Death Penalty:What's your stand?

[CSK Fan]

What is the substiitute of death penalty? Life without parole. I am sorry but in developing country like India keeping a hardcore criminal alive is a burden on Govt.

There are so many factors to consider especially in India. Such as financial costs? Extremely high costs of the food and security of those jailed persons. Of course, there are some benefits such as using it as a vote-bank politics in keeping them alive. .

I am pretty sure that holding a death penalty criminal for 5-10 years is much more cost than keeping a prisoner for 50 years in jail. Convicts on death rows are given more security and have to be isolated. Plus the costs of appeals, etc and you will find that govermetn spends more on convicts on death rows than other prisoners. This is true for America as well

[Ram]

So just because we cannot regrow organs,would you allow cancer to spread? What kind of reasoning is that

Cancer cells do not have mothers, fathers, siblings and an extended family. The mandate of justice and law-enforcement is to deny hideous criminals the opportunity to commit those crimes. Incarceration, by and large, accomplishes that mission. For all I can care, jail a guy a 500 years if you want. But death penalty is really pulling on the limits of our moral authority.

[beetle]

India needs a lot of border road networks made for the BSF, predominantly in the Ladakh, Arunachal, Himachal and the states bordering Burma. Take these prison chain gangs into these dangerous areas and get them to build the roads. If they die because of some trigger happy Chinese/Burmese soldier, tough beans.

There are enough unemployed people who need those jobs.

[beetle]

Totally support the death penalty under Indian laws.It is only given in rarest of rare cases and there are enough appeals on the way to make sure that no innocent person is given the death penalty. In my view the punishment should not just be for reforming the accused or for deterrence but also to give justice to the victim and their loved one.

[Muloghonto]

Totally support the death penalty under Indian laws.It is only given in rarest of rare cases and there are enough appeals on the way to make sure that no innocent person is given the death penalty. In my view the punishment should not just be for reforming the accused or for deterrence but also to give justice to the victim and their loved one.

Isnt that just euphemism for vengeance ? Can you point out where and how you get the idea that 'justice' is about 'complainant satisfaction' ?! How can it be, since 10 different people raped would want 10 different levels of 'satisfaction' from punishing the perpetrator ? Or do we say 'guilty! hey victim, you pronounce the penalty associated with the verdict' ? If we dont, then it leads to the logical conclusion that what you the victim would like to see done to the perpetrator, is irrelevant. Besides, how is it the perview of the criminal justice system to make sure you feel satisfied with the sentencing ? Why is it not the perview of the civil court ?

[Muloghonto]

There are enough unemployed people who need those jobs.

There are not enough unemployed people willing to go dig roads at 15,000 feet in Sikkim while the Chinese are trying to pot shot you. Thats where the criminals come in. This is how China has built a massive road network infrastructure in 'high tibet', which is what is the part of Tibet directly north of the Himalayas.

[Muloghonto]

Exactly' date=' 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.[/quote'] The 'mercy petition' came into justice system via two avenues: through the British & 'continental system' of justice and the 'French/American system of justice'. The prevailing idea is/was that if you were a commoner or a ethnic minority, you should have a last resort avenue open to challenge a verdict passed by a judge 100 years ago, when society was influenced by racist principles. Ie, 100 years ago, if you were an Irish lord under the British Imperial system, found guilty by a Luddite judge in London, you could appeal to the royalty to get death sentence overturned. In america/france it took the form of 'inferior/other races may not get the best deal in a jury trial'. Think on the idea of a black man accused of rape of a white woman in rural America in the 1920s. Thank God that a 'last appeal to the governor to stay the execution' was available, for back then, the prevailing social mentality was 'blacks are almost apes, they are prone to rape, cant help themselves, etc so it must be true' and a guilty verdict was almost a foregone conclusion. Unfortunately today, the principle exists pretty much for the sole reason to make the politicians some extra cash on the side. Pretty much everywhere in the US, if you wanted to 'stay' a death sentence, you needed to send an envelope stuffed with 100 dollar bills to the local governor and it usually gets you off death row. Ie, it has now morphed into 'special rights of the rich protecting them from execution'.

