Does he deserve mercy??

[The Rainmaker]

:lol:...oh cummon....he's expressing his views here against Death Sentence. he has some valid points too, tho we may disagree with other points of his. he is welcome to his views.

CAD, i was just kidding!!



obviously he's welcome on this democratic forum! he argued his case well.

[akhilis2cool]

a good serious discussion after such a long time....feels good...tnx Marko and everybody else.

[JustaLittleUnwell]

Ok, back after a long time :) Been focussing my FH-energies solely on blogging, and wasn't really upto posting in DB.



Just noticed this thread - and it so happens, I made a post on my blog too, on this very same topic only a couple of days ago. (Mayavi, thanks for your feedback, though not a very favorable one ;) )



I'm copy-pasting the essence of what I wrote there:



If a society is justified in taking a collective revenge against its offenders (the rapists, murderers, assassins, terrorists and the likes), then in what way is the collective psyche of that society any better than that of the offenders themselves (who are labeled 'beasts' and so forth)? Is an 'eye for an eye' the only solution that we could think of, after thousands of years of progress?



More on the subject:



- More than half of the world's nations have abolished death sentence (it's mandatory to abolish capital punishment, to become a EU member).



- It is believed that capital punishment acts as a deterrant against homicide crimes. But figures speak a different story. In Canada, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2002, 26 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.85 per 100,000 population, 40 per cent lower than in 1975. (source: Amnesty International)



I would not go into whether someone deserves 'mercy' or not. My take is that the courts / the government / the constitution / the organized society does not have the moral authority to take away one's right to live. If it assumes that right, I see no difference between the murderer and the justice system that we are supposed to have faith in.

[marko]

Ok, back after a long time Been focussing my FH-energies solely on blogging, and wasn't really upto posting in DB.

Just noticed this thread - and it so happens, I made a post on my blog too, on this very same topic only a couple of days ago. (Mayavi, thanks for your feedback, though not a very favorable one )

I'm copy-pasting the essence of what I wrote there:

If a society is justified in taking a collective revenge against its offenders (the rapists, murderers, assassins, terrorists and the likes), then in what way is the collective psyche of that society any better than that of the offenders themselves (who are labeled 'beasts' and so forth)? Is an 'eye for an eye' the only solution that we could think of, after thousands of years of progress?

More on the subject:

- More than half of the world's nations have abolished death sentence (it's mandatory to abolish capital punishment, to become a EU member).

- It is believed that capital punishment acts as a deterrant against homicide crimes. But figures speak a different story. In Canada, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2002, 26 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.85 per 100,000 population, 40 per cent lower than in 1975. (source: Amnesty International)

I would not go into whether someone deserves 'mercy' or not. My take is that the courts / the government / the constitution / the organized society does not have the moral authority to take away one's right to live. If it assumes that right, I see no difference between the murderer and the justice system that we are supposed to have faith in.

looks like everyone here disagrees with me. I think a multiple murderer forfeits his right to life when he takes someone elses. It's not exacting vengence, it's just that the penalty for the crime needs to be proportional to the crime.

I am still anti DP for the reasons i've outlined above.

[CtrlAltDel]

looks like everyone here disagrees with me.

JLU agrees with u marko....read his post again...



welcome back JLU bhai....

[marko]

looks like everyone here disagrees with me.

JLU agrees with u marko....read his post again...

welcome back JLU bhai....

nope, our oppinions are totally different. the fact that he/she also is anti death penalty doesn't matter. He believes that the government doesn't have the right to take life. i think it does, but it shouldn't.

[azazel]

i think it does, but it shouldn't.

didnt quite get that..

[marko]

i think it does, but it shouldn't.

didnt quite get that..

i guess i'm just a sceptic. i don't believe in 100% proof of anything. there is always room for error. nobody has convinced me otherwise.



let me try 1 more time though. All of the people wrongfully killed by the Death Penalty in the UK WERE thought to be 100% guilty, there was no doubt in the minds of the jury, judge, appeals judge, etc. They were PROVEN guilty in a court of law. no doubt. but all of those people were wrong on at least 2 occasions.



so, despite my belief that society should have the right to kill people who forfeit their right to life by committing multiple murders, i believe the risk involved is far too great to contemplate doing this on any scale, especially in the wholesale way the US goes about it.



Lastly, I realise there are many good arguments for both sides of this, however this is the one which usually strikes a chord for both conservatives and liberatarian types. And it's the one that convinced me to change my mind about the DP.

[Mayavi Morpheus]

OK, I am a little bit late on the scene but I will make my point anyway.



Marko, If I understand you correctly, you are against Dp for the follwoing reasons:

1. The cost of convicting a criminal is higher than executing the person.



2. The system is not fool proof, so at some point an innocent may be sentenced.



3. Death penality will not deter other criminals.



Right?



