What is rarest of rare for you?

[The Outsider]

Let me start by saying, I am categorically against the death penalty. However, given that the Supreme Court from its observation in 1980 and the law allow for it in the rarest of the rare cases I was trying to contexualize what rarest of rare means for me. Given that the Supreme Court observation itself is based on a comparative, I was trying to compare cases where the death penalty has been handed out and where it hasn't been. Obviously, the recent trigger for the debate is Yakub Memon but the question is broader than that. I certainly don't think Memon's case falls under the rarest of rare. I would say Kasab's did fall under the category and Afzal Guru's did not. From the set of people who have not ended up being dead as a result of the death sentence, Rajaona would fall under the rarest of rare for me, but Rajiv Gandhi's assassins would not. If I were to put it objectively from my personal perspective, rarest of rare is an act of mass terrorism (mass casualties or high profile public figures) in which the perpetrator was at the forefront of execution and/or mastermind. One off murders and rapes don't qualify as rarest or rare, but I am still undecided on serial murderers and rapists, but leaning towards no. So, what in your mind is rarest of rare? This has to be different from your personal belief (like mine is no death penalty at all). It should be what the courts should consider as rarest of rare by providing some objectivity around a subjective and comparative observation of the Supreme Court?

[zen]

Interesting topic .... At times, death penalty is a necessary measure, and therefore for me it should be given when a person is considered to be beyond redemption and/or he/she is seen as a perennial threat to the society/nation/etc. This would include: a) Mass murderers - Dawood Ibrahim, Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, etc. b) Serial killers and rapists - people who have and are continuously destroying lives of others and their families c) Traitors - Say India has planned an operation to take out a militant camp in Pakistan. A special team has embarked on the mission. A traitor informs Pakistan about the team and it gets terminated in Pakistan. Here that traitor is directly responsible for killing the team d) Other crimes such as (subjective issues): * Politicians handing out contract to sub-standard suppliers resulting in deaths * Business people selling fake medicines, poisoned food, etc. deliberately which results in numerous death ($ > lives) * Criminals involved in financial crimes, land grabbing, etc. ($ > lives/society) which make life miserable for the society/nation/etc .... This would be a subjective issue but say if families are cheated out of their savings/properties and have no where to go, no money left for their kids' education, have to commit suicides, etc. (i.e. forced to live a life that is worse than death because of someone else's deliberate plans against them) * Drug mafias (esp. where it would be acceptable for the mafia to be shot by police) * etc. Just the realization that such crimes could be punishable by death (a risk >>> potential benefits) can help with prevention and the understanding of how certain actions impact others drastically .... For e.g. when an Indian goes to Singapore, he would hesitate to litter; when he comes back to India, he will start littering. This is the same person, but different laws have triggered different behaviors

[amiret]

In January 2013 , The Supreme Court of India commuted the death sentence of a man who had R***D a PREGNANT woman and stabbed her 19 times. The woman took the stabs on her back to save her unborn child. The man also murdered her 65 year old mother-in-law by stabbing her 21 times and chopped off her fingers. ----------- This barbaric crime was not rare enough for the SC to uphold the death sentence.

[Texan]

In Jan this year, a High Court commuted a death sentence of a barbaric murderer of multiple little girls aged between 5-20. He not just raped them and murdered them, but there was also suspicion of cannibalism. The Supreme Court rejected his petition for review of the death sentence, the President rejected his mercy petition. Yet the High Court mysteriously commuted the sentence later to a life term citing inordinate delay on deciding on the mercy petition. (the President by law is not time bound to respond to mercy petitions. Our prior President, Smt. Pratibha Patil sat on mercy petitions indefinitely without making any decision on them) Now I ask those who oppose death sentences point blank - does such a person having committed such brutal offenses deserve a life?

[moniker]

Personally, I prefer the approach taken by the Scandinavian countries - Prioritizing rehabilitation over punishment. Deterrence shouldn't take precedence over an opportunity to reform a criminal. Even in the US with all the hoopla surrounding the opposition to capital punishment the primary aim is to punish the individual and instill fear to deter crime. Any attempts to set the delinquent on the right path are secondary. As for the OPs question, the term "rarest case" is ambiguous. What might be a statistically rare occurrence could well be far less brutal than your regular murder case. For example, there are probably fewer cases of parents taking the life of their terminally ill child due to euthanasia being illegal than there are of terrorist attacks. But the latter is far more gruesome than the former. Maybe the most brutal and barbaric cases, where the victims have been tortured before being murdered, crimes affecting the national security (terrorism) etc could be considered as the criteria for the death penalty. Though they may not literally be the rarest of the rare cases.

