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 other thing I want to add is that they have not yet been tried and as such are still to be viewed as innocent. It is extremely premature in my view to calling for their death when they have not even been tried yet.

Duchesse have you actually been following the news properly? You may like to know that Jyotithe victim described the attackers and identified them to police, and that semen and blood samples found on the bus and inside ther body matched their DNA also? And that the youngest attacker admitted doing it to teach her a lesson? The others have also admitted to the crime. I suggest reading and researching properly before posting next time before declaring they should be treated as innocent.

And they are pleading not guilty.

Of course they should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Else why not hang them now and save the legal fees?

Mark Twain has a great quote for this:

I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.

I am not pro the death penalty, but in this case I have zero problems if India wants to use it.

I don't agree that killing a murderer is the same as killing an innocent person. This idea is a relatively modern invention, for thousands of years societies have relied upon traditional justice mechanisms that punished those who transgressed social norms in ways that were socially acceptable at the time. The whole point is that such people are no longer deserving of the same protections as innocent people.

And I agree with grimble's post earlier about the salving of consciences. All this talk about not wanting state-sanctioned murder -- countries like the US and the UK have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the world, yet it's the killing of murderers that would make the state a murderer?

Oh yes noble giraffe that makes a lot of sense. They have admitted to the crime and have DNA matches but still should be treated as innocent. Right..

Dreaming speak for others if you must, but not for me. You have no idea of our nationality, political leaning, work, life experience.

That is the basis of a fair trial Waynetta

How is the basis of a fair trial letting a defendant who has already admitted to raping and violating a woman, plead guilty. Call it a trial but please don't call it a 'fair' trial.

There have been PLENTY of people who have confessed to crimes but then been PROVEN not guilty afterwards (including with DNA evidence etc. showing it was actually someone else).

Especially in places where police brutality is widespread, and in high-profile cases where the police are under pressure to be seen to have got their man (sound familiar at all?). Or in cases where the accused had mental-health problems or learning disorders.

Oh, but maybe we should just have executed all those people first, and then apologised to their families afterwards when the real culprit was found some years later...?

I think a lot of the hostility between posters is caused by the misconception that those of us against the death penalty actually give a shit about the feelings of these monstrous men, or that we are somehow suggesting that they shouldn't be punished for their actions.

The point is that you can't be against the death penalty most of the time, it's either wrong or it isn't.

I believe it is wrong. This doesn't mean that I should be ashamed of myself, that I am trivialising this horrific crime, or that I am not a real feminist and I'm sorry if my feelings have 'sickened' other posters.

If you think the death penalty isn't wrong then that's fine. I wasn't trying to change anyone's beliefs or upset anyone by starting this thread, I was just trying to start a discussion about the difficulty I am having holding two opposing principles in this case.

Do you remember what was said earlier about confessions obtained under torture, Waynetta? It is perfectly possible to confess to a crime and be innocent.

If they don't get a fair trial, then the justice system is hollow and can't be trusted.

Jeez, we dont know how under what conditions these men confessed, the men who did this are indeed monsters, but this is a very very high profile case, the authoritys will, without doubt, want to show that justice has been done, so I should imagine its perfectly plausiable that these confessions may well have come about through tourture.

Thats one of the reasons I dont agree with the death penalty.

I am opposed to the death penalty. So no, I do not believe that these men should be hanged if found guilty.

That doesn't mean I don't revile their appalling crimes.

The victim IDENTIFIED the attackers. And its pretty damn certain the DNA matches in this case are not fraudulent. I think some of you are grasping at straws.

You don't seem to understand how a trial system works, Waynetta.

And the Innocence Project who work to overturn wrongful convictions found that victim misidentification was a factor in 70% of wrongful convictions.

And how are you 'pretty damn certain' that the DNA matches are not fraudulent? Because you saw it on TV or because you're an expert working on the case?

You cannot have trial by media. It must be by a properly authorised court and the defendants must have adequate legal representation.

Take a look at this link Waynetta.

Especially the section on "Causes" (of wrongful convictions):

"There are many reasons why wrongful convictions occur. The most common reason [my bold] is false eyewitness identification, which played a role in more than 75 percent of wrongful convictions overturned by the Innocence Project. Often assumed to be incontrovertible, a growing body of evidence suggests that eyewitness identifications are unreliable.[26]

Unreliable or improper forensic science played a role in some 50 percent of Innocence Project cases. Scientific techniques such as bite-mark comparison, once widely used, are now known to be subjective. Many forensic science techniques also lack uniform scientific standards.[27]

In about 25 percent of DNA exoneration cases, innocent people were coerced or threatened into making incriminating statements or false confessions. Of the 292 people freed by the Innocence Project, 28 actually pled guilty to crimes they did not commit (usually to avoid a harsher sentence, or even the death penalty).[28]

Government misconduct, inadequate legal counsel, and the improper use of informants also contributed to many of the wrongful convictions since overturned by the Innocence Project".

Still feel sure nobody innocent would ever be executed? (And this info is from the US by the way; although their justice system may be far from perfect IMO, I have no doubt it is better than those of many other countries).

x-posts noble!

So Waynetta, should we put criminals to death if we are 100% certain they committed the crime, but not if we are only, say 90% certain? That isn't matching the crime to the punishment, it's matching our certainty of their guilt to the punishment.

Morally I don't actually have a problem with the death penalty for evil crimes - however, every country which has the death penalty has a problem with inequality of justice (as I mentioned before, the poor, certain races, the insignificant are disproportionately put to death) and with miscarriages of justice. I don't believe either of these are acceptable.

Oh, and it does not act as a deterrent! If it did, no-one would undergo the death penalty, would they?!

Waynetta, actually I just think you don't the principles of a fair trial (vs lynching) and defendants being deemed innocent until proven guilty. Basic principles of a fair system of justice.

In the USA, states that have the DP have murder rates similar to other states. So it isn't a deterrent.

It doesn't save money either - it costs a lot of money in appeals etc to put a prisoner on death row.

Lastly - having the DP for criminals we are really sure are totally guilty rather begs the question what about the other criminals that we think are probably guilty, ie most of the ones currently in prison?

Why are they in prison if we aren't totally sure of their guilt? More people would be found not guilty anyway - if there was even a hint of uncertainty, could you send a man or woman to their death?

Well said, dreamigbohemian.

dreaming, even!!

Expat how am I speaking for you? Genuine question I was just stating my opinion.

I disagree that this is a black or white issue, that you have to be either 100% for or against the death penalty. I can see why you think that if you object for moral reasons. But if you object for more practical reasons e.g., that you can't always know for sure that someone is guilty then there are a limited set of circumstances in which the death penalty might be acceptable to you.

Please don't patronise me lol. Seriously. Facts are in this particular case, these men with all the evidence stacked against them were the ones who attacked Jyoti, and one, the youngest I believe, has even reminisced about disembowelling her intestines with his bare hands. Aside from all the 'fair' trial aspects, the majority of 'feminists' on this thread are in fact enablers of rapists and other criminals. I've already stated as did another poster that the majority cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and will go on to re offend. By not supporting the death penalty, you are in favour of risking the well wing and safety of others. Political correctness at its worst and human right activist bleating IMO. Go for it anyway, and lets hope nothing of this severity happens to any of you or anyone you know.