Now lets look at the first arguement. The cost is higher, yes. The system has to ensure that innocents are not punished and the money spent is worth the justice delivered. Besides, every criminal is not given a death sentence and Irrespective of the sentence, the money is spent on convicting the criminal. The same amount of deliberation is needed for sentencing a person to life in prison as that is done to award a DP. So there is no way money can be saved. The aim is to serve justice and not to save money.



System is not fool proof: Right again. No system is fool proof. You kill a person or sentence him to prison for life, its the same for an innocent person with exception that the life sentence can be challenged. But I dont know of any such instance in India where an innocent person was hanged or sentenced to life. Unlike China or US, Death sentences are a rare occurences in India. So, the system is virtually fool proof, heck, in this country even proven criminals/terrorrists gain sympathy, so there is no question of an innocent becoming victim of DP.



Death Penality will not deter other criminals: Right. It wont deter other criminals, but thats not the aim of death penality. The aim of death penality is to punish the criminal and not just to deter other criminals from comitting similar crime. In the process other criminals may fear the punishment and deter from crime, but thats a spin-off, so to say.

The criminal ought to be punished, and the punishment shuld commnesurate the crime, and if it also serves as a deterrent to others then jolly good. Ek teer, do shikaar.



JLU on his blog:

Make him work hard in prison, get productive output from him, and the fruits of his labour could probably be sent to his dependent kith and kin, instead of benefitting him directly etc etc. Just thinking aloud here.....

300 Rs (?). Thats how much a prisoner makes in a month for his hard work. Is that the price of that lil girls life ? They come pretty cheap, eh?.
You are not alone in that thought, thats what the celebrities and the family members of Dhanonjay want. To send him to prison instead of hanging him [They didnt mention about the money part though].

By abolishing death penalty, we as a society would be telling ourselves and the world at large, that we belong to a different plane / league / maturity-level, as compared to our criminal offenders. With that message communicated, more and more individuals would aspire to be a part of the mainstream society, than be its outcasts.

Why should we remind ourselves of that? The fact that you and me are not in jail serving a punishment in itself is a message that you and me are on a different plane/league/maturity - level compared to the criminals. Besides, these criminals are not outcasts, they are very much a part of our society but chose to tread the wrong path. There is not gauranteee that another member of the society who is at the same - maturity level as you and me are will not commit a crime to become an outcast. So, who are we communicating this message to?



The alternative many people seem to suggest is life sentence or theraphy for offences like the rape and murder. But does these ensure that the person is transformed? What about cases like charles shobraj or shabuddin and yadav's of Bihar? Prison sentence did not deter these criminals from committing crime.



Death sentence cannot be compared to revenge. DP is nuthing but a mere extension of the Jail sentence. Yep, these criminals have no right to live in a civil society. They may be on a different/lower plane but they still live amongst us and are a constant threat to the civil society.





Forgive any typos or illogial sentences. Heavily edited, so I may have missed out /deleted some words/sentences.

[ZC]

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No



Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No



Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No



Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No



Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No



Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No



Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No



Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No




50:50



kuch katta, kuch mita

[marko]

OK, I am a little bit late on the scene but I will make my point anyway.

Marko, If I understand you correctly, you are against Dp for the follwoing reasons:
1. The cost of convicting a criminal is higher than executing the person.

2. The system is not fool proof, so at some point an innocent may be sentenced.

3. Death penality will not deter other criminals.

Right?

Now lets look at the first arguement. The cost is higher, yes. The system has to ensure that innocents are not punished and the money spent is worth the justice delivered. Besides, every criminal is not given a death sentence and Irrespective of the sentence, the money is spent on convicting the criminal. The same amount of deliberation is needed for sentencing a person to life in prison as that is done to award a DP. So there is no way money can be saved. The aim is to serve justice and not to save money.

System is not fool proof: Right again. No system is fool proof. You kill a person or sentence him to prison for life, its the same for an innocent person with exception that the life sentence can be challenged. But I dont know of any such instance in India where an innocent person was hanged or sentenced to life. Unlike China or US, Death sentences are a rare occurences in India. So, the system is virtually fool proof, heck, in this country even proven criminals/terrorrists gain sympathy, so there is no question of an innocent becoming victim of DP.

Death Penality will not deter other criminals: Right. It wont deter other criminals, but thats not the aim of death penality. The aim of death penality is to punish the criminal and not just to deter other criminals from comitting similar crime. In the process other criminals may fear the punishment and deter from crime, but thats a spin-off, so to say.
The criminal ought to be punished, and the punishment shuld commnesurate the crime, and if it also serves as a deterrent to others then jolly good. Ek teer, do shikaar.

first off the cost argument is there for completeness, it's not a thing that would put me off if all other factors were absent.

secondly, if you admit that the US and China can make mistakes, why not India? It's really just down to a few people in a courtroom, these people are not gods, they are not all knowing, they are just doing their job. god only knows how many mistakes i've made doing my job.

