carnish Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 Where did I say that? You are talking about 1 particular case while I'm talking in general. And please for the love of GOD, stop making this a man vs woman argument. ++ Exactly, If you take this one case and set a precedent, people will want death for vengeance for even minor cases. What about accidents ... families won't understand the situation in their quest for vengeance.
beetle Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 ++ Exactly, If you take this one case and set a precedent, people will want death for vengeance for even minor cases. What about accidents ... families won't understand the situation in their quest for vengeance. Death penalty is not given for minor cases.It is reserved only for the rarest of rare cases and even here the accused have enough opportunities to appeal against it.
beetle Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 Where did I say that? You are talking about 1 particular case while I'm talking in general. And please for the love of GOD, stop making this a man vs woman argument. When did I make it a man vs woman issue...it is a victim vs accused issue.The victims in many cases are men too.I am just trying to say that such depraved people are beyond reform and do not even deserve a chance to reform.
Crookbond Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 When did I make it a man vs woman issue...it is a victim vs accused issue.The victims in many cases are men too.I am just trying to say that such depraved people are beyond reform and do not even deserve a chance to reform. I did not disagree. Let me once again try to post 2 relevant points - [0] Death penalty clause should be present so that it can be used against criminals beyond reform [1] Death penalty clause should not be used just because the victim wants vengeance
carnish Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 Death penalty is not given for minor cases.It is reserved only for the rarest of rare cases and even here the accused have enough opportunities to appeal against it. Exactly, It isn't necessary that victims in this rarest of rare cases will have families behind them wanting revenge or vengeance. But even in such cases the penalty must be same and hence, the penalty or punishment needs to given according to the crime and not in view of someone's need for vengeance.
someone Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Death penalty is primarily based on deterrence. It sends a message to every one in the society that bad things will get punished appropriately. That's good enough and therefore very acceptable in my books.
Sachin=GOD Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Death penalty is primarily based on deterrence. It sends a message to every one in the society that bad things will get punished appropriately. That's good enough and therefore very acceptable in my books. but the ones who really need to be deterred are the suicide bombers and I guess threatening them with death wont work.
Crookbond Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 but the ones who really need to be deterred are the suicide bombers and I guess threatening them with death wont work. The irony of it all.
Tiger80 Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 but the ones who really need to be deterred are the suicide bombers and I guess threatening them with death wont work. Do you really think that recruiting suicide bombers are easy for Terrorist organisations? Afzal Guru used to believe that kashmiri's are coward as more Kashmiri youth's should become suicide bombers and do vblasts in several parts of India to earn freedom for Kashimir
Mariyam Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Eye for an eye makes the world blind - death penalty is inhumane and a legacy of our history as barbarians. If I extend that line of reasoning, even a society sentencing a person to 5 years hard labour for a robbery or an exaggerated assault is also inhumane. What level of humane punishment can a society mete out on a criminal? Why is making a criminal spend 14 years of his/her in a jail any more humane than snuffing the life out of the same criminal? These are matters of perspective. In a society like ours, the role of the legal system is not just reform but also deterrence. Unlike societies certain countries- Japan, or Western Europe or even some of the countries of the Levant, where conviction rates are very high, we have abysmally low conviction rates. A serial killer in Japan ( if there is such a thing) knows for sure that it is not a matter of if but when. He knows that he will be caught and sooner rather than later, convicted for his crimes. I remember reading that Japan has a conviction rate of 95% for serious crime and 90% for petty crime. All this in a 3 year window. Our conviction rates, for murder, are 38.5%. http://ncrb.nic.in/CD-CII2011/cii-2011/Table%204.12.pdf And these are figures that our government publishes.Obviously exaggerated, and obviously do not include the multitude of cases that the police refuse to lodge. In India the chances that the criminal is caught is low, and that he is successfully convicted even lower. Absent the fear of the death penalty, and any criminal would fancy his chances of getting away scot-free from a crime, even a major one. Death penalty, however rare it maybe, can induce that fear. In our circumstances, we shouldn't do away with the death penalty till we have serious judicial reforms and are able to get a much higher rate of conviction. Also, our general policing has to improve. Indian police are very bad with evidence. There have been many cases ( far too many to list) where the prosecution hasn't been able to get conviction just because of very shoddy evidence gathering by the police in the immediate aftermath of a crime. After sufficient levels of reform, when conviction rates are higher, and convictions are faster, we can do away with the death penalty. As the fear of punishment ( albeit lighter) will still act as a deterrent.
