mercy plea was rejected. He gets another chance for clemency in 2031.

The third person involved, Shadolla Peterson, did not actively take part in the murder; she had kept watch on the perimeter. During the course of the investigation, she decided to cooperate with the police and disclosed exactly how the crime occurred. In return, she received a one-year jail term and six years of probation. Nothing is now known about her whereabouts.

WHY PIKE'S CASE IS UNIQUE

Christa Pike is the only woman on Tennessee’s death row. On September 30, she was set to be the first woman executed in the state in over 200 years.

On the day of the execution, she was administered two full doses of the sedative pentobarbital. But for reasons that are under investigation, she not only survived, but remained fully conscious and complained of uneasiness.

After it was established that the lethal injection had failed, she was rushed to a nearby hospital. In a strange twist of fate, the very same authorities who were trying to execute her were making every effort to keep her alive.

This is not the first time a planned execution has failed. There have been instances, especially in the US, when procedures involving electric chairs, gas chambers, and firing squads have failed due to equipment malfunction, improper drug mixtures, or missed target areas.

However, this is the first time — certainly in the US, and possibly in the world — that a death-row convict has survived after being administered a full dose of a lethal injection.

THE NIDAL HASAN CASE

Nidal Hasan

Nidal Hasan is a former US Army Major and psychiatrist. On 5 November 2009, he opened fire in a medical building at the Fort Hood army base in Texas, killing 13 people, including a pregnant soldier and her unborn child, and injuring 32 others. Law enforcement personnel shot and wounded him, leaving him paralysed from the waist down. A military court convicted and sentenced him to death in 2013.

He is scheduled to be executed on 3 December this year, marking the US military’s first execution by firing squad since World War II. But this case has hit the headlines for a totally different reason. On the 9th of this month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the execution would be publicly broadcast and livestreamed.

This naturally set off a major public outcry from politicians of major parties and human rights organisations, who argued that it would fuel terrorism rather than curb it. An ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll showed that 80% of Americans opposed livestreaming the execution.

President Trump did not directly comment on it. However, during an event, he remarked that back in the 1900s "we had really strong laws", whereas now "you can do almost anything; nothing happens. But we're changing that." Following the massive backlash, Trump cancelled the broadcast plan.

A LIFE WORSE THAN DEATH?

I was thinking about the life Christa Pike has lived so far.

She had an extremely traumatic childhood involving physical and sexual violence. She was later diagnosed with bipolar disorder and PTSD. That is definitely no justification for the murder she committed at the age of 18. 

About a year later, she became one of the youngest people in the US to be sentenced to death. In 2001, while in prison, she tried to kill a fellow inmate by strangling her with a shoestring.

She has spent the remaining 30 odd years of her life, much of it in solitary confinement, awaiting the day her life would be taken. Yet she seems destined to live. Seen from another angle, she has probably lived a life worse than death — and that life does not seem to end.

DEATH AS PUNISHMENT: OKAY OR NOT?

Capital punishment has always been a much-debated issue, with strong arguments on both sides.

Proponents argue that it acts as a powerful deterrent, provides proportional retribution, and offers a sense of justice and emotional comfort to the victims' families and friends.

Opponents contend that the state itself becomes a killer. Secondly, the punishment is irreversible — if a legal flaw in the conviction is discovered later and the convict is proved innocent, there is no way to reverse the punishment and exonerate them. Thirdly, they argue that the right way to deal with a criminal is reform, not retribution.

Be that as it may, globally, the number of executions has come down, and public opinion has been shifting against capital punishment.

MY VIEW

I don't agree with a total ban on capital punishment. But, it must be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases: where the crime is extremely gruesome, where there is not the slightest doubt as to who the perpetrator is, and where the guilt and criminal intent have been proved beyond even the shadow of a doubt.

The next best alternative to capital punishment is: imprisonment for the rest of the life.

I would not disagree with the sentence in either of the above two cases, considering the way both the crimes were planned and executed. However, livestreaming an execution for the whole world to see is an abhorrent idea.

YOUR VIEW

Do you think capital punishment acts as a deterrent, or should it be abolished or reserved only for the rarest of rare cases?

Tell me what you think in the comment below.

Not a tragedy, but averting one, became the bigger news

In journalism, we say, when something goes wrong, it becomes news. The bigger the misfortune (if it can be quantified in some manner), the bigger the news.

One of my editors used to say, if there is an accident, don't just go by the number of people who died, look at also the number of people who were saved or who escaped death.

Image source: Wikimedia

This is what came to my mind when I was following reports about the dramatic and extraordinary scenes inside the cockpit of the Flydubai flight FZ1073 from Dubai to Tel Aviv, carrying over 150 passengers, mainly Israelis.

Fortunately, nothing happened. There was no hijack. The plane didn't crash. It landed safely. There was no loss of lives. Two people suffered injuries.

It was such big news; not because of any misfortune or an accident. On the contrary, it was a providential escape from a massive tragedy. An escape from a calamity that would have befallen not just the 150-odd passengers and crew of the plane but an entire region as well.

What happened on board the flight was something unprecedented. One pilot stabbed another pilot while the plane was cruising at an altitude of over 34,000 ft. Israeli PM Netanyahu said it was an attempt to crash the plane.

The pilot, who resisted the attack of the co-pilot and got stabbed, was an Indian, Smit Machchhar, who worked for an Indian airline, SpiceJet, for 11 years before joining the Dubai airline. We would know more about what happened once he recovers and gives his testimony to the investigators.

The world first got to know about this when the plane signalled the emergency code, squawk 7700, and later squawk 7500, which means hijacking.

