KeyboardWarrior Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 Just to clarify' date=' what did you want the thread to discuss specifically ? I am asking because i have to title it appropriately.[/quote'] Existence of God Title should be. a dialogue (only) between SachinLara and Kw.
Raghav_12 Posted April 24, 2013 Author Posted April 24, 2013 If I extend that line of reasoning' date=' 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 [i']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. I would have been fine with death penalty if there was any empirical evidence which would show that death penalty really deters criminals from crime. I haven't seen any. On the other hand comparison of US states with death penalty and without death penalty provides an opposite picture. This comparison is good indicator as all states being part of same country and set up, neutralize other possible factors which should have been taken into ocnsideration in case of comparison between different countries. Please look at the link below. It clearly show that murder rates have consistently been lower in states where there is no death for such crimes. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates I would stop myself from concluding that there is causality and death senntence encourages violent crimes but certainly there is nothing in these numbers to suggest that death penalty works as deterrent. If one has lived in areas of violent crimes, one would know that it would hardly stop criminals from killing somebody. More likely candidates for death penalty would be Terroerists but unfortuantely there are enough of zealots who would go for such crimes knowing fully well the consequences. Historically, Death Penalty has been used to persecute political and ideological rivals and to showcase power of incumbents. If you look at recent executions in India, they have more been carried out to make political statement rather than being absolute process of justice.
Mariyam Posted April 25, 2013 Posted April 25, 2013 I would have been fine with death penalty if there was any empirical evidence which would show that death penalty really deters criminals from crime. I haven't seen any. On the other hand comparison of US states with death penalty and without death penalty provides an opposite picture. This comparison is good indicator as all states being part of same country and set up, neutralize other possible factors which should have been taken into ocnsideration in case of comparison between different countries. Please look at the link below. It clearly show that murder rates have consistently been lower in states where there is no death for such crimes. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates Raghav, I am not too familiar with how it is in the USA. It could be possible that the states having the death penalty are the ones which are not as affluent, which have higher income disparity and hence the propensity to commit violent crime is higher than the states where there is no death penalty. States in Southern USA for eg, may be poorer than those in the North. Historically' date=' Death Penalty has been used to persecute political and ideological rivals and to showcase power of incumbents. If you look at recent executions in India, they have more been carried out to make political statement rather than being absolute process of justice.[/quote'] True. But that is not a reason to abolish the death penalty. Life terms have also been handed out to ideological/secessionists/ rival claimants to power, historically speaking. In the current scenario, if the possibility of the death penalty can induce even a slight moments hesitation and make a criminal rethink his crime ( or the extent of it), I say its morally correct to keep it. If we had a better conviction rate and policing, we wouldn't need to the death penalty as a deterrent. Lets keep it this way ( using it sparingly) till we have our systems in place.
Crookbond Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 Cameron Todd Willingham case I had an opportunity to read upon this case and have deep reservations on the death penalty. TL;DR + Man convicted for murder of three children via arson in 1992 + Convicted by a special team of arsonists, police and state + Sentenced to death for arson + Days before death a premier, credible top-notch arsonist examiner sends a scathing report detailing great flaws in the investigation process; report ignored by the law men + Executed by lethal injection in 2004 + In 2009, nine of US top fire scientists report that the fire was not arson but by accident I also learnt that since 1976, 130+ people on death row have been exonerated (stress on this word) in the US. I am now up to watch the documentary of the case - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1744847/
Brainfade Posted May 20, 2013 Posted May 20, 2013 Cameron Todd Willingham case Check this out: http://www.innocenceproject.org/ With all due respect to Mariyam and the other experts on this thread, this is not and should not be about deterrence, retribution or closure for the family of the victims. This is about the finality of the punishment. Until we can convict with 100% certainty, the ultimate punishment of death must be taken off the table. For all other convictions, right or wrong, there is a theoretical chance of recourse and reversal. With the death penalty, there is not. Here is the case of Gregory Taylor North Carolina Man Freed After 17 Years Posted: February 17, 2010 4:09 pm Greg Taylor walked out of a North Carolina courtroom today a free man for the first time in 17 years after a three-judge panel declared that he had provided clear and convincing of his innocence. Taylor is the first person cleared by through the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission process, which offers an official route to review and exoneration for prisoners who proclaim their innocence. The Innocence Inquiry panel heard evidence in the case last year and recommended it to the three-judge panel, which today ruled that Taylor had been wrongfully convicted in 1993. Taylor was convicted of murdering a prostitute in Raleigh in 1991. Among evidence used to convict him was testimony from a forensic analyst that human blood was found in his truck after the crime. That evidence has since been disproved, revealing troubling practices in the forensic lab conducting the test. Taylor was represented on appeal by Christine Mumma and other lawyers at the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence (a member of the Innocence Network). In his closing argument on Taylor’s behalf today, attorney Joseph Cheshire said freeing the innocent can help build a stronger system. “Out of tragedy and sadness can actually come a better world,” Cheshire said. “Nothing makes our system better than the public acknowledgement that mistakes have been made.” http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/North_Carolina_Man_Freed_After_17_Years.php
PriyankaSR Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 Well, off late I am seeing Indian system's rejuvanated love for Death Penalty.Our president seems to be in hurry to get rid off all inmates awarded death penalties and rejecting mercy pleas dozen at a time. Yesterday, I read bus driver who had mowed over 9 people dead in Pune last year has been given death penalty. Now there is very little doubt that what that guy did was in fit of insanity without anykind of animosity with the people he killed. There is also little doubt, though very unfortunately, that this penalty would act as the deterrent for a person who get into similar fit. World-wide there is definite shift away from death penalty. Many of them made changes in lawbooks to get it stopped while many others stopped carrying out death penaties without declaring it openly. All countries in EU don't practice death penalty and you can't be member of EU if you practice it. Main rationale put forward towards abolishment of death penalty is, there is no prrof that death penalty actually works as deterrent. Rather it devalues human life in society leading to increase in crime of murders. Abolitionists bring example from American states where states those have banned death penalty completely have lesser crime rate than some other states like Texas where death penalties are really rampant. I personally believe other than very-very few cases where keeping a convict alive would lead to greater dangers, death penalty should be done away with. It is not in line with the basic principal of justice which is reformation of human being. It is more like revenge than justice. I agree. NOT on humanitarian grounds (they don't deserve it) but because I believe that anything which exceeds its practicing limit in the system will have less value and will no longer be a deterrent for people. If the death penalty is executed then its not a problem but its a very long drawn process. India has pressure from the UN to completely eradicate this practice. But we shouldn't completely null it. It should be given in rarest of the rare cases.
