The Outsider Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 I don't think so - in such cases, IMO, there is nothing which differentiates the state from the perpetrators. For me, an eye for eye makes the whole world blind. There are valid arguments from the other side like the tax payer expenditure, the risk of the perpetrator escaping but at least in my moral compass they all add up to below taking someone's life - murdering him.
Mariyam Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 There is no general singular answer that is applicable to all countries and all societies. This should discussed in the context of a society. Morality is relative. A society which has a low crime rate ( for social/economic or any other reasons) and less reasons for people to break the law, can do away with the death penalty. In a country like India, this humane approach is not workable. Simply because a death penalty should function as a deterrent against future crimes, or so I feel. Also, the tax payer is paying in keeping a criminal alive. Can India afford that? There are many in our country, who would happily murder someone for a 'supari' or settle scores with a kill, if they were assured that the state will provide them 2 square meals a day and roof to sleep under. :(( . Poverty does that to people. I don't see what good can come of it. Explain that to me. Right now, we have the death penalty, but its sparingly used. But at least there is some deterrence.
ganeshran Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 Capital punishment should be done only in the rarest of rare cases and administered in a non brutal manner.
ravishingravi Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 Case to case basis. For Rape, I think we need something like it.
King Tendulkar Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 No wonder OP is always looking for legal reasons to keep Kasab and Afzal alive
Lurker Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 Yes to capital punishment. Although needless to say one has to be 100% sure before it is executed, pun intentional.
yoda Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 What right does society have to take the life of a person? What right does society have to put a person away for life? What right does society have to punish a person? What right does society have? What is the point of a society?
Jadoo Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 Absolutely, I don't see the point of delaying people like Kasab's death sentence, he is a unwanted pardon on the tax payers. It saddens me that in a country that have countless people who sleep on a empty stomach, we provide these feckers with food, warmth, and clothes. That's a frigging joke.
Mariyam Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 @ The Outsider, apart from a moral point of view ( and that is also highly debatable), and talking from a purely pragmatic/legal angle, do you think that abolishing the death penalty has any advantages?
Lurker Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 don't see what good can come of it. Explain that to me. Right now' date=' we have the death penalty, but its sparingly used. But at least there is some deterrence.[/quote'] Capital punishment as a deterrence is overrated. Reminds me of the time when Chota Rajan sent his men to kill Chota Shakeel and Sunil Sawant in Dubai. The latter was indeed killed and the 3 man hitmen team all caught and sentenced to death. Point being knowing fully well that if caught death sentence was a certainty, more so this being a Middle East country, these chota mota hit men did what they have to do. And obviously the reasons was lot more petty than jar, joru, jameen....or as is these days jihaad. Deterrence works for some, not most.
The Outsider Posted May 10, 2011 Author Posted May 10, 2011 @ The Outsider, apart from a moral point of view ( and that is also highly debatable), and talking from a purely pragmatic/legal angle, do you think that abolishing the death penalty has any advantages? I don't think it acts anymore as a deterrent than life imprisonment - there have been some studies on it as well. You might be aware of them. The strongest argument against the death penalty is obviously moral - it is state sanctioned murder. But besides that there have also been cases in which the concerned person has been found innocent after the fact. There is no coming back from the death penalty. It also poses the question as to what should be the cornerstone of the justice system - retribution or reform.
Guest Shivani Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Capital punishment should be done only in the rarest of rare cases and administered in a non brutal manner. Case to case basis. For Rape' date=' I think we need something like it.[/quote'] 'Rarest of rare' is a totally arbitrary category depending on the personal preferences of the judges hearing the case. May be the judges will be biased by the political compulsions of the ruling party Exactly. Existing data show that there is no such correlation between the crime rate and death penalty. In fact, better conviction rates, more transparent mechanisms, less corrupt investigation and judicial structures would be effective deterrents against heinous crime.
Guest Shivani Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 And no, am not a fan of P.N. Bhagwati :regular_smile:
Mariyam Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 ^ Shivani, While I agree with you that rape has to be more harshly punished, I don't understand how you can be against the death penalty and for castration at the same time. You say that the death penalty is an irreversible 'change' and once some one is killed, and he/she is later found innocent he can't be brought back to life. Same is the case with castration, it can't be undone. Also, I think that death penalty only for offenses against the state will not work. Its not practical. A terrorist or a Naxalite doesn't deserve a second chance for killing a CRPF jawan during a fire fight ,but a jilted lover who kills his love interest brutally with no logical rhyme or reason should be reformed? In such a scenario, the influential will try to pass off killings as under " offenses against the state" to eliminate people they don't want. We can't be selective on murder. PS: The studies which co-relate crime rate to capital punishment in fact do not capture data on how much having a death penalty can deter murder. I.e they can never capture how many people were never murdered because of such a legislation. Also, there are just so many constraints- like era, society, economic situation of the time etc that such studies are not fool proof or 100% reliable. In cases like these, a psychologists studies would provide more insight than mere empirical data.
f.b.m Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 there is nothing which differentiates the state from the perpetrators. Was there anything that ever did?
Recommended Posts