Mariyam Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Dont like death penalty. Would rather have life sentences and prison work gangs. That way we get to make these criminals put something back in society. Such gulag-esque punishment, one can argue is beneficial in fringe cases- like construction of border roads, or mining in dangerous locations etc and other such examples that you've mention. However, there is no semblance of justice in such punishments. Its just a concentration camp lite, minus the extermination. Such are the methods of oppressive regimes. The Nazis, the Soviets, the French in Algeria etc. They don't fit with our ethos,
someone Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 but the ones who really need to be deterred are the suicide bombers and I guess threatening them with death wont work. Firstly, there are a lot more types of criminals. Then, as mentioned death sentence primarily can act as a deterrent policy. That's extremely crucial at India. So for example, there are many poor people who are recruited in India to do violent stuffs. They also believe that their crimes will only come with free food/accommodation at Jail (life-imprisonment). Thus, death sentence is important to act as a measure to prevent new + old criminals from acting. It's all about the consequences. If the consequences are little, anyone can act violent. Thus consequences should be severe for extreme violent crimes. With these consequences. everybody will think twice before acting.
Muloghonto Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Such gulag-esque punishment, one can argue is beneficial in fringe cases- like construction of border roads, or mining in dangerous locations etc and other such examples that you've mention. However, there is no semblance of justice in such punishments. Its just a concentration camp lite, minus the extermination. Such are the methods of oppressive regimes. The Nazis, the Soviets, the French in Algeria etc. They don't fit with our ethos, Tell me, what part of our ethos are in direct clash with making prisoners work for a meagre salary (say Rs 50/day) ? As per these 'work gangs' being a part of opressive regimes, you may be surprised to find out that the Canadian Pacific railway was built by prisoner labor, so was the railway in US and until 1920s,it was common for prisoner work gangs to go pick cotton in the South. You may also be interested to find out that the death of prison work gangs was not due to any humanitarian rights concern, but from intense pressure from Union lobby groups who saw it as an opportunity to score thousands of menial jobs at overinflated rates from the government. I am yet to see a good argument on what the hell is wrong in giving prisoners work at 10% the market wages. It covers the cost of housing them (thus taking away a major argument towards the death penalty, namely, the taxpayer cost to support them) and it gives them some incentive ( as in, if you do this for the rest of the 15 year sentence, you will leave jail with 30,000-40,000 rupees, which is a start for getting started up again).
Muloghonto Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Most normal victims would be fine with death for the accused. Depends what is your definition of normal. In 'normal case' in Arabia, the victim is fine so long as you rip out the eye of the accused as well. In 'normal case' Canada, the victim would be fine so long as the culprit is put away from society. If you wish to sell me the idea that simply because the victim wants the guy dead is a good reason to kill him/her, then i am not buying, sorry. It is not the responsibility of the criminal justice system to massage your hurt sentiments. You are trying to make it their responsibility, when infact, it is not.
Muloghonto Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 What nonsense! Why shouldn't such details be made public? Why should such acts be swept under the carpet? What should they have told the mother....they treated her kindly and sang lullaby to her! The pain of losing a child may not go but it will definitely be better than watching those bastards alive and enjoying the govt hospitality! 1. Most criminal cases have the gory details of the crime confined to the courtroom. It is not normal practice to describe the gory details of the crime to the near and dear, unless they specifically request so. 2. There are plenty of parents who have lost their children to criminal activities who have no desire to exact vengance, just an overwhelming sense of loss and wishes for the perpetrator to be put away. I suggest that you find some of them and commiserate. 3. Details of a criminal proceedings should not be made public, period. This is because once a case comes into media spotlight, we have a million-and-one idiot baying for blood with zero understanding of the legal process, which in turn, exerts an undue influence over the judge/jury judging the case. As such, it is interference with the justice system. One major reason why OJ Simpson got away with murder is because the case was sensationalized in media and in this case, the perpetrator happened to be a young and famous guy with an upstanding record (so far) and the media/public were pre-judging the case. 4. A criminal case should be kept confidential, also because it protects the rights of the accused. The pertinent difference here, is between an accused and a perpetrator. Not all accused are actually guilty, therefore, by publicizing the case, one is doing irreperable harm to the innocent accused who later gets aquitted: he may be fine in the eyes of the law but due to media, his social outlook is completely wrecked. That, by definition, is injustice.