Sundar88 Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 Death penalty should NEVER be done away with. The only punishment worth giving a murderer is death, a life lost can never be replaced no matter what. Anything less than a death penalty would be injustice in my eyes, I don't care if he becomes the nicest person in the world years later, it doesn't change the fact that he denied another person the opportunity to live. There are also some extreme cases such as the infamous Delhi gang rape of last year where the victim wasn't killed but she was left in a state so horrible that I believe the perpetrators should be given the death penalty(she also died a few days later so it might as well be considered murder). In my opinion all murderers should be given the death penalty unless the person they murdered was a terrorist or something and in addition to that the death penalty should also be given to other extreme crimes like the Delhi rape, what qualifies as extreme should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Those who claim death penalty is just revenge and not justice are ignorant, there are different types of justice and retributive justice is one of them. Ideally Retribution, Deterrence and Reformation should all be accomplished but retribution should always take precedence because the offender has caused discomfort to the victim and as a result the satisfaction of the victim is of paramount importance, deterrence comes next to prevent such things from happening again and then comes reformation where you try to fix him up. It is arguable whether retribution should take precedence over deterrence, perhaps they should both have equal precedence but in any case, retribution should always have higher precedence over reformation because the victim's well being is more important than the criminal's. In cases where the death penalty is warranted the crime and loss are so severe that there is no room for reformation because the retribution is also severe. For example if you have a problem in your car and you find out a certain part is causing the problem, the first thing you do is replace that faulty part and make sure you get the car working (retribution), the next thing you do is try and make sure this doesn't happen again (deterrence) by perhaps purchasing the best quality replacement part and lastly, you may decide to repair that faulty part (reformation)to use it in the future but if the damage it caused was severe you would be more inclined to get rid of it rather than risk another similar incident.
Muloghonto Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 Death penalty should NEVER be done away with. The only punishment worth giving a murderer is death' date=' a life lost can never be replaced no matter what. Anything less than a death penalty would be injustice in my eyes, I don't care if he becomes the nicest person in the world years later, it doesn't change the fact that he denied another person the opportunity to live. There are also some extreme cases such as the infamous Delhi gang rape of last year where the victim wasn't killed but she was left in a state so horrible that I believe the perpetrators should be given the death penalty(she also died a few days later so it might as well be considered murder).[b'] In my opinion all murderers should be given the death penalty unless the person they murdered was a terrorist or something and in addition to that the death penalty should also be given to other extreme crimes like the Delhi rape, what qualifies as extreme should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Those who claim death penalty is just revenge and not justice are ignorant, there are different types of justice and retributive justice is one of them. Ideally Retribution, Deterrence and Reformation should all be accomplished but retribution should always take precedence because the offender has caused discomfort to the victim and as a result the satisfaction of the victim is of paramount importance, deterrence comes next to prevent such things from happening again and then comes reformation where you try to fix him up. It is arguable whether retribution should take precedence over deterrence, perhaps they should both have equal precedence but in any case, retribution should always have higher precedence over reformation because the victim's well being is more important than the criminal's. In cases where the death penalty is warranted the crime and loss are so severe that there is no room for reformation because the retribution is also severe. For example if you have a problem in your car and you find out a certain part is causing the problem, the first thing you do is replace that faulty part and make sure you get the car working (retribution), the next thing you do is try and make sure this doesn't happen again (deterrence) by perhaps purchasing the best quality replacement part and lastly, you may decide to repair that faulty part (reformation)to use it in the future but if the damage it caused was severe you would be more inclined to get rid of it rather than risk another similar incident. Sorry but this is horseshyte. 1. Death penalty for all murderers & rapists = a kangaroo court justice system, not a legit one because EVERY SINGLE justice system is less than 100% correct. You cannot subscribe death penalty because in many cases, if not most of them, the conviction is based on reasonable doubt in the perpetrator's story, not 100% categoric demonstration of guilt. Therefore, death penalty for all murderers & rapists = by law of averags, innocents will die due to unfair convictions and frame jobs. Unacceptable. 2. Retribution is irrelevant. Completely, utterly and totally irrelevant. The justice system is not based on retributive principles and the justice system owes the victim NOTHING more than the right to a fair trial. The justice system's first and foremost concern is consistency in verdicts, wich is why precedents matter so much. Since 'retribution' is a nebulous concept, it has no place in a justice system. Someone may consider it 'retribution enough' to lock the guy up in jail, someone may want him dead as 'retribution' and certain sharia-thumping muslims will cite the examples of blood money owed by members of the perpetrator's family. The justice system cannot and will not entertain your notions of retribution because that leads to inconsistent terms delivered for the same crime,due to the personal differences people have in what they consider retribution. Therefore, retributive justice is fundamental miscarriage fo justice, becaues no two identical crimes will carry the exactly same penalty and therefore is wrong towards the perpetrator.