[carnish]

The 'mercy petition' came into justice system via two avenues: through the British & 'continental system' of justice and the 'French/American system of justice'. The prevailing idea is/was that if you were a commoner or a ethnic minority, you should have a last resort avenue open to challenge a verdict passed by a judge 100 years ago, when society was influenced by racist principles. Ie, 100 years ago, if you were an Irish lord under the British Imperial system, found guilty by a Luddite judge in London, you could appeal to the royalty to get death sentence overturned. In america/france it took the form of 'inferior/other races may not get the best deal in a jury trial'. Think on the idea of a black man accused of rape of a white woman in rural America in the 1920s. Thank God that a 'last appeal to the governor to stay the execution' was available, for back then, the prevailing social mentality was 'blacks are almost apes, they are prone to rape, cant help themselves, etc so it must be true' and a guilty verdict was almost a foregone conclusion. Unfortunately today, the principle exists pretty much for the sole reason to make the politicians some extra cash on the side. Pretty much everywhere in the US, if you wanted to 'stay' a death sentence, you needed to send an envelope stuffed with 100 dollar bills to the local governor and it usually gets you off death row. Ie, it has now morphed into 'special rights of the rich protecting them from execution'.

That is why it is only imperative that the President rejects most of these mercy petitions unless the Constitution is Amended. Hence I would be more than happy with a President like Mr. Mukherjee who can take such tough decisions. Supreme Court decisions must be respected. However Pranad Da has also commuted certain number of Death sentences which is not justified ( I don't really know about these cases) unless the Accused have already been imprisoned for more than 14 years.

[Raghav_12]

Isnt that just euphemism for vengeance ? Besides, how is it the perview of the criminal justice system to make sure you feel satisfied with the sentencing ? Why is it not the perview of the civil court ?

Unfortunately that was the language used by court to give death penalty to Afzal Guru, to satisfy collective conscience of country or something of similar effect. Not saying that Afzal Guru was guilty or not, but this reasoning doesn't give much sense of justice. I can agree with death penalty in the cases where it might lead to hostage like situation and both Kasab and Guru fall in that category. Other than that if it can be ascertained that keeping person alive might lead to more casualties than death penalty can be extended. Other than that I don't think a justified case for death penalty. There have been enough cases world wide where accused were executed only to be found innocent many years later. One such famous case is of Timothy Evans from UK. He was hanged in 1950 but after three years actual perpetrator of crime was arrested. Evans was given royal pardon in 1966 posthumously. But outcry in public started with hanging of Evans eventually led to abolishment of death penalty in UK with 10 years of this execution.

[Muloghonto]

Unfortunately that was the language used by court to give death penalty to Afzal Guru, to satisfy collective conscience of country or something of similar effect. Not saying that Afzal Guru was guilty or not, but this reasoning doesn't give much sense of justice. I can agree with death penalty in the cases where it might lead to hostage like situation and both Kasab and Guru fall in that category. Other than that if it can be ascertained that keeping person alive might lead to more casualties than death penalty can be extended. Other than that I don't think a justified case for death penalty. There have been enough cases world wide where accused were executed only to be found innocent many years later. One such famous case is of Timothy Evans from UK. He was hanged in 1950 but after three years actual perpetrator of crime was arrested. Evans was given royal pardon in 1966 posthumously. But outcry in public started with hanging of Evans eventually led to abolishment of death penalty in UK with 10 years of this execution.

Make no mistake, i am not anti-death penalty from a moral perspective. I simply think that we can make 'use' of the thousands of people sitting around in jail to ultimately turn jails into a 'non profit society' kind of model, instead of a 'sinkhole of tax payer moneys'. For certain individuals, like Kasab, Guru, etc. i dont just think we should give them death penalty, i think we should make mincemeat out of them and sell it at special discounted rate across the border. Besides, 'execution stay' orders in a judge based trial system does not make much sense. It makes sense in jury-based trials, because jury = common people = can be 'played to the gallery' by lawyers to preset a 'he/she is guilty' mindset. Usually when the judge gets wind of this, he/she declares mistrial and moves for a new jury but the theory is, such jury manipulations is not always obvious to the judge and thus, an innocent man can be victimised by the jury based on social conditions. For example, even today, i garantee you it'd be orders of magnitude easier to get a guilty verdict for a guy named Abdul Karim 'raping' a white girl in texas than a white guy raping a mexican in boonieland texas. But when it comes to a judge based trial system, seems to me that the conclusion should be a mistrial along with the death penalty pardon, which implies the judge should be found incompetent or penalized for inappropriate carriage of civic duty.

