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?

No we aren't. Being against the death penalty doesn't mean we want the killers to be released one day.

dreaming your comment about the salving of conscience.

Being morally opposed to the death penalty does not stop you being a feminist.

We don't want them freed, I don't believe these men can be rehabilitated, life should mean life.

You should maybe stop and think that some of us opposed to the death penalty have actually been raped. But tho I may hate the person who did that to me I still don't agree with the death penalty. I can think he us a vile, vile person but I wouldn't want to personally inflict pain on him, I coylkdnt do that to another person and I don't want anyone to do it on my behalf.

If it was my daughter dasm right I would want them to suffer, but the justice system doesn't work like that.

And thank you 5madthings for this..

You should maybe stop and think that some of us opposed to the death penalty have actually been raped. But tho I may hate the person who did that to me I still don't agree with the death penalty. I can think he us a vile, vile person but I wouldn't want to personally inflict pain on him, I coylkdnt do that to another person and I don't want anyone to do it on my behalf.

I am getting increasingly bothered by people who cannot sustain their argument, using attacks about others who are posting to make their point.

As I said earlier it is fine to disagree with anyone, it is not ok to belittle them in doing so.

Agree with Snuppeline.

"The death penalty is the correct punishment for this crime at this point in the feminist battle in India. Once women have been given their rightful respect and crimes against women and children are provided with strict and enforced jail sentences the death penalty may no longer be needed. But what is needed here is a final solution so these men no longer present a threat to women and girls in India."

If those men are merely sent to jail, they will raise their hands in victory.

Snuppeline "I do not trust for a second that the men who raped and murdered Jyoti will spend their whole life in jail should they be given a life sentence. At some point or another they will all be freed because some mysoginist judge or panel of judges will deem that the crime they committed wasn't so bad after all, or that their behaviour is so good that they must be freed. "

Ok, even if that is the case, what does killing them achieve? Maybe those 5 wont be set free, but do you think killing them will stop other rapists going free? Or stop there being misogynist judges?

The problem is that, by that logic, the only solution is to kill all rapists. On the surface it sounds great, in practise it will just mean that more rapes will end in murder. Not ideal. Obviously ideally there would be no rapes at all, that goes without saying.

Maybe in this case putting them in jail and maybe having a misogynist judge decide to set them free will actually bring back the current outrage. Maybe that way the judges will be forced to look at their policies wrt setting dangerous prisoners free?

"But what is needed here is a final solution so these men no longer present a threat to women and girls in India."

Again it makes sense at first glance. But the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. There are stats to back this up. So you may remove those 5, but not deter any other rapists. Though you may encourage rapists to become murderers as well.

Waynetta "if your sister is humanity is violated in such a horrific way, I cannot and never will be able to get my head around that a normal woman would not want those animals killed"

Wanting them killed doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

dreaming "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."

An innocent isn't the same as a murderer, obviously. But murder is murder. It's not so much about the victim but the perpetrator in my opinion. If we are saying murder is wrong, then it's wrong no matter who does it. You can't say one murderer is guilty and deserves to die, but another murderer is innocent and righteous.

For thousands of years society has done many things which we no longer find acceptable. I wouldn't used that as a good yardstick.

"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?"

Has anyone on this thread said anything about justifying other state sanctioned murders? Or have we been saying repeatedly that murder is murder and is always wrong?

"I disagree that this is a black or white issue"

How isn't it? Is murder wrong or only sometimes wrong?

Waynetta "Aside from all the 'fair' trial aspects, the majority of 'feminists' on this thread are in fact enablers of rapists and other criminals."

Of course we are. Makes utter sense. Wanting the men punished but believing that murder is wrong is obviously the sign of a rape enabling. Wanting the focus to be on reforming the society in which these men felt able to rape Jyoti rather than appeasing the anger, obviously rape enabling.

I have to say I've never heard thinking murder is wrong be referred to as "political correctness gorn mad" before. That's a new one on me.

As 5madthings has said, you don't know how many of us have been raped, have seen our friends and family raped or even murdered. And yet you are happy to put us on the side of violent criminals. Take a step back and think about how harmful those misconceptions can be.

Expat okay, well, I meant that in the most general way possible, at a societal level, and was not thinking of anyone on this thread. I'm sorry not to make that clearer though.

I should say that I do respect the anti-death penalty arguments and I even agree with them about 90% of the time. But there are cases where the death penalty does not bother me.

I fully admit to being biased, I spend a lot of time researching atrocities in wartime and men who gang rape and kill women and children are, to me, the scum of the earth.

To say that killing a murderer is the same as the act of murder they committed is not a fact, it's an opinion. In every society, the difference between killing and murder is socially constructed and contested (the debate over euthanasia being a good example). For most of history, the idea that killling a murderer is also murder would have been rejected by most people. So I don't think it's strange that people still argue about this. Our social norms are still evolving, I think.

Everything that goths said.

x-post with you there Murder (ahem)

The idea of murder is a social and legal construct. It is not universal, there are different interpretations across time and across societies. So no, I do not agree that 'murder is murder'.

In some societies it's legal to help people die if they wish, in other countries that's murder. Who is right?

In wartime, our countries kill loads of innocent people. Most of them are not considered murder because we followed the laws of war. But we still killed innocent people.