Sundar88 Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 Sorry but this is horseshyte. 1. Death penalty for all murderers & rapists = a kangaroo court justice system, not a legit one because EVERY SINGLE justice system is less than 100% correct. You cannot subscribe death penalty because in many cases, if not most of them, the conviction is based on reasonable doubt in the perpetrator's story, not 100% categoric demonstration of guilt. Therefore, death penalty for all murderers & rapists = by law of averags, innocents will die due to unfair convictions and frame jobs. Unacceptable. 2. Retribution is irrelevant. Completely, utterly and totally irrelevant. The justice system is not based on retributive principles and the justice system owes the victim NOTHING more than the right to a fair trial. The justice system's first and foremost concern is consistency in verdicts, wich is why precedents matter so much. Since 'retribution' is a nebulous concept, it has no place in a justice system. Someone may consider it 'retribution enough' to lock the guy up in jail, someone may want him dead as 'retribution' and certain sharia-thumping muslims will cite the examples of blood money owed by members of the perpetrator's family. The justice system cannot and will not entertain your notions of retribution because that leads to inconsistent terms delivered for the same crime,due to the personal differences people have in what they consider retribution. Therefore, retributive justice is fundamental miscarriage fo justice, because no two identical crimes will carry the exactly same penalty and therefore is wrong towards the perpetrator. 1. I never advocated death penalty for rapists. If they really do convict people based merely on an amount of doubt in the perpetrator's story then that must change too. You can't just brand someone a murderer unless you're convinced. There has to be something more to back it up, giving ANY kind of punishment to a person who you aren't sure is guilty is wrong regardless of what the punishment is which is why any accused is considered innocent until proven guilty, which only happens if they actually find some evidence to justify the claim that he's guilty. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect and occasionally innocents do end up at the wrong place at the wrong time but similarly a lot of criminals get away Scot free as well. In fact I bet the latter happens more frequently, at least in India. The job of law enforcement officials and the judiciary is to try and minimize these anomalies as much as possible but at the end of the day they're only human. Still, the vast majority of murderers who are in jail for murder really did commit murder, if not then there's something else that needs addressing. Also just so you know my aunt was murdered about 6 years ago in her Chennai home by her driver who slit her throat with her knife in her kitchen after she refused to give him some money and despite establishing conclusively that he did kill her they only gave him about 10 years in prison because apparently in India it is only murder if you plan it beforehand and not if you just do it spontaneously. Considering this is India's definition of murder there's no reason to not punish all murderers with death given how it wasn't just a sudden outburst but well calculated. What you're saying is no different from saying air travel must be banned because occasionally planes crash or are hijacked and people die. 2. Retribution is very much relevant. If the victims aren't convinced that their offender has paid a price proportional to those of his actions they're going to feel cheated and lose trust in the law and could possibly start breaking it themselves. Of course I'm not advocating a justice system where the victim gets to tell the court exactly how they would like the perpetrator to be punished. You are confusing retribution with revenge/vengeance, there are differences between the two. Punishment should be proportional to the offense that was committed, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that death is too harsh a punishment for stealing an ipod. The victim doesn't need to have a direct say in what punishment should be given, there will obviously be laws in place to ensure consistency.
Muloghonto Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 1. I never advocated death penalty for rapists. If they really do convict people based merely on an amount of doubt in the perpetrator's story then that must change too. You can't just brand someone a murderer unless you're convinced. There has to be something more to back it up' date= giving ANY kind of punishment to a person who you aren't sure is guilty is wrong regardless of what the punishment is which is why any accused is considered innocent until proven guilty, which only happens if they actually find some evidence to justify the claim that he's guilty. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect and occasionally innocents do end up at the wrong place at the wrong time but similarly a lot of criminals get away Scot free as well. In fact I bet the latter happens more frequently, at least in India. The job of law enforcement officials and the judiciary is to try and minimize these anomalies as much as possible but at the end of the day they're only human. Still, the vast majority of murderers who are in jail for murder really did commit murder, if not then there's something else that needs addressing. Also just so you know my aunt was murdered about 6 years ago in her Chennai home by her driver who slit her throat with her knife in her kitchen after she refused to give him some money and despite establishing conclusively that he did kill her they only gave him about 10 years in prison because apparently in India it is only murder if you plan it beforehand and not if you just do it spontaneously. Considering this is India's definition of murder there's no reason to not punish all murderers with death given how it wasn't just a sudden outburst but well calculated. What you're saying is no different from saying air travel must be banned because occasionally planes crash or are hijacked and people die. For your bolded parts: 1. I dont think then, you realize how law actually works. Most murder convictions are done on the basis of 'no reasonable doubt in the accused guilt'. Note the word 'reasonable' in there and you can find out easily that in most countries, that is the letter of the law. Ie, you must prove, without causing reasonable doubt that guilt exists. Reasonable doubt and theoretical doubt are two different things: For eg, even if you have a murder weapon and presence of accused fixed to the crime spot by eyewitness testimony, there is a level of 'theoretical doubt' that this could be a frame job. Ie,even with prints on the weapon, there exists a possibility that the crime was committed by the eyewitness, not the accused, wearing gloves and then he thrust the knife into the hand of the accused and forced him to hold it, thus causing prints... Ofcourse, this 'theoretical doubt', despite existing, does not meet the criteria of 'presenting reasonable doubt' and thus, guilty motion carries. This is how over 50% of the murder cases are solved. This is also the reason why legally the battle for death penalty is a lost one and most legal systems that enshrines fundamental personal rights will remove death penalty: because death penalty presupposes the justice system to be perfect and thus, false convictions will never happen. Otherwise, innocents are going to the gallows, plain and simple. 