CSK Fan Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Death penalty is primarily based on deterrence. It sends a message to every one in the society that bad things will get punished appropriately. That's good enough and therefore very acceptable in my books. Doesnt work. there is zero evidence that death penalty has ever had a deterrant on crime. Criminals ( and even most normal people) have no concept of long term consequences of crime. When they commit a crime, they do not think of the penalty but they do think of immediate consequences (like getting caught and getting successdully convicted). So the day these two parts (i.e police registering cases on time and catching criminals + our courts having a very high conviction rate) falls in place, crimes will automatically fall. A death penalty which takes 30 years in coming and 20 more years to get implemented is no detterant to anyone. If criminals had the capabilty of considering long term consequences, they wouldnt be criminals in the first place
Crookbond Posted April 23, 2013 Posted April 23, 2013 Doesnt work. there is zero evidence that death penalty has ever had a deterrant on crime. Criminals ( and even most normal people) have no concept of long term consequences of crime. When they commit a crime' date= they do not think of the penalty but they do think of immediate consequences (like getting caught and getting successdully convicted). So the day these two parts (i.e police registering cases on time and catching criminals + our courts having a very high conviction rate) falls in place, crimes will automatically fall. A death penalty which takes 30 years in coming and 20 more years to get implemented is no detterant to anyone. If criminals had the capabilty of considering long term consequences, they wouldnt be criminals in the first place Couldn't agree more.
someone Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 Doesnt work. there is zero evidence that death penalty has ever had a deterrant on crime. Criminals ( and even most normal people) have no concept of long term consequences of crime. When they commit a crime' date=' they do not think of the penalty but they do think of immediate consequences (like getting caught and getting successdully convicted). So the day these two parts (i.e police registering cases on time and catching criminals + our courts having a very high conviction rate) falls in place, crimes will automatically fall. A death penalty which takes 30 years in coming and 20 more years to get implemented is no detterant to anyone. If criminals had the capabilty of considering long term consequences, they wouldnt be criminals in the first place[/quote'] I don't agree with that. The Consequences plays a key role in stopping normal citizens from doing crimes. These normal citizens very well understand the consequences and thus do not attempt any crimes. If you remove death sentence from one of the consequences, many will then believe that their worst crimes will only mean free care for their rest of lives. Free care in the sense of food and place to say. Every nation needs to have a strong not soft image of themselves and India do need to take certain tough decisions. It's irrelevant that you believe that is inhuman. Although, I do agree with you that the lag needs to be reduced. The lag in catching to conviction and taking about the decision needs to implemented better. But it's still important to have a decision of death penalty.
Muloghonto Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 I don't agree with that. The Consequences plays a key role in stopping normal citizens from doing crimes. These normal citizens very well understand the consequences and thus do not attempt any crimes. If you remove death sentence from one of the consequences' date= many will then believe that their worst crimes will only mean free care for their rest of lives. Free care in the sense of food and place to say. Every nation needs to have a strong not soft image of themselves and India do need to take certain tough decisions. It's irrelevant that you believe that is inhuman. Although, I do agree with you that the lag needs to be reduced. The lag in catching to conviction and taking about the decision needs to implemented better. But it's still important to have a decision of death penalty. I will agree with him and say that this is largely a moot point. Simply because, the first and foremost consideration for any crimial or would-be-criminal is 'what are my chances of being caught?'. It doesnt matter how severe the penalty is, if i think i can get away with it and years of prison psychology shows that criminals, especially the serious ones, do it first and foremost under the assumption that they will get away with it. Therefore, it does not matter if its my head or my toe if i am caught. What matters, is if i am gonna be caught or not. As such, it makes more sense for a place like India to improve the response times and efficiency of the justice-police systems rather than make the penalties more severe. A criminal in India is not going to be dettered by the death penalty. What they will be deterred by, is high rates of conviction and fast response times to arrest. It is largely a proven thing in western criminal systems that severity of punishment has little or no relevance to the actual level of deterrence. Criminals do their crimes first and foremost because they are either in a bind and treat it as the better option or they think they can get away with it.
Recommended Posts