Muloghonto Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 Remember Kandahar' date=' That is what will happen if we let these people stay in our Jail for Life. We have to remember, India not being too technically advanced, it will become very tough for our defence personnel to find these criminals if they ever manage to escape. It is quite easy for people to go underground in India as most transactions are done via Cash and there isnt too many security cameras around 95% of the country.[/quote'] Kandahar is a fair point. Perhaps India needs a 'special system' to expediate and execute terrorists. But all other types of criminals- be it the fraudsters, serial killers, rapists, etc. - put them to work is what i say. Heck, we dont need them to go out and build roads- that was just an example. Make them crush rocks for foundation of roads, make them weld pipes after pipes, etc.- there are plenty of ways we can get these guys to work.
straighttalk Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 Can't say that. But one thing is sure that death penalties are not bringing any reduction in crime rate. My views will be very controversial on this topic. But I believe a crime like rape or murder destroys a person's life and affects his or her loved ones in a very deep way. The question whether the criminal deserves a second chance is not moot to the immense grief he caused to so many people by his actions. Such crimes if proven without doubt and also shown to be pre meditated needs a death penalty to bring a sense of closure. And yes if death penalty was rampant, people would think twice before committing a crime. But death penalty when awarded in rarest of rare case is not enough of a deterrent.
punjabi_khota Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 Repeat child rapists, rape+murder convicts, terrorists and serial-killers deserve to die.
punjabi_khota Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 ^Of course can create. See this: http://bit.ly/16WKQME
Ram Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 ^ Maybe this conveys the essence of what I am trying to get at - We cannot give life to an inanimate object to make it come to life. What gives us the right to take away the life from a living object to make it inanimate? P.S; I am just talking humans right now.
King Khan Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 First of all, encounter the terrorists by any method, no need to bring them in front of public prosecution. I'm for death penalty for lower degree of crimes as well like drug dealing, illegal arm carry, unauthorized picketing, gang rape, drink driving etc. Its allways hard to give just for the victims for these crimes, coz plenty of loopholes in the system to escape the trials. Maximum penulty will make these criminals flew & refuged to western countries blaming tough justice here and hence keep our streets crime-free.
maniac Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 It's proven that even the most hardcore of scumbags **** in their pants in their final moments.....it's bs that life imprisonment is a harsher punishment . Look at Charles Manson ...the pos thinks he is in a vacation home....put that guy on the chair and see the goofy smile knocked out of his face in an instant. Also it saves tax payers money.....get rid of scumbags like pedophiles,rapists,serial killers
maniac Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 ^ Maybe this conveys the essence of what I am trying to get at - We cannot give life to an inanimate object to make it come to life. What gives us the right to take away the life from a living object to make it inanimate? P.S; I am just talking humans right now. So just because we cannot regrow organs,would you allow cancer to spread? What kind of reasoning is that
akshayxyz Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 I do not support death penalty. Instead, donate the hardcore criminals to research labs/hospitals - e.g. to be used as guinea pig for new drugs (instead of poor innocent animals).
Crookbond Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 So just because we cannot regrow organs,would you allow cancer to spread? What kind of reasoning is that Wrong analogy. http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/
yoda Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 If you can kill people in the name of war and drone strikes, why not in the name of sentence for crime committed? EU is against the death penalty, and Italy doesn't want their navy personnel to get the death penalty, yet they will fire at will and shoot innocent fisherman concluding they are pirates. Life of a person from a different country is apparently less important than one's own. I say stop being a hypocrite and be consistent.
Muloghonto Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 If you can kill people in the name of war and drone strikes, why not in the name of sentence for crime committed? EU is against the death penalty, and Italy doesn't want their navy personnel to get the death penalty, yet they will fire at will and shoot innocent fisherman concluding they are pirates. Life of a person from a different country is apparently less important than one's own. I say stop being a hypocrite and be consistent. That is correct. It is not hypocrasy, it is about mandate of rights. Ultimately, you have a social contract with your society: you be 'good' and society gives you rights. You dont be 'good', society gives you no right. Since international personnel are not part of your social construct, legally speaking, foreigners will always have less rights than citizens. Even in countries where death penalty is not subscribed, you can still kill someone in self defence (as in, you killed them while they are/were trying to kill you). Military combat is justifiable under such principles.
Muloghonto Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 It's proven that even the most hardcore of scumbags **** in their pants in their final moments.....it's bs that life imprisonment is a harsher punishment . Look at Charles Manson ...the pos thinks he is in a vacation home....put that guy on the chair and see the goofy smile knocked out of his face in an instant. Also it saves tax payers money.....get rid of scumbags like pedophiles,rapists,serial killers The biggest problem you have with the death penalty, which is not being discussed here is this: there are no 'take backsies'. If you are going to go all hardcore utilitarian on us, you better be able to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that said person is a criminal of such magnitude ( paedophiles and rapists are not always open and shut cases). Otherwise, sending an innocent man to the gallows because of flaws in the legal system is the biggest knock against death penalty. In a country like India, where forensics is barely up to modern standards, it is a rather foolhardy position to have over death penalty poscribed to what are common crimes (such as rape, paedophilia, etc).