On hearing the screams and chaos inside the cockpit, passengers and crew broke in and overpowered the attacker. Two of the passengers were pilots, or at least they knew the controls of an airplane. They took charge. 

By then, the plane had dropped from 34,000 feet to around 16,600 feet in just over two minutes. The two manually guided the plane to land safely at Tabuk in Saudi Arabia.

It was such immense luck that there were two pilots among the passengers who could take control of the plane and land it safely. I dread to think what would have happened if that wasn't the case.

If the plane had crashed, it's anybody's guess how Israel would have reacted. The already unstable and volatile region would have just descended further into unthinkable turmoil.

MDR fee on UPI: Why opposition's arguments are weak

An AI-generated image of a customer making
a payment at a retail store using UPI.

There is a debate currently underway in India after the Union government on Monday introduced what is called MDR, or Merchant Discount Rate, for retail purchases above Rs 2,000 using UPI. 

UPI or Unified Payments Interface, is a money-transaction platform developed in India in 2016. UPI allows people to send money from their bank account directly to another person's bank account using a mobile app. All that is needed is the recipient's mobile phone number or their UPI ID or a QR code that embeds the account details.

CASHLESS IN INDIA

UPI is hugely popular in India, making all transactions — ranging from very small amounts to high value — cashless. Last month the platform processed a record 24.51 billion transactions worth ₹29.82 lakh crore, which is roughly the equivalent of $311 billion, £232 billion or €270 billion.

What the government's decision on Monday means is that from October 15, if I have to pay an amount of more than Rs 2,000 at a large retail store and I choose to pay by UPI, the store owner (not I) will have to pay a small fee to payment facilitators like banks and tech platforms.

An MDR already exists for credit and debit card transactions for any amount, which varies between 1.5% and 2.5%. The amount the merchant has to pay is not capped. For UPI, the MDR is 0.4% and that too only for transactions above Rs 2,000. It is capped at Rs 300.

The government introduced the 0.4% levy to generate funds for the maintenance of the entire payment infrastructure, especially as the volume of UPI transactions has been growing exponentially. In fact, almost every month or two, a new record for the number of transactions and the volume of money transferred is set. The government as well as technology companies say they need funds to make the system more robust and secure. That's understandable.

The opposition, mainly the Congress, has opposed the government's decision and asked for the MDR to be rolled back.

Here is what the opposition has been saying:

ONE

The opposition parties are making it appear as if customers will have to pay this extra fee called MDR.

It is not the customers, but businesses, specifically large ones. Small vendors have been exempted, so too person-to-person transactions, irrespective of the amount.

TWO

The opposition says UPI was always free, there was never an MDR; and once the government realised UPI had caught on in a huge manner, they introduced a fee. 

This is not factually correct. When UPI was introduced in 2016, there was an MDR. It was only during COVID, from January 1, 2020, that the MDR was waived, with the government covering the costs incurred by banks.

THREE

The opposition says businesses will pass the extra fee on to customers. 

This is very unlikely because it is illegal to do so according to the government notification. Large businesses that have to pay the MDR have the trade volume bandwidth to absorb the fee. Also, if these businesses never passed on the fee when customers chose to pay by card, why would they do it now for UPI? If businesses pass the buck, then the opposition will have a clear reason to protest, not now.

FOUR

The opposition says the government is trying to help card companies like Visa and Mastercard by introducing an MDR for UPI. 

It is true that the businesses of Visa and Mastercard have been hit after UPI became popular, but the opposition has not explained how an MDR for UPI will help Visa and Mastercard.

It is also true that the top two UPI companies are PhonePe and Google Pay. PhonePe, which is now owned by Walmart holding an 85% stake, was founded in 2015 by two Indian entrepreneurs before changing hands. Google Pay in India is managed and operated by Google India Digital Services Private Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Google.

If people are happy to use these American apps, what is wrong with those companies making some money?

FIVE

The opposition says US pressure is behind the government's decision. 

I do not know how the American government will benefit from this. If anyone benefits, it is the Indian government, Indian banks, and the many smaller Indian technology companies that are part of the vast UPI infrastructure.

REAL REASONS FOR PUSHBACK

Though I do not find any substantial merit in the opposition's arguments, I do understand why the government's decision has kicked up such a row.

UPI arrived only in 2016, but long before that, credit and debit cards were being used at large retail stores and for online transactions. In fact, I had stopped using cash long before UPI arrived.

My logic was simple: why withdraw cash from an ATM and pay the cashier at the store when I can pay the cashier directly from my bank account using a debit card? For large-value transactions, I use credit card.

However, the number of people who used cards was, and still is, relatively small. That is where UPI has made the difference. Unlike credit and debit cards, UPI replaced cash transactions in a really big way.

Imagine, 24.51 billion transactions across India in a single month of August is a staggeringly huge number (India's population is 1.5 billion). In contrast, there were about 600 million credit card transactions. Incidentally, credit card transactions (which have a much higher MDR) too have been going up though not in the way UPI has been.

So, the real reasons for the opposition's pushback, I think, are simply these two:

1) Even the slightest fee on anything that is widely popular across the country is a political taboo. It triggers a widespread "how dare you do it" sort of protest.

2) When the government levies a fee, there is opposition, but no one cares when private entities charge even hefty amounts. The same people who oppose a small government levy happily pay multiple times that amount when a private entity charges it.

I find nothing wrong with the government introducing this small, capped MDR on large retail businesses. It will only go towards strengthening the burgeoning online money transaction system that has proved to be so user-friendly to millions of Indians.