Five men facing death penalty after bus rape

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

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?

The death penalty has never been proven to be a deterrent.

"India has the death penalty so it has to be applied.

I would prefer india didn't have the death penalty but that's seperate from the argument about whether these criminals should face the harshest penalty a country can apply."

^
This.

And those who insist that the perpetrators are subhuman, well there are some very disturbing connotations associated with the term. You cannot say "Well what do you expect: they are subhuman?" of people's actions. As someone else has said, this disassociates the crime from the causes of the crime and absolves society of all blame. And even if they are "subhuman" (yuck), then why should we, society, treat like for like?

This is why I am against the death penalty. But India isn't - it is in their laws.

I completely agree with Trills about the way people view rape in different circumstances. That is part of the issue created by treating people as less than human and somehow 'other' than us.

Interesting point about the herd effect too ReallyTired. I meet criminals in my line of work and there are certainly those who would not have committed an offence but for the people they were with/circumstances they were in.

this is interesting

Thanks for that Norma

Looks like you are more likely to be murdered in a place with the death penalty then.

You are 100% more likely to be murdered by the state. But somehow I think those killings are probably not included

I agree with Booyhoo, I think a whole-life sentence is far worse than death - in any jail, but particularly an Indian jail!

I just can't agree with the death penalty, there are too many miscarriages of justice.

The men that did this will never understand fully what they did. Adjusted normally developed people don't do what they did. So if they were put to death they might feel fear but they wouldn't equate it with the poor girl's terror and it would never atone. Jyoti's family will have to live knowing how their daughter/sister died. No revenge will wipe their minds clean.

I am against capital punishment because there is someone who has to do the deed and I don't agree with giving somone that kind of reponsibility.

I really worry about how many people there are who think it's ever ok to kill someone, regardless of what they've done - no-one should ever think they've got the right to deliberately take someone's life away (accidents and immediate self-defence I accept are a lot greyer), especially when there are other options available (locking rapists and murderers up in stinking pits for the rest of their lives I fully support). What those men did has to rank among the worst things anyone could do and they deserve any humane punishment available - think they should be locked up and made to work 16 hours a day to pay for locking them up, but killing them would be inhumane and so sinking to their level which surely no-one wants to do?

Human beings in a group do lose their individual moral compass and do things in a group that they would never do if they were on their own.

A simple example is when five or six school children decide to bully a weaker child. Another example is war crimes where soldiers get carried away and commit attrocities.

The Milgram experiment showed how perfectly normal decent people could get carried away and give a lethal electric shock in a pychology experiment.

psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm

Its similar psychology that allowed the holocost to happen.

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty and these men. The men are very young to have their lives cut short, however Jyoiti was only 23 and her lost life. Her poor fiance has lost the love of his life and was seriously injured trying to save his girl friend. Executing these men is probably the only affordable way India has of keeping them off the streets.

I do worry about a miscarriage of justice though.

Ooh MurderofGoths I was just about to post the exact same link!

I have heard this several times before too though, so am inclined to believe it. And the figures seem to be based on official info (census, police stats etc).

But in the Milgram experiment they were given 'permission by a figure of authority. This is different.
I completely agree about group dynamics. It's fascinating to wonder how it all begins. We will never know the true stories of those men. Although I can understand that I cannot see how these men can be rehabilitated - they offer absolutely nothing to society.

Right, so everyone has missed the point entirely.

Men and women are equal and should be treated in that way. However, in most societies this rarely happens. Hence the need for feminism.

When you advocate humane treatment and "rights" for men who perpetuate brutality and violence against women, you are in effect trivialising the seriousness if the crime and doing women a disservice.

I'm not saying it has to be the death penalty. I'm simply saying that these kind of men who are violent towards women and children do not deserve any compassion. They deserve to be punished. By advocating their rights and letting them get away with "reform" you are sensing out the message that its OK to torture women.

This holier than thou attitude of "we can't stoop to their level" is beyond my realm of comprehension. Some criminals are capable of reform. However, IMO there should be a zero tolerance policy for those who rape and beat women- they are not capable of rehabilitation and reform and they should be punished in the worst possible way.

While I fully support education and raising sons in a better way, I don't think that alone is the solution. Some of the most educated people commit the most heinous crimes. Education and awareness has to be accompanied by stringent laws and a zero tolerance policy for crime against women.

You are insulting Jyoti by saying that the execution of her brutalisers is also murder at the same level. It's not. You cannot compare the sickening death of an innocent to the execution of a depraved criminal. It's NOT the same thing.

I don't think anyone is saying they are deserving of compassion. Life in an Indian prison is worse than death, IMO. Saying you don't agree with the death penalty is not the same as feeling compassion for violent criminals.

Where do you draw the line with the death penalty? It has been proven that it is not a deterrent.

Even if you disagree with the death penalty, please don't compare an innocents horrifying murder to an violent criminal's execution. It's like putting Osama's death on the same level as the innocents who died in 9/11. It's absurd.

I don't think everyone has missed the point.

So you kill them. What then?

No, we haven't missed the point.

We think that advocating human rights is not trivialising or legitimising crime. We believe that there are some boundaries that should not be crossed, no matter how heinous the crime.

Ariel,

Plenty of "feminists" here have suggested that men who brutalise women and children are still deserving of compassion and should be given a chance to "reform".

Furthermore, punishments aren't only about being a deterrent for future crimes. The prevention of crimes is a complex issue that goes much beyond punishment- it involves better policing, awareness, swift judgements. The punishment needs to be something that is commensurate with the crime committed. You can't just mutilate people and then sit comfortably in jail being "rehabilitated". That's nonsense.

Trills,

You need to make CRIMINALS aware of their boundaries, not talk about crossing boundaries with people who had no respect for anyone else's.

Are you honestly advocating human rights for men who disembowelled, mutilated, raped and killed a 23 year old girl? Are you suggesting they should be treated humanely? You're talking about their rights. What about Jyoti's rights? Did she not have the right to live, eat, have children and be safe?

By protecting the rights of depraved criminals , you are trivialising the crime and sending out a dangerous message. I can't believe some of the bullshit I'm reading here.

I have always been opposed to the death penalty because of the possibility of mistakes.

However, reading through the thread I am seriously wondering about the attitude of those who say they are opposed to the death penalty, not just because of mistakes but also because we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level, state killing is murder, capital punishment is revenge not justice etc.

But then some of those opposing the death penalty go on to say that killing them means they get off without real punishment and should be locked up and suffer the consequence of what they did for the rest of their lives.

That leaves me asking, if it is a moral stance to be against the death penalty on the basis that it is revenge, not justice, state murder etc. how is it better to want these individuals to survive and suffer lifelong punishment? That seems to me to be equally a stance of revenge and retribution. I am suspicious that some opposed to the death penalty but wanting severe punishment are more concerned with not having a state death on their conscience while being OK with long term punishment in an out of sight out of mind way.

I'm finding it difficult to express what I mean, but I am not convinced that those opposed to the death penalty normally (and that includes me) are not more concerned with salving our own consciences by opposing it while de facto feeling OK with what could turn out to be a much harsher and more retributive punishment than a quick death. In that scenario, is the anti capital punishment stance more ethical or moral than the pro one? I wonder.

Oh dear, I am still struggling to clarify what I mean

Yes I'm saying they should be treated humanely. Every human should.

ExpatAl,

So we don't kill them. What then?

I'm not saying the death penalty is the only way. But what in your opinion is a punishment fit enough for the men who did this?

But it is not comensurate. Jyoti died slowly after being bruatalised and terrified. If the men are put to death they will die in a clean 'humane' (ha!) way. It makes no sense.