Five men facing death penalty after bus rape(523 Posts)
BBC news link here
I'm feeling conflicted about this. Obviously what these men did was horrific, vile and unforgivable. But I just cannot agree with the death penalty.
I feel like I am somehow excusing what they did by not wanting them to be killed, and I can't emphasise enough how despicable I find their actions.
Does the fact that they violated the poor woman's human rights so violently and abhorrently mean they should have their right to life taken away too? Am i being too soft?
I suppose I am asking how you all feel about this, how do you think they should be punished? Also have you ever had your feminist views conflict with other principles, and how have you dealt with this?
<Really hoping I don't get flamed>
Pickelback, this thread was started last year. It was a sadly famous case and unfortunately the victim died of her severe injuries.
I'm with Capt Chaos btw although I am aware I'm exercising a fair amount of privilege in that view.
"Hopefully you won't mind if I show up late and interject on the faulty reasoning here." Ahh the voice of reason has turned up. Women bow down and receive your tutoring.
The perpetrators who faced the death penalty in the article were the ones who gang raped a woman on a private bus in Delhi. They are used to illustrate how bad the problem of gang rape has become in India.
State sanctioned murder is still barbaric.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I will never support killing someone except in self defence. Whatever they did, whatever the proof.
I don't support the death penalty because I don't feel comfortable with the idea of the state taking someone's life. Having said that, when I hear of stories like this I feel a slow painful death for those found guilty would be entirely justified. But that's human rage and fear and not grounds for making law.
"They ruined that woman's life. She will never be able to forget that night. "
She died of her injuries, Pickelback.
Because state sanctioned murder is barbaric. Thought I'd covered that.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Are there not times in which murder by the state is necessary?
As in the case of the UK/US forces against the Nazis of WW2.
I don't think I'm being extreme here by saying that absolutes simply can't be had here.
And...Regarding "barbarism". Let's also realize that there was a point in history where civil communities who shared communal basic necessities: food, drink, shelter, forms of power (known as "primitive socialism" in Karl Marx's words) were also deemed "barbaric" by the very same Europeans who had to kill and exploit each other through wage labor (as they do today) just to enjoy the same.
The label of "barbarism" has been one of the most misused words in the English lexicon.
I'm going to suggest. And this is a wild stab in the dark here. That you approve of countries where the state is a murderer?
I know, call me weird, because no one with even the tiniest shred of human decency or humanity would suggest that the death penalty was anything other than barbaric, but I am getting that vibe from your
But what would I know? I am just a silly bubble headed woman. What would I know about the big wide world?
Why don't you settle down and enjoy a lovely soothing
The problem with these arguments that Westerners have is that they tend to often run to ideological extremes. :
Either you agree with all murder or you disagree with all murder.
In the Western mind, it doesn’t occur to them that life is full of nuanced, and subtle gray areas. For them it's strictly black and white.
Capital Punishment is a bad idea for a lot and maybe even most of occasions, but to say that it won’t work well for any instance at all is just as extreme. No one has the answers here.
In short, no one really knows whether or not the death penalty is a deterrence. This is all just speculation at best. But what we DO know is that the death penalty used the FIRST time Austrailian killer Ivan Milat or American Ted Bundy got caught would have ensured everyone else’s safety and that no one else would have to die when these maniacs got out and continued their onslaught.
Sure— there are problems with the death penalty as it can only worsen things in countries that are already corrupt to the core, such as the Western world. But then by that same token, so are jail cells and prison. If the argument must be made to do away with the death penalty because of the fact that innocents may and will be convicted, then the same holds true for our jail cells. Holding an innocent person for 20-30 years against their own will is no less humane than taking away their life—which as noted up above, some people would actually prefer.
4.) Saying that the death penalty makes it too "easy" for criminals who would get the quick route to death, actually argues against the humanitarian angle many of you try to espouse. In fact, such an argument ironically turns into the argument of using the prison industrial complex as a tool of retribution as opposed to the word of “rehabilitation” many here fawned over.
And to imply that criminals are impulsive buffoons who don't weigh the potential consequences of their actions before they commit said crime is ridiculously assuming. Serial killers and rapists do NOT want to get caught! Hence the reason why they usually stalk and "test" their victims to see just how much they can get away with without the police being notified.
3.) The argument that murder of any kind is unjustifiably wrong is patently absurd. Many of us typing from the countries we live on have histories FULL of murder. In fact, it was from the direct consequence of conquest and murder by Europeans that powered the Industrial Revolution of the Western world, leading up to improved livelihoods and better education in science, technology, and medicine.
And even outside of that argument, hardly anyone here is going to condemn the participation of the UK and the US in the murder of the Nazis during World War 2 as an “unnecessary wrong”. And let's not even touch on the murdering of plants and animals.
Life feeds on life.
Pacifism only works in the imaginations of Vegans, fairy tales and in Sunday School.
2.) The argument that the death penalty makes celebrities of murderers is faulty, considering that the media circus runs with the publications of frenzied murderers WELL before the trials and convictions are even announced!
Ever heard of Charles Manson? He was convicted in a state that overturned the death penalty a long time ago-- yet he was still cherished as a hero for many rock-and-roll musicians, acts, and enthusiasts as he graced the front cover of multiple magazines.
If there is anything that makes celebrities of criminals it's your own corrupt, corporate-controlled Western media conglomerates.
This is a great discussion! Hopefully you won't mind if I show up late and interject on the faulty reasoning here.
1.) Using the U.S. as an example of Capital Punishment not being good deterrence is quite laughable at best.
America, being known as ground zero for the SuperCapitalist hell hole that it spawned, has always had both a broken political and justice system from it's very beginning as it cowtowed to moneyed interest at the chagrin of the rest of its populace.
Analyzing the failure of Capital Punishment in being a deterrence in a place where the criminal justice system, period, fails to be a deterrence in the face of money-- only concludes what we already know.: A bad cake continuous to be a bad cake with or without the icing on top.
However, the argument many anti-death-penalty users here are trying to turn this into is that a bad cake continuous to be a bad cake simply BECAUSE of the icing on top. Ridiculous.
Death penalty doesn't work. Many innocent people over here would also be
dead if it was still legal.
Damn! If anyone can make it clicky please do.
Here's a powerful piece about Indian attitudes to rape. I hope the link works, still haven't mastered this phone.
"I don't agree that the idea of 'rape being worse than death' is just a patriarchal notion."
I agree with you there, but I can see that in places like India the reason behind the thinking might be based more on a patriarchal view of virginity.
ICBINEG You're not kidding Even with all the uneven treatment of the sexes over here, I am so thankful I'm here.
Join the discussion
Please login first.