2. I dont know where the level of legal discourse is in India but both American and Canadian law make it abudantly clear that a system which fails to bring 100% criminals to justice but leads to 0% innocents being found guilty ( or approaches 0% as close to possible) is a preferrable one over one which has higher conviction rates for both criminals and innocents. This is a complex derivation of fundamental rights as extrapolated from the Declaration of Human Rights and its signatories. 3. Calculated motive does not make it completely foolproof to points #1 and thus bringing the force of point #2 to bear. There can be calculated motive and still theoretical doubt, which leads to the reality that due to fundamental imperfection of the system, in theory, there will be atleast a few innocents found guilty owing to an epic case of 'bad judgement + being at the wrong place at the wrong time'. This being a fundamental reality to the system, it behooves us to take death penalty off the table for all but the most explicit case of guilt.(eg: categoric footage of the crime and enough resolution in the image for anyone with greater than 10/20 vision will correctly identify the players in the footage) This is so because as long as one is alive, there exists the possibility of the case being re-opened and an erroneous decision overturned. 4. Regarding the airplane analogy, you have it wrong. Think of it this way: the airlines will always opt for safety of its passengers over extra profit due to tight FAA regulations. 2. Retribution is very much relevant. If the victims aren't convinced that their offender has paid a price proportional to those of his actions they're going to feel cheated and lose trust in the law and could possibly start breaking it themselves. Of course I'm not advocating a justice system where the victim gets to tell the court exactly how they would like the perpetrator to be punished. You are confusing retribution with revenge/vengeance, there are differences between the two. Punishment should be proportional to the offense that was committed, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that death is too harsh a punishment for stealing an ipod. The victim doesn't need to have a direct say in what punishment should be given, there will obviously be laws in place to ensure consistency. 1. Vigilantism and anarchial response is never an argument towards acquesment of the law. If the victim feels necessary to break the law, then the victim will be prosecuted, no if and or buts, since our social contract with the government explicitly states that citizens will pay the pre-prescribed penalty for breaking the laws passed by the government. 2. Retribution, revenge and vengeance are all the same word. I think the word you were thinking of is punitive. If the victim has no say in the matter, then it is not retribution, revenge or vengeance. A pre-defined set of consequences, by definition, cannot be retributive.
CSK Fan Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 ^^^ But in most countries even with stringent measures several innocents have been found to be executed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution http://listverse.com/2013/04/09/10-innocent-people-sentenced-to-death/ http://listverse.com/2010/01/12/10-convicts-presumed-innocent-after-execution/
Muloghonto Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 ^^^ But in most countries even with stringent measures several innocents have been found to be executed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution http://listverse.com/2013/04/09/10-innocent-people-sentenced-to-death/ http://listverse.com/2010/01/12/10-convicts-presumed-innocent-after-execution/ Yep, which is why in many countries, death penalty has been abolished. Canada, UK, etc. have abolished death penalty for this same reason.
Sundar88 Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 For your bolded parts: 1. I dont think then, you realize how law actually works. Most murder convictions are done on the basis of 'no reasonable doubt in the accused guilt'. Note the word 'reasonable' in there and you can find out easily that in most countries, that is the letter of the law. Ie, you must prove, without causing reasonable doubt that guilt exists. Reasonable doubt and theoretical doubt are two different things: For eg, even if you have a murder weapon and presence of accused fixed to the crime spot by eyewitness testimony, there is a level of 'theoretical doubt' that this could be a frame job. Ie,even with prints on the weapon, there exists a possibility that the crime was committed by the eyewitness, not the accused, wearing gloves and then he thrust the knife into the hand of the accused and forced him to hold it, thus causing prints... Ofcourse, this 'theoretical doubt', despite existing, does not meet the criteria of 'presenting reasonable doubt' and thus, guilty motion carries. This is how over 50% of the murder cases are solved. This is also the reason why legally the battle for death penalty is a lost one and most legal systems that enshrines fundamental personal rights will remove death penalty: because death penalty presupposes the justice system to be perfect and thus, false convictions will never happen. Otherwise, innocents are going to the gallows, plain and simple. 2. I dont know where the level of legal discourse is in India but both American and Canadian law make it abudantly clear that a system which fails to bring 100% criminals to justice but leads to 0% innocents being found guilty ( or approaches 0% as close to possible) is a preferrable one over one which has higher conviction rates for both criminals and innocents. This is a complex derivation of fundamental rights as extrapolated from the Declaration of Human Rights and its signatories. 3. Calculated motive does not make it completely foolproof to points #1 and thus bringing the force of point #2 to bear. There can be calculated motive and still theoretical doubt, which leads to the reality that due to fundamental imperfection of the system, in theory, there will be atleast a few innocents found guilty owing to an epic case of 'bad judgement + being at the wrong place at the wrong time'. This being a fundamental reality to the system, it behooves us to take death penalty off the table for all but the most explicit case of guilt.(eg: categoric footage of the crime and enough resolution in the image for anyone with greater than 10/20 vision will correctly identify the players in the footage) This is so because as long as one is alive, there exists the possibility of the case being re-opened and an erroneous decision overturned. 4. Regarding the airplane analogy, you have it wrong. Think of it this way: the airlines will always opt for safety of its passengers over extra profit due to tight FAA regulations. 1. Vigilantism and anarchial response is never an argument towards acquesment of the law. If the victim feels necessary to break the law, then the victim will be prosecuted, no if and or buts, since our social contract with the government explicitly states that citizens will pay the pre-prescribed penalty for breaking the laws passed by the government. 2. Retribution, revenge and vengeance are all the same word. I think the word you were thinking of is punitive. If the victim has no say in the matter, then it is not retribution, revenge or vengeance. A pre-defined set of consequences, by definition, cannot be retributive. 1. I still don't buy this argument that just because there is always the risk of an innocent being killed the death penalty should either be used very sparingly or should be done away with altogether. We might as well do away with EVERY single kind of punishment then because there is always the risk of an innocent being framed. It is impossible to state with 100% certainty whether someone committed a crime or not because the judge/lawyers/jury never actually witnessed the crime themselves, all they have to work with is evidence and indeed it is possible for culprits to cleverly frame someone for their crimes but it's the job of the investigators to gather evidence and improve their standards of gathering and analyzing evidence to increase their success rates. Perhaps the punishment could be toned down in cases where it has not been clearly established whether they actually committed the murder, in which case it could potentially be wrong to give them any punishment at all but at least it serves as a deterrent. All things said and done the kind of cases I'm advocating death for are those where EVERYONE involved clearly knows that the accused committed the murder such as in the case of my aunt who I mentioned earlier and the infamous Delhi rape case(which was a murder in my eyes considering how the victim was left in a state where she was virtually dead), in such cases it has been established beyond doubt that the perpetrators did clearly commit murder. 2. American and Canadian laws are irrelevant to me. No justice system is perfect, while some are better than others they all have their flaws. Few months ago in America an Indian man was shoved onto rail tracks by an American woman and was crushed to death by a train because she hated Muslims and Hindus. I don't remember what punishment she was given but I'm pretty sure she wasn't sentenced to death and that in my eyes is injustice no matter how you justify it. She may have been ignorant, xenophobic or whatever but at the end of the day she killed an innocent man and regardless of whether she reforms or not the loss she caused him and his family/friends cannot be repaired. The same goes for the Norwegian guy who was paranoid about Muslims few years ago. 3. You claim the reason why death penalty should be avoided is because it closes the possibility of reopening a case if there is evidence to show that someone who is already serving their sentence is not guilty which is fair enough but this is the same line of reasoning that leads me to believe murder warrants a death penalty in the first place. Like you said the loss of a life is irreversible, in a rape case for example the victim has a chance to get over the horror and the offender is able to make amends for what they've done but in the case of murder the victim is denied this opportunity and there is no way for the offender to give something back to the victim for their loss. The difference is that you are worried about the minority who may be wrongly killed whereas I'm worried about the deserving majority who may be wrongly allowed to not pay the right price for their action . Like I said I'm open to the possibility of toning down the level of punishment in cases where there is a reasonable level of doubt but once it has been clearly established that a person is a murderer there is no reason to not punish them with death. 4. My analogy is perfectly valid. What you are saying is from the perspective of an airline company. What I am saying is from the perspective of a passenger. We all know there is always the risk of an airplane crashing or being hijacked but we don't avoid air travel altogether because of it because we know that the vast majority of flights are safe. Similarly we shouldn't avoid the death penalty just because there is a small chance of an innocent being sentenced wrongly because in the vast majority of cases the culprits are rightly convicted. Also just like you mentioned how airplane companies continue to improve their standards of safety law enforcement organizations also improve their standards of investigation to increase their success rates. 1. Punishment should always be proportional to the severity of the offense committed otherwise victims are going to feel like they've been given the short end of the stick which might lead to them taking the law in their own hands or losing their trust in the law and perhaps even emotional trauma for the rest of their lives. For example if a very close relative of mine is murdered and it is established that the accused did murder them and they are given a life sentence I probably will not take the law in my own hands and try to kill them but the fact that the perpetrator who killed my loved one still lives and has the chance to live out the rest of his life whereas my deceased loved one doesn't would haunt me for the rest of my life. This is why I believe death is the only punishment proportional to murder. 2. Retribution and revenge/vengeance are not the same word. They may have the same meaning in common English usage like the words theory and hypothesis do in common usage whereas in science they don't. The article on Retributive Justice on wikipedia claims "Retribution should be distinguished from vengeance. Unlike revenge, retribution is directed only at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others, and employs procedural standards." It's not exactly an eye for an eye as many believe, the victim doesn't take the law into his own hands and kill the offender, it just ensures that the punishment given is proportional to that of the offense. What punishment is proportional for a particular crime is a matter of debate and I've already explained why death is the only punishment proportional to murder in my opinion just like I believe chemical castration would be a fitting punishment for a rapist.
Brainfade Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 @^^ While your points are well-stated, here is my main objection: With all other punishments - imprisonment, fines etc. - you have a finite chance at reversal and redemption. With death, you lose that. And in a society that operates on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the deliberate, avoidable killing of even one innocent crosses the line into uncivilized society.
Sundar88 Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 @^^ While your points are well-stated, here is my main objection: With all other punishments - imprisonment, fines etc. - you have a finite chance at reversal and redemption. With death, you lose that. And in a society that operates on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the deliberate, avoidable killing of even one innocent crosses the line into uncivilized society. Such a society wouldn't qualify as uncivilized in my eyes. These definitions are not set in stone, there were times when slavery was considered legal and civil by the standards of the days in which it was practised whereas now it isn't. Also what about a person who had been jailed for an extremely long period of time say 20 years and was then released when it was made clear that he wasn't guilty? If he was a 20 year old for instance when he was jailed he would have spent nearly all of his prime years in prison. That cannot be reversed now can it? I'm sure there are such cases all over the world but do we start calling countries uncivilized when this happens? I may be wrong here but I've heard that chemical castration is practised in at least some European countries where death penalty isn't implemented, as far as I know chemical castration does have some permanent effects on the human body so if the reason why EU countries don't implement the death penalty is that it is irreversible don't you reckon they're being inconsistent? On the other hand a society that allows murderers to not pay the only price worth paying is unjust in my eyes. It annoys me how the guy who killed my aunt in such a gruesome manner will be out in about 3 years from now and be able to live out the rest of his life.