Muloghonto Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 First of all' date=' encounter the terrorists by any method, no need to bring them in front of public prosecution. [/quote'] That is absurd. Without public prosecution, you have no check on the government not getting carried over and inseting a 'reign of terror' on its own subjects. the whole 'terrorist, lets make him disappear without any process' has lead to thousands disappearing over the decades in military desoptates of South Americas. On what basis would you prescribe death penalty for what constitutes rather common crimes ? What set of morality,ethics or rationalism poscribes ultimate punishment for what constitutes common crime, nevermind 'ultimate crime' like the holocaust pogroms or Pol Pot ? And that is how you create the despotate of Arabistans, where people live like quasi-slaves and drones with very little intellectual capacity. That is not what we are interested in, that is the purview of demented justice systems and social order created through tyranny and supression, with disproportionate punishment to crime. A.k.a, the Taliban. The fundamental point about having criminal sentencing, is to serve as levels of acceptable deterrance (no deterrence is absolute and approaching absolute deterrence in crime is not a price worth paying for strictions in society) and containment of problem individuals/parties from discourse in society. Vengeance has zero place in justice system, the criminal is *not* being punished to mollify your rage at being raped or having your son killed. The criminal justice system does not exist to mollify you, your anger/outrage is completely irrelevant and out of scope. Persue that in civil court, under civil justice where you may sue the guy for X amount of money for causing 'emotional damage' but the purview of the criminal justice system is containment and deterrence. Under such a mandate, what you ascribe, is absurd due to the disproportionality of the punishment being ascribed.
carnish Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 Kandahar is a fair point. Perhaps India needs a 'special system' to expediate and execute terrorists. But all other types of criminals- be it the fraudsters, serial killers, rapists, etc. - put them to work is what i say. Heck, we dont need them to go out and build roads- that was just an example. Make them crush rocks for foundation of roads, make them weld pipes after pipes, etc.- there are plenty of ways we can get these guys to work. Not all criminals are terrorists people! I agree, I cited the Kandahar example to say that Death Penalty for people like Guru and Kasab was justified. The rest of them, I have my doubts. Other criminals those who should be hanged are those like serial killers and Underworld people. Similar to terrorists, people with Underworld links have the means to Kidnap people in power and hold the government helpless which is not a scenario we would want. Next in line are Serial killers, who are in most cases mentally affected. These people need treatment and unless they get good medical help, they will always be dangerous and hence need to be isolated from the common group of inmates. All other kinds of criminals should not be given death penalty, especially Fraudsters, who I guess according to law cannot be awarded death penalty. BUt saying that, again, when we hear about Gang-Rapes, and the inhuman manner in which people torture innocent girls, pardoning them would be inhuman, if you ask me. However other single rape cases or single murders should only be Life term.
Crookbond Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 I agree' date= I cited the Kandahar example to say that Death Penalty for people like Guru and Kasab was justified. The rest of them, I have my doubts. Other criminals those who should be hanged are those like serial killers and Underworld people. Similar to terrorists, people with Underworld links have the means to Kidnap people in power and hold the government helpless which is not a scenario we would want. Next in line are Serial killers, who are in most cases mentally affected. These people need treatment and unless they get good medical help, they will always be dangerous and hence need to be isolated from the common group of inmates. All other kinds of criminals should not be given death penalty, especially Fraudsters, who I guess according to law cannot be awarded death penalty. BUt saying that, again, when we hear about Gang-Rapes, and the inhuman manner in which people torture innocent girls, pardoning them would be inhuman, if you ask me. However other single rape cases or single murders should only be Life term. Therefore, death penalty should be given on a case-by-case basis as it is done today. There should be a mandate for the state to invoke a death penalty but should be use sparingly - in cases where there can not be any prisoner reform.
carnish Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 Therefore' date=' death penalty should be given on a case-by-case basis as it is done today. There should be a mandate for the state to invoke a death penalty but should be use sparingly - in cases where there can not be any prisoner reform.[/quote'] Exactly, Thats what the Supreme Court does. Why should the President or anyone else give a mercy petition above Supreme Court decision, unless that person has already spent more than 14 years in Jail and has shown a remarkably good behaviour, there is no reason why mercy petitions should not be turned down.
Crookbond Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 Exactly' date=' Thats what the Supreme Court does. [b']Why should the President or anyone else give a mercy petition above Supreme Court decision, unless that person has already spent more than 14 years in Jail and has shown a remarkably good behaviour, there is no reason why mercy petitions should not be turned down. Interesting question - I would like some perspective here. Raghav, Ganesh, SachinLara please take the stage.
Recommended Posts