Basically i'm saying if there's room for error, then over a long enough timescale there will be error. I really don't know too much about the Indian system, but it sounds to me like there is room for error. It doesn't matter too much if it's just 1 person every few years, but political climates change, and so might that rate.

I agree with you completely on the last point.

[JustaLittleUnwell]

JLU on his blog:

Make him work hard in prison, get productive output from him, and the fruits of his labour could probably be sent to his dependent kith and kin, instead of benefitting him directly etc etc. Just thinking aloud here.....

300 Rs (?). Thats how much a prisoner makes in a month for his hard work. Is that the price of that lil girls life ? They come pretty cheap, eh?.
You are not alone in that thought, thats what the celebrities and the family members of Dhanonjay want. To send him to prison instead of hanging him [They didnt mention about the money part though].

Mayavi, I think you misunderstood. I meant his family to be the beneficiaries of his labour. Not the victim's. I know there's no price for a life lost, including another life (i.e. the offender's). The money is not important, but at least the offender could be made to benefit his own family. That is the only way I could think of making him useful to this society.

By abolishing death penalty, we as a society would be telling ourselves and the world at large, that we belong to a different plane / league / maturity-level, as compared to our criminal offenders. With that message communicated, more and more individuals would aspire to be a part of the mainstream society, than be its outcasts.

Why should we remind ourselves of that? The fact that you and me are not in jail serving a punishment in itself is a message that you and me are on a different plane/league/maturity - level compared to the criminals. Besides, these criminals are not outcasts, they are very much a part of our society but chose to tread the wrong path. There is not gauranteee that another member of the society who is at the same - maturity level as you and me are will not commit a crime to become an outcast. So, who are we communicating this message to?

The fact that we are not serving jail terms may confirm that we haven't committed an offence yet, but by vociferously supporting DP, we maybe communicating the message (to whomever it may concern) that we aren't made of a very different material than the offenders themselves. He took a life, and in return we are ready to take his life. So how are we any different from him?

Death sentence cannot be compared to revenge. DP is nuthing but a mere extension of the Jail sentence. Yep, these criminals have no right to live in a civil society. They may be on a different/lower plane but they still live amongst us and are a constant threat to the civil society.

Extension of jail sentence? By what rationale? Something like a harsher, life long jail term can probably count as an 'extension', not total elimination of the accused. DP is murder. Legally sanctioned murder and nothing less.



Coming to the question of whether a homicide/heinous offender forfeits his/her right to live - the view taken by Marko n Mayavi:



The position of law is that one does not have the right to take away even one's own life, forget another's. Given this, how is a court / society / government (all man's own creation again) authorised to take away a life? If an offence committed by one is illegal, how does an offence committed by the collective humanity become legal?

[IdontDiscriminate]

Pretty nice discussion out here and I would like to add my own views.



Personally I believe that this guy deserves no mercy as he has been convicted of committing tbe crime. It may be painful for the relatives but what about the victim? Coming to the capital punishment I am for it in our country because I know that we are the most forgiving of all people in the world and hence a capital punishment in our country, if awarded to someone beyond reasonable doubt, warrants it. We cannot, I repeat CANNOT be compared to the states or the Uk on this basis, people there are different from us. They go by the letter of the rule and we go by the spirit of the rule.



NHRC is a bunch of hypocrites who don't miss an oppurtunity to hog the limelite. i fail to understand how a person, who has committed such a grave crime as this, justifies being granted mercy. He has denied himself any human rights.

[Mayavi Morpheus]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-803297,curpg-1.cms



Rapist to hang, Kalam rejects mercy plea

[CtrlAltDel]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-803297,curpg-1.cmsRapist to hang, Kalam rejects mercy plea

YAY! i did a mental cartwheel when i read it in the evening

[dumpster]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-803297,curpg-1.cms

Rapist to hang, Kalam rejects mercy plea

good decision by our great president.. why should they release that rapist murderer bastard??? wat if prannoy roys daughter or granddaughter is raped & butchered?? they will cry from rooftops.



and mr marko, u r free to hold protests against DP in ur country. u can walk upto washington DC and hold placards against bush.. dats how it works there. and dat is why u have more crime in USA than in india[u].

[marko]

and mr marko, u r free to hold protests against DP in ur country. u can walk upto washington DC and hold placards against bush.. dats how it works there. and dat is why u have more crime in USA than in india[u].