Muloghonto Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 1. I still don't buy this argument that just because there is always the risk of an innocent being killed the death penalty should either be used very sparingly or should be done away with altogether. We might as well do away with EVERY single kind of punishment then because there is always the risk of an innocent being framed. It is impossible to state with 100% certainty whether someone committed a crime or not because the judge/lawyers/jury never actually witnessed the crime themselves' date= all they have to work with is evidence and indeed it is possible for culprits to cleverly frame someone for their crimes but it's the job of the investigators to gather evidence and improve their standards of gathering and analyzing evidence to increase their success rates. Perhaps the punishment could be toned down in cases where it has not been clearly established whether they actually committed the murder, in which case it could potentially be wrong to give them any punishment at all but at least it serves as a deterrent. All things said and done the kind of cases I'm advocating death for are those where EVERYONE involved clearly knows that the accused committed the murder such as in the case of my aunt who I mentioned earlier and the infamous Delhi rape case(which was a murder in my eyes considering how the victim was left in a state where she was virtually dead), in such cases it has been established beyond doubt that the perpetrators did clearly commit murder. 2. American and Canadian laws are irrelevant to me. No justice system is perfect, while some are better than others they all have their flaws. Few months ago in America an Indian man was shoved onto rail tracks by an American woman and was crushed to death by a train because she hated Muslims and Hindus. I don't remember what punishment she was given but I'm pretty sure she wasn't sentenced to death and that in my eyes is injustice no matter how you justify it. She may have been ignorant, xenophobic or whatever but at the end of the day she killed an innocent man and regardless of whether she reforms or not the loss she caused him and his family/friends cannot be repaired. The same goes for the Norwegian guy who was paranoid about Muslims few years ago. 3. You claim the reason why death penalty should be avoided is because it closes the possibility of reopening a case if there is evidence to show that someone who is already serving their sentence is not guilty which is fair enough but this is the same line of reasoning that leads me to believe murder warrants a death penalty in the first place. Like you said the loss of a life is irreversible, in a rape case for example the victim has a chance to get over the horror and the offender is able to make amends for what they've done but in the case of murder the victim is denied this opportunity and there is no way for the offender to give something back to the victim for their loss. The difference is that you are worried about the minority who may be wrongly killed whereas I'm worried about the deserving majority who may be wrongly allowed to not pay the right price for their action . Like I said I'm open to the possibility of toning down the level of punishment in cases where there is a reasonable level of doubt but once it has been clearly established that a person is a murderer there is no reason to not punish them with death. 4. My analogy is perfectly valid. What you are saying is from the perspective of an airline company. What I am saying is from the perspective of a passenger. We all know there is always the risk of an airplane crashing or being hijacked but we don't avoid air travel altogether because of it because we know that the vast majority of flights are safe. Similarly we shouldn't avoid the death penalty just because there is a small chance of an innocent being sentenced wrongly because in the vast majority of cases the culprits are rightly convicted. Also just like you mentioned how airplane companies continue to improve their standards of safety law enforcement organizations also improve their standards of investigation to increase their success rates. 1. Punishment should always be proportional to the severity of the offense committed otherwise victims are going to feel like they've been given the short end of the stick which might lead to them taking the law in their own hands or losing their trust in the law and perhaps even emotional trauma for the rest of their lives. For example if a very close relative of mine is murdered and it is established that the accused did murder them and they are given a life sentence I probably will not take the law in my own hands and try to kill them but the fact that the perpetrator who killed my loved one still loves and has the chance to live out the rest of his life whereas my deceased loved one doesn't would haunt me for the rest of my life. This is why I believe death is the only punishment proportional to murder. 2. Retribution and revenge/vengeance are not the same word. They may have the same meaning in common English usage like the words theory and hypothesis do in common usage whereas in science they don't. The article on Retributive Justice on wikipedia claims "Retribution should be distinguished from vengeance. Unlike revenge, retribution is directed only at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others, and employs procedural standards." It's not exactly an eye for an eye as many believe, the victim doesn't take the law into his own hands and kill the offender, it just ensures that the punishment given is proportional to that of the offense. What punishment is proportional for a particular crime is a matter of debate and I've already explained why death is the only punishment proportional to murder in my opinion just like I believe chemical castration would be a fitting punishment for a rapist. 1. Every other punishment has a chance of being reversed in retrospect. Death penalty cannot be reversed, which is why it should be done away with. 2. The 'clearly known' case, in legal parlayance, is something akin to having live, multiple and conclusive video footage from a secured source. Barring that, every other form of evidence has 'theoretical doubt' involved. 3. Death for death is not justice, it is simple 'eye for an eye' mentality. Society has an obligation to use all its members efficiently and if the said murderer is reformed, he/she represents far greater value to society alive than dead. As such, i dont believe in throwing away human capital just to satisfy 'eye for an eye' mentality. 4. Every legal system has a far bigger obligation to NOT find an innocent guilty than punishing the guilty party. Period. You wont succeed arguing otherwise because in every legal system i know of, including India, there are volumes upon volumes of depositions and motions that categorically prove to the highest judicial authorities that signatories of Declaration of Human Rights have a greater obligation towards exonerating the innocent than finding the guilty party guilty. As i said, this is a complex issue so if you dont want to take my word for it, fine- just do your own research to find out why the Indian justice system prioritizes exonerating innocent party over finding the guilty party guilty. To have a justice system that does not cater to this is an actual violation of the Declaration of Human Rights which India is a signatory to. 5. Your airline analogy does not fly (pardon the pun). In the airline scenario, the customers are willing risk takers to the inifinitely small risk of a plane crash. In the legal system, the accused is not a willing party towards prioritizing guilty motion over not guilty motion, therefore you cannot hold it in same regard. 6. I dont care how the individual victim feels. As i pointed out earlier, unless we let the victims deciede on the punishment, not all victims will be satisfied by a pre-ordained penalty for a crime. So satisfying the victim is pointless argument if we wish to uphold consistency in terms handed out. Besides, as i said, if the victim feels compelled to take the law in his/her own hand and break the social contract, the scenario is easily dealt with by prosecuting the culprit (former victim) and taking punitive measures against him/her. 7. I wouldnt go by wikipedia when it comes to technical terms. The term you are looking for is punitive, not retributive.
