Crime and punishment

The high-profile Karsaz case, in which two lives were tragically lost, has once again spotlighted the intersection of justice, privilege, and inequality in Pakistan. It took about three weeks for the driver involved in the accident to be granted bail after the victims’ family pardoned her, stating that the accident was not intentional and that they bear no ill will towards her. This entire situation – and the case itself – has raised significant questions about the role of the state in ensuring justice and the problematic nature of pardons in criminal matters. While reports say that no monetary compensation was involved – and that may well be so – the optics of such cases often feed the perception that justice in Pakistan is selective, particularly favouring those with the means to negotiate their way out of legal consequences. What has become glaring – to those who were not clear on this before – is the troubling disparity in how justice is dispensed. In many cases, those from affluent backgrounds are able to escape meaningful accountability, either through private settlements or by leveraging the law’s provision for pardons. This becomes particularly disturbing when it comes to cases involving loss of life, where the crime should be viewed as an offence not just against individuals but against society as a whole.

Unfortunately – and for various reasons – in our legal framework, crimes are often treated as private matters once victims or their families choose to pardon the perpetrator. This turns criminal procedure into a transactional affair rather than a state-regulated system designed to protect all citizens equally. When a crime results in death, it ceases to be merely a private issue and becomes a matter of public concern and the state has a duty to pursue justice, regardless of whether the victim’s family is willing to forgive or not. Such pardons also risk perpetuating a system of inequality wherein wealthy or influential defendants can often negotiate forgiveness, leaving victims from less privileged backgrounds with little recourse.

This is not to advocate for a punitive or vengeful justice system, but rather for one that treats all citizens equally and fairly. Mob justice or blood-lust has never been an answer. True justice lies following a system based on equality. Forgiveness can be a powerful personal choice, and may offer solace to grieving families, but it should not be a substitute for accountability nor should it override the state’s responsibility to uphold the law. Pakistan must move towards a justice system that prioritizes fairness, accountability, and rule of law over private forgiveness. Justice is not only about reconciliation between the victim’s family and the suspect – but about ensuring that society is safe and that crimes are met with appropriate consequences. That involves a justice system that treats all victims and all alleged criminals the same way: everyone gets a trial, everyone gets the chance to be heard, and justice is allowed to take place. In the absence of this, the vulnerable are mostly left untended. And at the end of it all, all we get is an uneven playing field in an already uneven space.