I'm not from the US. And I don't get your post. are you saying the right to protest about the government leads to a higher crime rate?

[dumpster]

I'm not from the US. And I don't get your post. are you saying the right to protest about the government leads to a higher crime rate?

I implied that when you are in a good position, rich and have security, its easier to shout from rooftops and say "oh pleez do not kill this poor mass murderer cum rapist". what would u do if ur 14 year old daughter were raped and murdered?? would u walk to the president and plead for his life? im sure u would be the first to kill the rapist if u have a chance.

[marko]

I'm not from the US. And I don't get your post. are you saying the right to protest about the government leads to a higher crime rate?

I implied that when you are in a good position, rich and have security, its easier to shout from rooftops and say "oh pleez do not kill this poor mass murderer cum rapist". what would u do if ur 14 year old daughter were raped and murdered?? would u walk to the president and plead for his life? im sure u would be the first to kill the rapist if u have a chance.

I'm not going to get drawn into this again, but for someone i've never met you seem to know me pretty well.

I'd like if you could explain your earlier statement, that western countries have a higher rate of crime than India on account of being able to protest against our leaders? also last time i checked there was no law against protesting against the Indian gov, i believe theres lots of people doing that right now.

[marko]

also, one minute you say there's more crime in the US than India, the next you say i have security. Surely if there's more crime the people of the US have less security?

[dumpster]

I'd like if you could explain your earlier statement, that western countries have a higher rate of crime than India on account of being able to protest against our leaders? also last time i checked there was no law against protesting against the Indian gov, i believe theres lots of people doing that right now.

the govt can concentrate more on its development work when the people (especially rich ones) do not keep protesting against it. when the ppl are busy with their own works, there is less scope for crime.



if you start doing mass protests against the govt, some ppl like Timothy McVeigh, buffalo bill and jack the ripper (from your country UK) get bored and start doing nasty psycho things.

[dumpster]

also, one minute you say there's more crime in the US than India, the next you say i have security. Surely if there's more crime the people of the US have less security?

SECURITY = job security, enough money for decent living.



in India, some poor people die of weakness and starvation. many others don't even know where their next meal comes from. for those ppl, there is zero security.



but in US or UK if u declare yourself as bankrupt, yuor govt will start paying u money every month so that you won't die..



this is what i mean by security.. not the orange or red level kinda security

[marko]

the govt can concentrate more on its development work when the people (especially rich ones) do not keep protesting against it. when the ppl are busy with their own works, there is less scope for crime.

if you start doing mass protests against the govt, some ppl like Timothy McVeigh, buffalo bill and jack the ripper (from your country UK) get bored and start doing nasty psycho things.

I'm not from the UK. And that is a total joke. If everyone just accepted everything the government told us then we'd still have slave labour, women would not be able to vote, you could be arrested for not conforming to the government approved religion.



If you had been living in Germany in the 30's are you saying you wouldn't have protested against the government? I don't know if i would have had the courage, but i'd like to think i'd have done what i could.



No change is possible unless people protest. If you want to live in a world where someone can be executed for saying the Earth revolves around the sun that's your decision, but understand if others take a slightly more forward thinking approach

[dumpster]

And that is a total joke. If everyone just accepted everything the government told us then we'd still have slave labour, women would not be able to vote, you could be arrested for not conforming to the government approved religion.

No change is possible unless people protest.

my white brother, governments are not a joke. they are formed with keeping in mind the people and their culture..



Do you think the indian govt was formed just like that???? NO WAY..



Our great leaders sat and thought well before they wrote down the Constitution and laws. we live by them. if there is anything to protest or if u wana have the law changed, then go and form your own country.



what will you gain by spending a lifetime in protesting?? only violence, disrupting of traffic, people's lives.



it is ok if u protest in america or england coz those countries are rich enough.. but in INDIA, one day of hartaal (strike) will make our economy even weaker and cause more damage to us.

[marko]

Do you think the indian govt was formed just like that???? NO WAY..

Our great leaders sat and thought well before they wrote down the Constitution and laws. we live by them. if there is anything to protest or if u wana have the law changed, then go and form your own country.

The government is not the country, the people are the country. If you see the government messing it up you have an obligation to do something. I know lots of people in India don't rate Gandhi as highly as the rest of the world do but the man knew what he was talking about when he said "You must be the change you wish to see in the world"

what will you gain by spending a lifetime in protesting?? only violence, disrupting of traffic, people's lives.

Tell that to Martin Luther King, Jesus, the little black lady who refused to give up her seat on a bus in the 50's, and all the other people who have chosen not to conform in order to maintain the status quo.



If you wish to be a sheep thats fine, but remember that the fool is not as foolish as the fool that follows him