I have no problem if you want to say that you don't want your government killing people, anyone. But it's too simplistic to say murder is murder. Murder is whatever a society thinks it is. If we are evolving to the point where we think the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder, that's totally fine, but the people who disagree with you are not necessarily wrong either, they just have a different interpretation of what murder is.

I also agree with Snuppeline

If they go to prison they will be freed sooner or later. They WILL do it again. Next time it could be my DC or your DC.

I couldn't torture anyone (except maybe if they'd done this to my DC) but I would happily press a button to kill these monsters. I would press that button to protect my DC and your DC. I don't care if the death penalty acts as a deterrent or not, it means that these particular people cannot do it again.

"I have no problem if you want to say that you don't want your government killing people, anyone. But it's too simplistic to say murder is murder. Murder is whatever a society thinks it is. If we are evolving to the point where we think the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder, that's totally fine, but the people who disagree with you are not necessarily wrong either, they just have a different interpretation of what murder is."

That makes sense. Although I do find it hard to understand the perspective of those who say that murder is wrong and only monsters can do it, and then say they'd like to retaliate by killing the murderers slowly and painfully, especially if they reckon they could do it themselves.

I do also wonder, as someone said up thread, what kind of person you have to be to actually kill another, even if it is state sanctioned.

Murder Well, what kind of person do you have to be to be in the military? You have to consider you may have to kill someone someday, but it's not murder because your government has said it's okay. I imagine it's a similar rationalisation process.

I actually don't believe only monsters kill people. If you look at wartime atrocities, many are committed by people who were 'normal' before the war (although criminals and psychopaths have a disproportionate influence).

I don't think bin Laden was a monster. If you look at the world through his ideology through the totality of his ideology, which was quite complex then what he did was logical to him and to his followers. But I don't have a problem with his death. He sponsored the killing of thousands of people. According to his ideology, this was righteous -- according to ours, it was mass murder. Our ideology 'won', so to speak, when we found him.

I do think some acts are monstrous and so far outside the bounds of social norms that the perpetrator has essentially revoked his right to live within the protection of those norms, and then it is up to society to decide what to do with him.

I am glad to live in a society with no death penalty. I think it's horrible that China executes drug dealers and Iran hangs political dissidents. But I'm really conflicted when it comes to rapist-murderers. I know I should object but honestly I think death is too good for them.

I agree with your arguments Murder, but I still think execution is the best possible outcome in this particular case.

This is a massive moment in Indian history - and this case is of course a show-trial. For years, Indian women have been raped and murdered and that has been ignored or trivialised. This is a chance to stand up and say, no more. It will be symbolic and a signal.

That is what the women marching in the streets want. Anything less would be more of the same old, same old: men are worth more than women.

"I actually don't believe only monsters kill people. If you look at wartime atrocities, many are committed by people who were 'normal' before the war"

I agree, I think "monster" is a silly label for someone who hurts/murders. They are humans that do "monstrous" things, as you said.

"so far outside the bounds of social norms that the perpetrator has essentially revoked his right to live within the protection of those norms, and then it is up to society to decide what to do with him. "

I agree with that as well. Though I still cannot stand to say that the death penalty isn't still murder.

I guess, as far as I'm concerned, murder is killing someone without their permission. So voluntary euthanasia is more suicide than murder. The only grey area as far as I'm concerned is self defence/defence.

So, killing someone to stop them harming yourself or another makes sense to me if there is no other way of stopping them. Killing them when they aren't an immediate threat, or if there are others ways of stopping them causing harm, is more calculated killing. And so murder rather than defence.

In these men's case, they are not an immediate threat and there are other ways of stopping them causing harm (eg. prison). Yes there is potential for them to be released, but I think the energy used calling for the death penalty could be better used calling for actual life imprisonment. Because the benefits to that are greater.

• moral superiority
• making it clear that murder is wrong with no justification (eg. discourage vigilantism)
• it also avoids making martyrs of them (let's face it they are going to look more pathetic and less appealing to emulate after a long time incarcerated. Whereas there's definite appeal in living as a rebel and dying young, unfortunately)
• might force society to take a better look at the appeals process and the length of the incarceration

Hear hear thisisaeuphemism

murderofgoths the kind of person who has to feed his family.
I read an article once on the only hangman (or one of the few) left in India.
Easy to judge if you haven't been in a country where people will do anything to get out of their grinding poverty.

murder no NHS, no benefits, no state pension or assistance whatsoever.
A hangman's job puts bread on the table, perhaps a paltry pension later. Doing something few people want to do.

In which case I have issue with a society where killing is the only way out of poverty.

murder will your having an issue feed that man, who is doing a job that he has legitimately obtained with his government??

Hope this helps for instance.

No, I never expected it would. But maybe making it so the death penalty doesn't exist, and also improving the treatment of the the underclasses (whether it's the poor or the women) will help improve his life and reduce rapes.

Will keeping the death penalty mean his life quality and prospects are improved?

And it's not like they're all bloodthirsty either. article
But it's a job.

Maybe I'm cynical, but a job that isn't highly desired and that people are forced to do when they have no other options doesn't sound like it'll be well paid or involve much in the way of good staff treatment.

Plus, unless they are bloodthirsty, surely a job like that is seriously bad for your mental wellbeing?

In fact, let's add to my list of benefits for not having the death penalty. It means not forcing anyone to do a horrific, low paid job with high risk of mental health problems.