Guest Gunner Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 I had a recent conversation with a colleague which has given me much food for thought. Is capital punishment really just and equitable? Should we continue this barbaric practice in the 21st century? I have to admit the fact that India has carried out only 2 death sentences in about 19 years. But the question remains as to whether it is a just practice? Take the case of kasab, what would we achieve by executing him? I fear absolutely nothing other than a momentary gloating over the infliction of pain on another human as if it would bring back the 186 people whose life has been taken away from them. Shouldn't we rather imprison him for life to ponder over what he has done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachinism Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 I agree to a certain extent that they should be made to suffer and rot in prison. But imagine it was a high profile terrorist. We'd get another bunch of terrorists doing some stupid which will harm many others to get that one guy freed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunner Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 The key question to answer is do we have the right to kill another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomainK Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 I agree to a certain extent that they should be made to suffer and rot in prison. But imagine it was a high profile terrorist. We'd get another bunch of terrorists doing some stupid which will harm many others to get that one guy freed The last thing law enforcement, the judiciary and society (collectively) should seek is revenge. They are supposed to be punished, educated and reformed. Law enforcement has three objective with convicts: 1. If they are dangerous, keep them in confinement so that they may not cause more damage than they have already done. 2. Punish them so that they know that unlawful activity has consequences. 3. Set an example for the those in the free society that are contemplating breaking the law. Capital punishment should be avoided as much as possible. We (as a society) do not have the right to take a life when we can not give one. What is the difference between one who commits murder in vengeance and the law enforcement then if both do the same thing? But, I believe, there are extreme cases where elimination becomes necessary. A terrorist who we know is a life long threat to the society has no right on my tax money for his food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 The key question to answer is do we have the right to kill another? In democracy Right is defined by the majority. If majority deems fit any law can become a right. And yes by that token executing someone based on evidence is legal, and rightful. I have no qualms against execution. To keep people alive you have to spend lot of money. Of course I dont mean to put an innocent on gallows but if evidence points towards the culprit by all means execute him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triam Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 In democracy Right is defined by the majority. If majority deems fit any law can become a right. And yes by that token executing someone based on evidence is legal, and rightful. I have no qualms against execution. To keep people alive you have to spend lot of money. Of course I dont mean to put an innocent on gallows but if evidence points towards the culprit by all means execute him. Do not agree with the bolded part. So if the majority decides it is ok to discriminate against a particular minority will that fly? thats why there is a constitution, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Do not agree with the bolded part. So if the majority decides it is ok to discriminate against a particular minority will that fly? thats why there is a constitution' date= Yeah it would be okay(legally that is not morally). Why do you think homosexuality is a taboo in most countries, even educated ones?? Its because the majority thinks it is not correct. The day majority would think otherwise you would see same sex marriage accorded the same status as straight sex marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triam Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 ^^^^ Bias against homosexuality has broad religious support. And in educated countries people can and have sued against being discriminated based on their sexual orientation with US being one of the countries that lags behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Monogamy/polygamy is another such issue. In most societies, polygamy is outlawed or at least socially not acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 ^^^^ Bias against homosexuality has broad religious support. And in educated countries people can and have sued against being discriminated based on their sexual orientation with US being one of the countries that lags behind. Religion would almost always impact policies. You can bet there would be no execution in a Jain society, for example. However in most religions executing for greater good is not scoffed at and hence execution does not carry any stigma so far as religious angle is concerned. Most religions, including Hinduism, can throw ample examples of when killing for greater good is valid. The Holy Geeta deals with this in great depth, even though it does not get graphic or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triam Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 ^^^ Agreed, My original point ws that even in a democracy, not all matters could be or shuld be decided by the majority. Slavery is one such example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunner Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The important aspect in jurisprudence is also equality. Can we confirm whether all trials are absolutely equal and those handed down capital punishment are the only ones who deserve it? Probably not. Lurker: I simply don't agree with you that the majority support for capital punishment justifies it. If at all capital punishment should be justified it should be on the grounds of overall benefit to society and failure to reform the convict. I believe that the first test should be one of equality in justice followed by an honest evaluation of reformation. I think this is not the case in Indian judiciary at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The important aspect in jurisprudence is also equality. Can we confirm whether all trials are absolutely equal and those handed down capital punishment are the only ones who deserve it? Probably not. Lurker: I simply don't agree with you that the majority support for capital punishment justifies it. If at all capital punishment should be justified it should be on the grounds of overall benefit to society and failure to reform the convict. I believe that the first test should be one of equality in justice followed by an honest evaluation of reformation. I think this is not the case in Indian judiciary at this point. It is not the case of me justifying it Gunner, simply that in democracy what majority defines will make the law. Simple. If bulk of citizens think execution is correct it will become the law, regardless of the morality. As I have mentioned to Triam earlier it would be okay legally even if not morally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanakya Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Take the case of kasab, what would we achieve by executing him? I fear absolutely nothing other than a momentary gloating over the infliction of pain on another human as if it would bring back the 186 people whose life has been taken away from them. Shouldn't we rather imprison him for life to ponder over what he has done? Why would you want your tax money spend on keeping the filth alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanakya Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 The key question to answer is do we have the right to kill another? Do you have the right to punish him for killing someone? And who gave you the right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 The key question to answer is do we have the right to kill another? So, if a terrorist is pointing his gun at several innocents, do our cops have the right to gun him down? I am guessing you will say yes as we will be saving several lives in that instance, but there is nothing to gain now that they are all dead. If that is the case, then one of the arguments in favor of still putting him to death is to give some kind of retribution for the families of the victims. Life sentence simply doesn't cut it in many cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunner Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Do you have the right to punish him for killing someone? And who gave you the right? Punishment for committing certain crimes is a societal norm. This is the framework within which a country protects its citizens. But the point is any punishment should be reformatory in nature, this is definitely the constitutional basis. The death penatly is unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunner Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 So, if a terrorist is pointing his gun at several innocents, do our cops have the right to gun him down? I am guessing you will say yes as we will be saving several lives in that instance, but there is nothing to gain now that they are all dead. If that is the case, then one of the arguments in favor of still putting him to death is to give some kind of retribution for the families of the victims. Life sentence simply doesn't cut it in many cases. I am sorry but the purpose of criminal law and the justice system is not to provide retribution. I am not asking for monsters to be set free on the streets. Life sentence should mean life without parole, no questions on that. I am only concerned about the death penatly, does it make sense in the modern and civilized world? However I do comprehend and accept the fact that some crimes are so barbaric that they are not in line with modern civilization. Such evil is timeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunner Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Please sir' date=' tell me more about this Constitutional basis you talk about. Also, regarding the part in bold, could you please enlighten me why death sentences are being carried out in India - are you further implying that courts in India are openly violating our Constitution?[/quote'] http://english.nessunotocchicaino.it/bancadati/schedastato.php?idstato=12000016&idcontinente=23 Read the entry on May 13, 2009. I should have been more specific however in my terminology. The equality principle mentioned by the supreme court was the basis on which France made the death penalty redundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomainK Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Courts don't act on something unconstitutional. If the death penalty was unconstitutional in some remote way, there would have been numerous cases in the supreme court against capital punishment by human rights organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts