Who is for the death penalty?

[JayATL]

Interesting question to ask you folks. This stems from a very salient point made by a person who is against the death penalty. Not because of the truly guilty but because so many innocent are falsely accused.

Christan's in America , the staunch ones , are typically republicans and are for the death penalty. the irony is that their religious leader an " innocent man" was put to death by the govt ( during that time).

so my question to you Hindus, Muslims of India is how many of your religious heads were persecuted, put to death, the innocent ones? and if you believe in the judicial system where you would rather have 9 guilty walk than versus have 1( single) Innocent person be wrongly convicted- how can you be for the death penalty? Is it because you think your govt is omnipotent and has and never will make a mistake?

 

[KS]

I am FOR the death penalty not because of some BS religious reasons, but because the victims will atleast get some moral closure.

 

[Tronic]

Indian death penalty is nowhere on the same level as America. It is handed out in only the most rarest of rare cases.

 

[plugwater]

One who takes an innocent's life should die without any religious/regional bias.

No point in keeping them alive using tax payer's money.

 

[Yusuf]

Poll added.....

 

[johnee]

Any justice system can be hijacked by a heads or ruling parties for their devious agenda. So, to argue that a weak justice system will ensure less collateral damage of innocents seems to miss the point of a justice system. A justice system is created to punish criminal and prevent the crimes. One of the key ways of achieving this target is through effective deterrent. As in the punishment serves as a deterrent to other would-be criminals thereby preventing a crime.

So, we need brutal and strict punishments. There is, of course, always a fear that a innocent person may be subjected to these punishments. However, that cannot be over-riding factor for discarding of these punishments. Because once the punishments are not a deterrent to the criminals, we can be sure that they will continue to commit crime. Futher, they will inspire many more criminals. In short, crime will rise. The recent riots in UK were largely fueled by the confidence of the rioters that they can go scotfree. Similarly, terror attacks in India are fueled by the belief of the terrorists and their masterminds that they can escape any kind of punishment.

 

[amitkriit]

Several people in India are languished in jails without trial for petty crimes, because they did not have money to secure a bail. If Death Penalty is unjust, then this situation is a crime against the citizens. India's judicial system has been kept in a pathetic state deliberately, because it suites those in high places.

 

[sayareakd]

I am in for death penalty as practice today, it has sufficient system of check and balance. First trial court, which has to be confirmed by High Court, then right to Appeal before Supreme Court. plus two additional checks in place......... for the cases where the executive after going into all the circumstance if found that some injustice has been done, right is given to Governors and President to change that death penalty.

We practice law which says that even if 100 guilty go Scot free it doesn't matter let no innocent should be condemn for crime he is not committed. That is why so much delay in justice administration in criminal matters.......

BTW i am in for blowing up terrorists with their own bombs. As death penalty.

 

[Phenom]

I am for death Penalty as well. If all the courts have deemed it fit to execute a person and the President has denied their mercy petision, then they must have had good reason to do so.

As a country surrounded by enemies we can't afford to abolish death penalty.

 

[sayareakd]

If the court wont give death penalty then people would run after one another for revenge, since no death penalty as deterrence.

 

[johnee]

Any justice system can be hijacked by a heads or ruling parties for their devious agenda. So, to argue that a weak justice system will ensure less collateral damage of innocents seems to miss the point of a justice system. A justice system is created to punish criminal and prevent the crimes. One of the key ways of achieving this target is through effective deterrent. As in the punishment serves as a deterrent to other would-be criminals thereby preventing a crime.

So, we need brutal and strict punishments. There is, of course, always a fear that a innocent person may be subjected to these punishments. However, that cannot be over-riding factor for discarding of these punishments. Because once the punishments are not a deterrent to the criminals, we can be sure that they will continue to commit crime. Futher, they will inspire many more criminals. In short, crime will rise. The recent riots in UK were largely fueled by the confidence of the rioters that they can go scotfree. Similarly, terror attacks in India are fueled by the belief of the terrorists and their masterminds that they can escape any kind of punishment.

Further on this topic:

I have thought about our present system. It is directly inherited from the british along with all the corruption and high-handedness. However, the critical factor is that this system is least effective in being a deterrent or bringing transformation in the criminals. Infact, it frequently happens that persons guilty of petty crimes go to jail mingle with the hardcore criminals and get hooked on to a life of crime. There is a stigma attached to them that prevents them from finding alternative non-criminal employment forcing them to a life of crime. Putting the criminals in prisons is a tax on public exchequer because it takes a lot to feed and cloth them. It is also seen that prison facilities are much better for certain section of society than compared to what they could otherwise have earned outside.

The punishment must be such that it is immediate and effective as deterrent for the onlookers and the criminal.

So, what can be the effective system of punishment?

Social work like cleaning the roads or such for petty crimes. For bigger crimes, punishments like whipping say 10 lashes. For larger crimes, punishments like chopping a hand or leg. And when capital punishment is required, it needs to be brutal. Not a pretty and easy way of hanging. But a more brutal method.

I can immediately imagine people being shocked with these 'inhuman' suggestions. But the idea is to minimise crime through fear and deterrent of law. It is vastly cheaper and is very effective. People would gladly go to a 3 month jail then undergo 5 lashes. The 3 month jail is not such an effective deterrent as the 5 lashes. One can undergo 3 month jail periods indefinitely, but one cannot undergo 5 lash punishments again and again. It becomes a deterrent. Also, it is immediately painful. Physical pain is always much more sharper and immediate than the supposed mental pain. One can learn to live with mental pain and overtime the pain vanishes. The same is not true for physical pain because there is a limit to the pain bearing ability of our bodies.

It has an added advantage of not wasting a person' life by jailing him for long and crucial periods. Instead, as the punishment takes a short time, he can immediately go back to his life though well punished. And another factor is that the prison is not giving them any lodging in this scenario.

 

[A chauhan]

Interesting question !! on which a serious debate is going on all over the world.In India too capital punishment is given only in the "Rarest of the rare" ca

​

ses.There are certain capital crimes in IPC for which capital punishment is given, such as Murder, waging war against India, Gang robbery with murder etc.Honor killings are also taken as a capital crimes and punished with death sentence.

In India you can see three levels of punishments for serious or capital crimes (first is imprisonment for ten years, second is imprisonment for life and third is capital punishment), it depends on the circumstantial evidences, seriousness of crime and intention of the accused, that under which section and which punishment he is going to be punished.

Capital punishment is not a mandatory punishment for Murder(sec.302 IPC) in fact sec. 302 mentions 2 level of punishments , one is Capital punishment second is imprisonment for life, if sessions judge founds the crime very serious amounting to be rarest of the rare then only he pronounces capital punishment, which is still appealable in the high courts, then again appealable in the SC, then again you can go to the president of India for mercy. So you see a person is punished with capital punishment only if he passes the two levels of punishment, i mean if his crime is so serious that he must be punished with death.Murder in itself has two levels of crime one is Culpable homicide(sec. 304) and second is Murder, only the seriousness of the crime decides which section would be attracted.

If we remove this from Indian laws then you can imagine, we will be surrounded by dangerous murderers and criminals.So i am for the capital punishment.

 

[sayareakd]

@A chauhan what about Governor's right to pardon ???

 

[A chauhan]

If the court wont give death penalty then people would run after one another for revenge, since no death penalty as deterrence.

Agree saya. i have seen many criminals who were highly afraid of death, i sometimes imagine if we remove death penalty then we will find "Supari takers Bhais" in each city and muhallas who will bargain the Murder of people with money, because generally many criminals punished with imprisonment for life are released on the basis of their good behavior. And it can become a new business to kill a person and go to the jail for some years and earn lakhs of money lol! And it's worth mentioning that many criminals who must be punished with the death penalty easily get acquitted due to the corruption among the police, years long procedure of trials, and weak witnesses.

 

[Oracle]

I am for the death penalty only for the rarest of the rare cases. One being the terrorists who killed Rajiv Gandhi, Kasab, Afzal Guru.

I would also include in that list heads of terrorist groups like maoists, NSCN(Isak-Muviah & Khaplang), ULFA, DHD(J=Jewel Gorlosa), DHD(Nunisa faction), and all other terrorist organizations not mentioned by me. They have the blood of many in their hands.

 

[A chauhan]

@A chauhan what about Governor's right to pardon ???

Yeah saya i missed it, as generally request for pardon from death sentence goes to the President of India, Governors of states can also pardon it.

 

[LaBong]

Against.

It doesn't act as deterrent, doesn't provide any closure, doesn't save the exchequer, doesn't leave any scope of rectification of a possible error in judgment, so on and so forth.

 

[Daredevil]

I'm only for the death penalty in the cases of Terrorism where terrorists are responsible for mass-murder. if found guilty these scum should be summarily executed not because they act as deterrent or it saves exchequer but because I don't want more people to die because we are keeping these scum alive. Take the case of Masood Azhar - if he was executed and was not languishing in jail then the Air-India hijack would not have happened, he wouldn't have gone scot-free only to cause even more mayhem. The longer these scum are allowed to live the higher the possibility of some one getting killed.

 

[JayATL]

Everyone that is for it seems to be saying because a crime was committed( how do you know ?) and is some how of the belief that not a single innocent person has been put to death in the Indian judicial system. Thats how the arguments for proponents here read to me. Is that not superbly assumptions of you ?

also- studies have shown that " death penalty" is not a deterrent ...not any more than a life sentence...i.e. people know it exists but don't stop to go "hmm perhaps I should avoid making my act a death penalty act and simply downgrade the killing to a life sentence act.."

Given I have a study below about the US findings on " deterrence factor" , I ask you to NOT look at it as US kills more people, rather put the emphasis on the " effectiveness of the ' deterrence' o death penalty, when viewing the article.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf

Despite continuing controversy, executions continue apace in the United States. Late last year, we witnessed the 1000th U.S. execution since the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1977. The United States trails only China, Iran, and Vietnam in the number of executions according to Amnesty International.
The debate over the death penalty has hung on several major issues. Here, we'll concentrate on one: Does it act as a deterrent?
The claim that it does, is for many people the main reason to support it. George W. Bush stated in the 2000 Presidential debates, "I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives," and further that "It's the only reason to be for it." By contrast, earlier that year, Attorney General Janet Reno stated, "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent, and I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point."

BTW in an effort to be transparent and full disclosure, I've not yet, as of this post, selected a choice on the polls because I'm torn about it. which is ( my stance) a shift from a hell yes ( my past opinion) after having read and seen cases of innocent people being put to death. Only to have DNA exonerate them in the modern era. Which is another point I would ask you guys- how good is your scientific evidence procedures in India i.e is it full proof for those border line cases were prosecutors rely on circumstantial evidence?

 

[JayATL]

I'm only for the death penalty in the cases of Terrorism where terrorists are responsible for mass-murder. if found guilty these scum should be summarily executed not because they act as deterrent or it saves exchequer but because I don't want more people to die because we are keeping these scum alive. Take the case of Masood Azhar - if he was executed and was not languishing in jail then the Air-India hijack would not have happened, he wouldn't have gone scot-free only to cause even more mayhem. The longer these scum are allowed to live the higher the possibility of some one getting killed.

Well I strongly belief that even if he was executed Air India hijack would have happened to illicit some other bargains... BTW did you agree with the govt about that incident? US has zero bargaining policy w/ terrorist because you do it one time , it only emboldens them to do it again..