| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The New Delhi Rape Case and Capital Punishment
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


The New Delhi Rape Case and Capital Punishment

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3529
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The New Delhi Rape Case and Capital Punishment
    Posted: 29 Dec 2012 at 04:44
It has been reported that the victim of a brutal gang rape in New Delhi has died of her injuries. The six men who assaulted her are in custody, and there were calls for them to be executed.

As many of you know, I have often stated that I abhor the idea of capital punishment, though I would not argue against the right of e state to apply it in theory. That said, in prior discussions I have been vague as to what sort of theoretical case might merit such a punishment.

My main objection to the way in which the death penalty is applied in most modern cases is that it is often primarily conceived of in punitive terms (i.e. you took a life, therefore your life must be taken; or "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot", if you prefer). I cannot conceive of a case in which that sort of application would be justified.

I have always believed that for the death penalty to be legitimately applied it must have a broader, societal dimension. I have generally conceived of this in terms of a theoretical case where a society simply cannot protect itself from the individual through incarceration -- a situation which is veritably unknown in the West. That said, could this particular rape case in India provide a moral justification? In a society which has an endemic cultural problem with its respect for and treatment of women -- a problem which puts countless women at risk on a daily basis -- and in which the rapists themselves often operate under the assumption that nothing will happen to them due to a culture of intimidation, unconcern, and chauvinism, how do we weigh the lives of the individuals against the risk that the culture poses to society? Would setting an example that this sort of behavior is not to be tolerated justify the execution of these perpetrators?

Honestly, I'm stumped, so I'd like your thoughts. I am particularly interested to see where graham would come down on this one as he and I have discussed the issue of capital punishment before and are largely in agreement on the matter.

Memory eternal to the victim, and may justice be done.

-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Dec 2012 at 06:04
Violence is a breach of immunity against objects or living beings that are protected by consensual social norms. When you breach immunity of property by example not paying your debt at time, your property is no longer immune and likely will be confiscated for compensation of your breach. Since you are the one breached first, confiscation of your property (by up to equal amount of your breach) is not considered a breach at all. Therefore it's not violence. Apply this to immunity of body and life Wink
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Dec 2012 at 04:45
So putting six murderous felons in prison for the rest of their lives, where they will be fed and cared for as wards of the state at the expense of taxpayers, in many countries enjoying dental and medical care above that which the average taxpayer can afford, is just?

Or, in the case of countries who have maximum sentence laws even in such cases (India does have a death penalty), burdening the families of similar young victims with the knowledge that their rapist/murderers will some day again walk the streets, while their daughters moulder in their graves constitutes justice?

India has upheld the death penalty for only the rarest of rare cases, and this certainly appears to fit the bill.

Personally, I hope they bring back execution by elephant in this case.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Dec 2012 at 08:09
Some are so fraught with personal demons, or untreatable psychological conditions, that death would not be all that unwelcome. The killer at Newtown, for example, shot himself, certainly a stark demonstration of his personal evaluation of the pros and cons of living. And from societies point of view, in some cases death seems a modest price to pay for crimes committed, of the sort we have unfortunately seen so very many.
 
The real problem with captial punishment, IMO, is that mistakes are so easy to make. We have seen many examples in the past. Who is qualified to make the final judgement? Judges have been, at various times and places, charged with alcoholic related offences, drug abuse, and other disappointments. Police have lied on the stand, juries have been biased, or swayed by biased information. Expert witnesses have been bought, or have been found, in retrospect, to be quite incompetent.
 
How comfortable would you feel if you were the judge in a capital offense case, banging down the gavel, and pronouncing sentence, if the offender still insisted on innocence, the expert witness seemed eager to please for the price of a beer, and the police and others had vested interests in the outcome of the case?
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Dec 2012 at 08:16
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Violence is a breach of immunity against objects or living beings that are protected by consensual social norms. When you breach immunity of property by example not paying your debt at time, your property is no longer immune and likely will be confiscated for compensation of your breach. Since you are the one breached first, confiscation of your property (by up to equal amount of your breach) is not considered a breach at all. Therefore it's not violence. Apply this to immunity of body and life Wink
 
This is an interesting post. Something to ruminate on.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Dec 2012 at 12:54
My view on the topic of capital punishment remains the same in light of this recent case as it has for the past 8 years of my membership here. I oppose it. Legally speaking there are five main considerations which must be considered in sentencing. Retribution, rehabilitation, community protection, deterrant and restorative justice (healing of relations between aggrieved parties).

I am not satisfied that capital punishment best caters to fulfilling these five requirements with the exception of retribution and community protection.

My solution for criminals who are guilty of capital crimes is to place them in gulag style labour where there are forced to perform difficult hard labour for the public good. The work will, on balance, be economically profitable to the community as a whole. Prisoners ought to be fitted with electrified collars so they can be shocked if they refuse to fulfill fair and reasonable labour.

I maintain that the approach I have always advocated is better at fulfilling all five sentencing requirements. Retributively, a lifetime of hard physical labour is far more exacting than a quick death. Prisoners who do spend a lifetime performing works for the community are in a better position to be rehabilitated at some point if found innocent rather than someone who is deceased through execution. I believe that the community is not only protected from these criminals just as well under my system, but the community as a whole benefits economically. I believe a lifetime of hard labour is more of a disincentive to commit a capital crime for anyone who believes they have nothing to lose (and who is more likely to commit murder) than a punishment of instantaneous oblivion. And finally, it is more likely that a person consigned to a life of hard labour will reconcile with the community and their victims than a person who is simply killed.

As an added bonus, any person who is subsequently found innocent after their conviction can be released and awarded millions in damages, to be paid directly out of the proceeds of the economic fruits of the hard labour (no net cost to the community) produced by their bona fide criminal former housemates.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Dec 2012 at 14:30
In 21 years (probably earlier due to good bevaviour), Berevik will be out of what Norweigians call prison. The 77 kids will still be dead and there will be no guarantee that he won't do it again and if he does he will enjoy 21 more years of retirement. Where is justice in this?
 
There are many many ways to make death penalty more accurate, in fact guarantee that it is exacted on people who deserve it. For example, stop convicting people on circumstantial evidence which is the common factor in all capital punishment cases which had exhonorations.
 
To say that there is no possible way is just pure laziness.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Centrix Redux View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2011
Location: Archuleta Mesa
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Centrix Redux Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Dec 2012 at 15:48
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

So putting six murderous felons in prison for the rest of their lives, where they will be fed and cared for as wards of the state at the expense of taxpayers, in many countries enjoying dental and medical care above that which the average taxpayer can afford, is just?

Or, in the case of countries who have maximum sentence laws even in such cases (India does have a death penalty), burdening the families of similar young victims with the knowledge that their rapist/murderers will some day again walk the streets, while their daughters moulder in their graves constitutes justice?

India has upheld the death penalty for only the rarest of rare cases, and this certainly appears to fit the bill.

Personally, I hope they bring back execution by elephant in this case.
 
 
Nope. But the appeasers of violent crimes who cater to the psychobabblers inundation of excuses will be what they will be. And form the crux of the anti-death penalty, liberal-socialist politically bent, all the while.
 
 
Has nothing to do with theology this late in the human experience by and large; but everything to do with political agendas.
 
Rape? Death of the victim?
 
= Death sentence.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Dec 2012 at 16:12
Although overall gore is still not decreased, society's exposure to (actual) everyday gore decreased over time. This gradually lowered tolerance to gore in society. 

Thanks to much hypocrisy of society, hanging became favored method of capital punishment for a while. When compared to previous most popular capital punishment (decapitation), it actually caused much more and long lasting pain to the damned. A decapitated head may remain conscious up to 15 seconds at most with swiftly severed nerves and arteries. But asphyxiation by hanging caused great and long lasting pain on the damned. Despite that, society stick with it for quite a while. After all, it was far less messier for audience.

Then tolerance of society to gore reached such a low point, they decided to abandon capital punishment. And they started to think "whoever breaches our norms shouldn't live among us, but we can't kill them either. we should definitly put them into cages and isolate them from society, then we'll call this rehabilitation". The breachers confined into cages with people like themselves: the abused, the tormented, the hopeless, the outcast and the damned... During long times of confinment and isolation from the rest of society, the breachers not only found more despair in their cages, also  they increased their efficiency at breaching and they became dependent on it. In fact, society was so dellusioned with their dreams of tranquility, this form of escapism suited them really well. Even one of modern nations end up with caging amount of population that equal to population of early 16th century England...

Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 30 Dec 2012 at 17:19
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
~ Scylding ~

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 10421
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Dec 2012 at 17:12
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

In 21 years (probably earlier due to good bevaviour), Berevik will be out of what Norweigians call prison. The 77 kids will still be dead and there will be no guarantee that he won't do it again and if he does he will enjoy 21 more years of retirement. Where is justice in this?
 
There are many many ways to make death penalty more accurate, in fact guarantee that it is exacted on people who deserve it. For example, stop convicting people on circumstantial evidence which is the common factor in all capital punishment cases which had exhonorations.
 
To say that there is no possible way is just pure laziness.
 
Al-Jassas
 
Hi AJ
 
Breivik got 21 years as a minimum - if he is evaluated still to be a threat after those 21 years, they'll keep him locked up.
We have a similar system here and kept a guy prison for killing four cops in 1965 for no reason.  He was released 1998 he, 71 years old.
 
In a case like Breivik, I can appreciate those in favor of death penalty - No question about guilt, and his sentence was only 4 months prison per victim - if he is evaluated no threat after 21 years.
 
~ North
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.    (Albert Einstein)
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Dec 2012 at 02:39
It's similar in Canada. A life sentence up to 25 years before parole is the maximum for an offense, but there are exceptions. Some can be detained after this time, for transgressions in prison, or complete rejection of counselling or socialization programs, or returned to prison for parole violations. In rare cases, individuals are designated as dangerous offenders, and can be imprisoned indefinitely. It doesn't happen all that much (and it probably should), but in the most notorious cases it has.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Dec 2012 at 03:13
In re Capitan V's:  "The real problem with captial punishment, IMO, is that mistakes are so easy to make. We have seen many examples in the past. Who is qualified to make the final judgement? Judges have been, at various times and places, charged with alcoholic related offences, drug abuse, and other disappointments. Police have lied on the stand, juries have been biased, or swayed by biased information. Expert witnesses have been bought, or have been found, in retrospect, to be quite incompetent."

All that is generally true. It is not that mistakes in capital crimes are so easy. I would suggest that they are not. But they can and do occur. Who is qualified to make the final judgment: By law, the reviewing or supreme court of the State. Yes, judges can and will disappoint. But even such judges can be right. And my extremely limited criminal trial experience showed me that felony cases were taken far more seriously than misdemeanors, especially when it comes to assigning public defenders and trial judges. Of course, such standards likely differ from state to state. And the rest is all generally true. But, not all police lie on the stand, not all juries are biased or easily swayed. 

But the sad truth remains that some of our fellow human beings only make this world a better place by leaving it. And is justice is to prevail, then the death penalty must remain in effect for the most egregious crimes. Otherwise there is no justice. 
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2013 at 16:14
It's a tough question for sure, made harder by the fact that what is severe penalty for some, is not so for others. Death is less a punishment for some than other sanctions. Some of the most outrageous offenders in recent times have made no pretense about the fact they have wanted to die. In some cases, they took their own life, in others they hoped for the state to do it for them (often with success). For some, death is neither deterrent nor penalty. 

There is also, IMO, the sociological theory that many will take their cue from sources they see as informed and in a position of sanctioned authority, whether consciously or subconsciously. If smoking were really harmful, many have told me, the government would make it illegal. If people can be legally killed in some circumstances, then that principle can diffuse through society, further legitimizing violence, for some.

I don't have any easy answers, but skewing to the side of caution seems a good idea.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2013 at 09:56
The shameless, remorseless and conscienceless (psychopaths) don't deserve life amongst normal humans whom they view as prey.




Edited by Zagros - 07 Jan 2013 at 09:58
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Voltage View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 13 Mar 2013
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 159
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2013 at 08:36
When my dad told me about that crazy guy in Norway who you say will be free in 21 years, he told me to guess how long he was to be in prison. I guessed 3 months, and per person that is quite close.

Over all I say that the Maximum Punishment, on earth is under used. But there is a reward for ALL sinners.
Back to Top
Woofer View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 61
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Woofer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Sep 2013 at 08:16
I object to all killing other than in self defence or self defence by proxy. I extend that to all thinking creatures.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.