Sundar88 Posted May 25, 2013 Posted May 25, 2013 1. Every other punishment has a chance of being reversed in retrospect. Death penalty cannot be reversed, which is why it should be done away with. 2. The 'clearly known' case, in legal parlayance, is something akin to having live, multiple and conclusive video footage from a secured source. Barring that, every other form of evidence has 'theoretical doubt' involved. 3. Death for death is not justice, it is simple 'eye for an eye' mentality. Society has an obligation to use all its members efficiently and if the said murderer is reformed, he/she represents far greater value to society alive than dead. As such, i dont believe in throwing away human capital just to satisfy 'eye for an eye' mentality. 4. Every legal system has a far bigger obligation to NOT find an innocent guilty than punishing the guilty party. Period. You wont succeed arguing otherwise because in every legal system i know of, including India, there are volumes upon volumes of depositions and motions that categorically prove to the highest judicial authorities that signatories of Declaration of Human Rights have a greater obligation towards exonerating the innocent than finding the guilty party guilty. As i said, this is a complex issue so if you dont want to take my word for it, fine- just do your own research to find out why the Indian justice system prioritizes exonerating innocent party over finding the guilty party guilty. To have a justice system that does not cater to this is an actual violation of the Declaration of Human Rights which India is a signatory to. 5. Your airline analogy does not fly (pardon the pun). In the airline scenario, the customers are willing risk takers to the inifinitely small risk of a plane crash. In the legal system, the accused is not a willing party towards prioritizing guilty motion over not guilty motion, therefore you cannot hold it in same regard. 6. I dont care how the individual victim feels. As i pointed out earlier, unless we let the victims deciede on the punishment, not all victims will be satisfied by a pre-ordained penalty for a crime. So satisfying the victim is pointless argument if we wish to uphold consistency in terms handed out. Besides, as i said, if the victim feels compelled to take the law in his/her own hand and break the social contract, the scenario is easily dealt with by prosecuting the culprit (former victim) and taking punitive measures against him/her. 7. I wouldnt go by wikipedia when it comes to technical terms. The term you are looking for is punitive, not retributive. 1. If a person spends x number of years in prison before a decision is reversed he still isn't going to be able to get back those years he lost so if that's your line of reasoning no one should ever be punished since there's always the chance that they didn't commit the crime. 2. If every case required something as conclusive as a video footage in order to establish that the accused committed the crime then hardly anyone would ever be convicted for anything. Even if footage is available there is a chance that the video has been doctored cleverly to frame said person. Strictly speaking in 99% of criminal cases it is impossible for anybody other than the victim and eyewitnesses(who could all be framing the accused) and the accused to actually know what happened but does that mean none of those offenders face trial or punishment? The job of the police and detectives begins AFTER the crime has been committed, most of the time they don't have the luxury of a video footage but what they do have are bread crumbs, evidence such as fingerprints, eye witnesses, suspects, lie detector tests,perhaps possessions of a suspect, they also question people closely related to the suspects in order to determine where the suspect was at a given time and to find out what motives the suspect may have had to commit a particular crime. In most cases when such evidence is available the suspects themselves confess to the cops beyond which point there are no further investigations and it is understood that they did commit the crime and they're punished. Now of course there's still a small chance that they've just been at the wrong place at the wrong time and that they've been forced to confess perhaps by the cops themselves or someone else but that doesn't mean they go unpunished. Courts decide whether someone is guilty or not based purely on evidence and when you convict a person for any given crime you are accepting that the presented evidence was sufficient to conclude that they did commit the crime, if it wasn't they'd have been released. There is no reason to make a special exception just for the death penalty because as I stated earlier even if a person was just jailed wrongly for x amount of time before being released he still isn't going to get that amount of time back. 3. It's not an eye for an eye. An eye for an eye would be to subject the accused to the same level of trauma that they inflicted on the victim. For example if I slit the throat of the guy who slit my aunt's throat that would be an eye for an eye. If someone raped my sister and I raped their sister for it that would be an eye for an eye. That's the difference between retribution and revenge/vengeance as I pointed out earlier which you refuse to believe. Retribution only seeks a punishment proportional to that of the crime whereas revenge seeks a punishment that is at least equivalent or worse. It doesn't matter to me whether they hang him, shoot him, give him lethal injection or electrocute him or use the most painless method possible to kill the person, as long as he pays a price proportional to those of his actions I will be fine with it. For example, if I enter a random shop and break an item I will have to pay them the price of the item or possibly more(shipping charges etc). Likewise the only deserving punishment for a person who takes another person's life is death. The idea that death penalty is a waste of human potential is a utilitarian view, the flaws of which are well known at least if you've studied ethics. Since this is a cricket forum one example that comes to mind is Mohammad Amir who many argued was so skilled that it would be a shame and a waste of talent to ban him from playing Cricket. Banning a skilled cricket player for life (in Amir's case he wasn't but many others have been) is a waste of potential too however that doesn't justify not punishing them and many of them have been rightly banned. 