[DomainK]

Relevant info-graphic: Comparative chart of number of death punishment in some countries:

[beetle]

Isnt that just euphemism for vengeance ? Can you point out where and how you get the idea that 'justice' is about 'complainant satisfaction' ?! How can it be, since 10 different people raped would want 10 different levels of 'satisfaction' from punishing the perpetrator ? Or do we say 'guilty! hey victim, you pronounce the penalty associated with the verdict' ? If we dont, then it leads to the logical conclusion that what you the victim would like to see done to the perpetrator, is irrelevant. Besides, how is it the perview of the criminal justice system to make sure you feel satisfied with the sentencing ? Why is it not the perview of the civil court ?

I have no problem with vengeance if it brings closure to the victim and the people who suffer with the victim.Like I say...no innocent person in India gets the rope .If you already know that committing a heinous crimes of the rarest of rare nature might get you death penalty, then it is only fair that you suffer the consequences.

[Crookbond]

Relevant info-graphic: Comparative chart of number of death punishment in some countries:

Please post this on the Infographic thread as well. :icflove:

[Muloghonto]

I have no problem with vengeance if it brings closure to the victim and the people who suffer with the victim.

So then you should be a supporter of the Sharia law where the victim is given the option to 'demand eye for eye or money' or else the guy dies. Vengeance is subjective and legal decrees cannot be based on subjective basis. Also, Vengeance serves no positive purpose in society, so i see no reason for institutional backing of it.

.Like I say...no innocent person in India gets the rope .If you already know that committing a heinous crimes of the rarest of rare nature might get you death penalty, then it is only fair that you suffer the consequences.

Indeed, but my comment was on the basis of some people wanting an 'expansion' of the death penalty application. It is inadvisable in India to expand the death penalty to anything more than the 'rarest of rare cases, due to extreme circumstances' because of a lack of forensic expertese.

[The Outsider]

Eye for an eye makes the world blind - death penalty is inhumane and a legacy of our history as barbarians.

[Brainfade]

I have turned 180 deg on this topic over the years. In my youth, I was all for it. And then, I evolved. Here's my current stance: Until we have a 100% fool-proof conviction system, the death penalty must be banned. Over the past decade, many false murder convictions have been overturned due to new evidence, esp. DNA evidence. Who knows how many falsely convicted men and women have seen the gallows? The difference between wrongful death penalties and other wrongful convictions is the finality.

[Brainfade]

Relevant info-graphic: Comparative chart of number of death punishment in some countries:

Neat graphic. Wonder how it would look if normalized to population - that, IMO, would be more telling.

[Crookbond]

I have turned 180 deg on this topic over the years. In my youth, I was all for it. And then, I evolved. Here's my current stance: Until we have a 100% fool-proof conviction system, the death penalty must be banned. Over the past decade, many false murder convictions have been overturned due to new evidence, esp. DNA evidence. Who knows how many falsely convicted men and women have seen the gallows? The difference between wrongful death penalties and other wrongful convictions is the finality.

That's THE most strong argument against death penatly. The problem is that investigators 'connect non-existent dots' to make a conclusion. Earlier biometrics caused unprecedented problems and now it's DNA which has replaced biometrics.

[maniac]

Eye for an eye makes the world blind - death penalty is inhumane and a legacy of our history as barbarians.

Yeah let's see the Gandhian in you say the same thing when it effects one of your loved ones(God Forbid)

[maniac]

Imprisioning some social outcast is not a punishment by any means,infact it's doing him a favor..why would I want my taxes to feed the likes of Ted Bundy,John Gacy etc. Ask the families of kids they tortured and killed brutally if they support your views...I am sorry I am not rationale enough to get into morality debate in such cases. Also it's a proven fact that most of these serial killers have a moment of clarity in their last moments.