[randomGuy]

Our justice system is a sham as 21 years is a long long time.

[Khalpat]

My take on this is, crime cannot be rarest of rare whether it is mass murder or rape or terrorist activities. It is with how much cruelity or brutality, the crime is performed is the criteria of rarest of rare. Whether the culprit has any scope of being good to any human being in future. For eg: Nirbhaya Rape case: It was not the first instance of rape but the brutality and cruelity involved was so much that it was considered as rarest of rare. It is unbeleivable to think that the culprits could have given anything to mankind. Peshawar killing of kids: It is simply unpardonable, a person above 24-25 years of age if he can shoot innocent kids point blank the culprit has no right to live in civil society.

[amiret]

Example of Rarest of the rare :

B***** Y**** R*****, herself a victim of gang-rape who lost 14 family members reported: "They started molesting the girls and tore off their clothes. Our naked girls were raped in front of the crowd. They killed Sh***n's baby who was two days old. They killed my maternal uncle and my father's sister and her husband too. After raping the women they killed all of them... They killed my baby too. They threw her in the air and she hit a rock. After raping me, one of the men kept a foot on my neck and hit me."

[Khalpat]

Example of Rarest of the rare :

Was this rarest of rare scene which you described from 1905 Bengal Partition riots or 1947 Indo pak partition riot or 1946 Calcutta riots 1946 Noakhali riots or 1969 Gujarat riot or 1976 Delhi killing of Muslims or 1980 Muradabad riots or 1980 Nelie Massacre of 2000 Muslims or 1984 Sikh riot or 1986 Jallandhar Massacre of 20 hindu Labourers or 1987 Meerut Massacre or 1987 Rajbah Massacre or During 1990's ethnic cleansing of Pandits in Kashmir or 1996 Gakawadal Massasacre in Kashmir or 1998 Chamba Massacre or the Mumbai riot during 1992-93 or 2002 Gujarat riot or or the MuzAFARNAGAR Riot in 2009 Or was this crime scene the part of: brutality by Pakistani army in Bangladesh or Army person in north East or brutality during Assam violence or the regular incidents of mob violence in Jahanabad during 90's or the crime done agains the tribal people during Mid 70's Can you please be for once specific and let the whole world know about which rareast of rare riot incident of India are you talking about.

[Donal Cozzie]

The problem is the death penalty is proven to be a failure in terms of acting as a deterrant to actual crime. So in that case I'd wonder whats the point? If you want some sick SOB to suffer for their crimes doesnt it make more sense to put him/her in solitary confinement for the rest of his/her life? By executing them you're essentially freeing them of their confinement, unless you believe in a hell. Main reason I'd be against the death penalty is, no matter how airtight a judicial system may be the reality is there will always be very rare cases of a miscarriage of justice taking place. In that instance there's a small small chance the person being executed is actually innocent. Look at the amount of cases you hear of in the US of some poor soul being released after 20 plus years wrongful imprisonment? Both are horrible outcomes but at least in the life sentence case the wrongfully imprisoned can receive a tonne of cash and enjoy what life they have left, whereas with executions you've essentially robbed an innocent man of his life. IMO even a .01% chance of killing an innocent man is enough to be against the death penalty, better to be safe than sorry. You also have to account that in developing nations the justice system can be very corrupt, greatly increasing the chances of innocent people being executed. There was a case in China not long ago where a 19yo executed for rape was proven to be innocent all along, imagine how soul destroying that's be for the families

[G_B_]