4. Of course every legal system must prioritize not punishing an innocent over punishing the guilty. But time runs in only one direction, therefore it is impossible to reverse anything. A person who spent x amount of time in prison has still lost that amount of time, even if he was wrongly imprisoned there is no way to compensate him for that. It's not just death that is irreversible so if you apply this line of reasoning to oppose the death penalty then we might as well get rid of prisons and every single type of punishment altogether. 5. No criminal willingly goes to jail either. That doesn't mean we get rid of jails does it? It is we as a society who make these laws, a criminal knows very well beforehand what would happen to him if he breaks the law, by breaking it he is voluntarily putting himself at the mercy of the law just like passengers know very well the risks of air travel beforehand and choose to take that risk, no matter how small it is. Nobody's forcing the offender to break the law, he chooses to do it and must face the consequences, of course if the action is involuntary(if the offender is known to be mentally challenged and kills someone) he isn't considered to be an offender. 6. You may not care how the individual victim feels, I do. Of course not every victim would be satisfied with a particular punishment for a particular crime but it's not hard to determine what kind of punishment would be proportional to the offense that was committed. Retribution is very much a part of every justice system in the world, if I walk into a BMW car showroom anywhere in the world and damage one of their cars I will have to pay them a price higher than what I would pay a furniture store if I walked into it and scratched one of their wooden tables. Retribution itself acts a deterrent to a certain extent, knowing that if I commit an offense the punishment I receive will be proportional to that of my actions makes me less willing to try it in the first place. In addition to this it also assures the victim that the perpetrator has been brought to justice. If the victim doesn't believe the punishment was truly proportional to the offense that was committed they can push for a higher level of punishment at the courts and if necessary they could gather like-minded individuals and try to get the law makers to amend the laws as they see fit. Most of us are rational enough to know that sentencing someone to death for stealing a cellphone is ridiculous so if the victim disagrees and decides to take the law in their own hands of course they should be punished for it. But to say the victim's feelings and the concept of retribution as a whole should have no part in a justice system is just being naive and insensitive in my opinion. 7. Perhaps it is because you refuse to differentiate between retribution and revenge. Here's another link I found that explains the subtle differences between the two. In any case I don't want to argue semantics, if the word punitive as you define it matches the definition of the word retribution in that wikipedia article I quoted and the link below then I guess I'm for a punitive justice system. http://www.abolishdeathpenalty.org/PDF/WCADP_Retribution_Fact_Sheet.pdf
someone Posted May 25, 2013 Posted May 25, 2013 Some fine debate going on. Gotta agree with Sundar88.
Crookbond Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 When her brother was convicted of murder, Betty Anne Waters swapped waitressing for law school to prove his innocence. Eighteen years later, she secured his release from jail, but at what personal cost? http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/dec/11/betty-anne-waters-interview fCZ03_sW7VQ
beetle Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 Delhi rape scene enacted in Puri minor blind girl case Taking a leaf out of the infamous Delhi rape case, the accused driver in the rape and murder of the visually challenged girl of Beldal village resorted to same barbaric method to ensure that the minor girl meets her tragic and painful end. Claiming to have solved the case, Puri SP Anup Kumar Sahoo said the accused, Banamali Barik (35), of Kalika Nuapada village under Chandanpur police limits has admitted to the crime. Barik was arrested on Friday and the SUV allegedly used in the crime seized from his possession. Interrogation revealed that Barik after raping the girl tried to strangulate her and then forced an iron rod into her private parts. The girl bled to death. She was studying in Class V in a Bhubaneswar-based school for physically handicapped students and had come home during summer vacation. The incident took place on the night of Wednesday when the 13-year-old girl was sleeping outside her house due to gruelling heat. Her mutilated body was found from a forest near Beldal village along the Puri-Konark Marine Drive road on Thursday. Police said Barik used to drop tourists at a nearby hotel alongside the Marine Drive and often stayed at his brother’s house in Beldal which is close to the victim’s house. Barik said on Wednesday night, he saw the girl outside her house at around 11 pm. He then abducted her and took her to a partially-constructed house nearby. When he failed to commit the crime there, he took her to a forest nearby where he raped her. When the girl shouted for help, Barik strangulated her. To ensure that she is dead, he forced an iron rod into her private parts. Leaving the girl in a critical condition, he fled in the SUV that he drove. Postmortem report revealed that the iron rod damaged the girl’s genitals and kidney and she died of profuse bleeding. The SP said blood stained clothes of the accused and his mobile phone were also seized and he was forwarded to court on Saturday which remanded him in judicial custody. Sahoo added that prior to this incident, Barik was involved in a petrol pump dacoity case and jailed for a couple of months. He had come out on bail recently. “He was also involved in a number of other criminal cases,” the SP added. Meanwhile, the State Women’s Commission Chairperson Lopamudra Buxipatra on Saturday visited the bereaved family and interacted with the SP. She suggested financial assistance to the family. District Magistrate NK Nayak has sanctioned Rs 10,000 from the Red Cross funds to meet the funeral expenses of the girl. http://newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/Delhi-rape-scene-enacted-in-Puri-minor-blind-girl-case/2013/06/09/article1627029.ece How does this man deserve to live?
Recommended Posts