The problem is the death penalty is proven to be a failure in terms of acting as a deterrant to actual crime. So in that case I'd wonder whats the point? If you want some sick SOB to suffer for their crimes doesnt it make more sense to put him/her in solitary confinement for the rest of his/her life? By executing them you're essentially freeing them of their confinement, unless you believe in a hell. Main reason I'd be against the death penalty is, no matter how airtight a judicial system may be the reality is there will always be very rare cases of a miscarriage of justice taking place. In that instance there's a small small chance the person being executed is actually innocent. Look at the amount of cases you hear of in the US of some poor soul being released after 20 plus years wrongful imprisonment? Both are horrible outcomes but at least in the life sentence case the wrongfully imprisoned can receive a tonne of cash and enjoy what life they have left, whereas with executions you've essentially robbed an innocent man of his life. IMO even a .01% chance of killing an innocent man is enough to be against the death penalty, better to be safe than sorry. You also have to account that in developing nations the justice system can be very corrupt, greatly increasing the chances of innocent people being executed. There was a case in China not long ago where a 19yo executed for rape was proven to be innocent all along, imagine how soul destroying that's be for the families

I think india have it right in that case, we do have the option but dont use it that much. China like executed some 100 people in the last year alone. 4 executing in many many years tells me it is used sparingly. The POV of the victims has to be considered as well. Fine it does not stop crime. But do the relatives and friends of the victim get solace for life behind bars? You mention judiciary and corruption in developing countries. That is true. But the same argument can be used by saying due to corruption prevailing those in jail can lead a life of relative luxury by bribing the guards etc. How is that justice?

[Donal Cozzie]

^The OP is against the death penalty too yet he poses this query - you going to answer it?

Well if there was an occasion I'd be for the death penalty I'd say it'd be something truly truly monstrous, unthinkable. The guy in Pakistan who killed and raped over 100 kids would be one example (his name escapes me). Others would be people involved in the planning and execution of extreme terrorist attacks like the peshawar shootings, or people guilty of dozens of murders.

I think india have it right in that case, we do have the option but dont use it that much. China like executed some 100 people in the last year alone. 4 executing in many many years tells me it is used sparingly. The POV of the victims has to be considered as well. Fine it does not stop crime. But do the relatives and friends of the victim get solace for life behind bars? You mention judiciary and corruption in developing countries. That is true. But the same argument can be used by saying due to corruption prevailing those in jail can lead a life of relative luxury by bribing the guards etc. How is that justice?

I guess either way its kinda screwed innit? I'd still say even if you're bribing guards once you're still in the prison it'd be something, once you''re not free. But you are correct a lot of people will understandably bay for blood in these cases. Guess its one of those issues with no real right answer

[coffee_rules]

More than capital punishment, India has to worry about extrajudicial killings that politicians execute with official machinery . This is probably worse than China.

[seedhi]

Let me start by saying, I am categorically against the death penalty. However, given that the Supreme Court from its observation in 1980 and the law allow for it in the rarest of the rare cases I was trying to contexualize what rarest of rare means for me. Given that the Supreme Court observation itself is based on a comparative, I was trying to compare cases where the death penalty has been handed out and where it hasn't been. Obviously, the recent trigger for the debate is Yakub Memon but the question is broader than that. I certainly don't think Memon's case falls under the rarest of rare. I would say Kasab's did fall under the category and Afzal Guru's did not. From the set of people who have not ended up being dead as a result of the death sentence, Rajaona would fall under the rarest of rare for me, but Rajiv Gandhi's assassins would not. If I were to put it objectively from my personal perspective, rarest of rare is an act of mass terrorism (mass casualties or high profile public figures) in which the perpetrator was at the forefront of execution and/or mastermind. One off murders and rapes don't qualify as rarest or rare, but I am still undecided on serial murderers and rapists, but leaning towards no. So, what in your mind is rarest of rare? This has to be different from your personal belief (like mine is no death penalty at all). It should be what the courts should consider as rarest of rare by providing some objectivity around a subjective and comparative observation of the Supreme Court?

The term "rarest of rare" seems rather undefined to me without a classification to decide how rare a particular type of crime is. It seems to me that one very important measure of the gravity of the crime (and this explains why terrorist bomb blasts are usually considered more heinous than riots) is whether the victims had any warning or any opportunity or any means to protect themselves. In a bomb blast, clearly the victims are completely taken by surprise and have absolutely no chance at any sort of defense. In riots, usually there is a bit of warning. In gang related violence, the victims either know they are going to be targeted and/or have the option of fighting back. Also, another factor that is considered is that the act should be cold blooded i.e. it should be pre-planned and not a crime of passion. The perpetrator should be completely aware of the consequences of the act. Other mitigating factors include a motive of personal revenge, and as you said if the perpetrator was not the mastermind.