Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Five men facing death penalty after bus rape

522 replies

allthegoodnamesweretaken · 13/01/2013 19:15

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?

OP posts:
CelticPromise · 14/01/2013 12:25

Thanks for reinforcing my point Waynetta. I don't think it matters how many 'evil' people we kill, new ones will grow up to replace them.

Do you think societies that do have the death penalty are less violent? The US example disproves this.

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2013 12:25

it may be on the very rare occasion an innocent person may be killed

If you look at the US, it's certainly not as rare as you might hope. The Innocence Project, for example, is an independent group which seeks to exonerate innocent people through use of modern DNA evidence to overturn convictions. They are responsible for the release from US prisons of 302 people including 18 people on Death Row in 20 years. That's not what I would call rare. Incidentally, they found that witness misidentification was a factor in 70% of wrongful convictions.

mindosa · 14/01/2013 12:26

Zombie - what are you saying then because you are terribly unclear.

So should all rapists get the death penalty, should all murderers get the death penalty.

What about GBH when a person is left paralysed or a violent robbery where a pensioner is left etternally petrified?

perceptionreality · 14/01/2013 12:31

I totally disagree with the death penalty in any circumstance, and it has fuck all to do with being 'soft'.

I don't want my children growing up in a society where people are put to death by the state.

Some of the views on this thread sound very short sighted and not at all progressive.

'Only way to stop the subhumans is to end their lives'

People who commit crimes are not subhuman - you mentally reduce them to that because you feel the need to distance yourself. But the fact of the matter is that people are generally capable of the most awful crimes and they are certainly still human and not necessarily evil either. Nor is it unreasonable to consider that people who commit awful crimes can be rehabilitated.

CelticPromise · 14/01/2013 12:31

Zombie one of the other purposes of punishment is rehabilitation. " Basic principle of criminal law." Another is protection. Which one you consider to be the main purpose and how far each element should be included is a matter for debate.

perceptionreality · 14/01/2013 12:35

WaynettaSlob

You may well find yourself shouting about human rights one day if yours are ever removed.

ICBINEG · 14/01/2013 12:39

trills what even if they kill babies? Surely then you should be able to rip their arms off and feed them their own testicles!

perceptionreality · 14/01/2013 12:40

A case in point is the Holocaust. Where many 'ordinary' people who were neither evil nor mentally ill committed the most unbelievably awful crimes against innocent people. Would they all have behaved that way in a different set of circumstances? Possibly not.

I'm trying to illustrate the point that how people come to do awful things to each other is a far more complex issue than 'they must be a monster/subhuman end of story'.

noblegiraffe · 14/01/2013 12:42

zombie you're not saying rape the rapist, but you'd be happy to torture them? What sort of person do you think would apply for that role? The sort of person that perhaps might otherwise commit these crimes and you would simply be legitimising their actions?

If you or yours were ever wrongfully convicted (and it happens) then you might regret condoning a system that deliberately hires torturers as prison officers.

perceptionreality · 14/01/2013 12:44

'it may be on the very rare occasion an innocent person may be killed'

So, what you're saying is that it's ok for an innocent person to be murdered by the state if it's only occasional?

Hmm
ICBINEG · 14/01/2013 12:44

I don't really understand the concept of justice in this case.

If someone has taken something from you, say money, then justice is having it returned.

IF someone has killed someone you love what is justice? Killing them doesn't return what you have lost? Making them suffer doesn't return what you have lost? Nothing does. There can never be justice.

There can only be retribution or revenge. I personally believe that neither of these motives will ever achieve anything good. Particularly when enacted by the state.

So that leaves you with protecting your population. If the only way to stop someone from hurting people is to lock them away then that is what we must do. Anything beyond that is unjustifiable.

perceptionreality · 14/01/2013 12:48

Well said, ICBINEG

CelticPromise · 14/01/2013 12:52

Hear hear ICBINEG

FairyJen · 14/01/2013 12:57

It's difficult because the conflict I have is if this was my dd I would want to kill the bastards myself and I would hope a prison guard would sneak me in so I could do it!

Having said that in the USA the death penalty in general has not worked as a deterant

perceptionreality · 14/01/2013 13:02

'It's difficult because the conflict I have is if this was my dd I would want to kill the bastards myself and I would hope a prison guard would sneak me in so I could do it!'

Well of course you would. So would I if this were my dd. But that wouldn't make it right and is also why in a civilised country, the relatives of a victim do not decide their punishment - they are tried in a court of law by people who are not involved emotionally. It has to be this way, otherwise we slip back towards medieval barbarity.

aufaniae · 14/01/2013 13:03

"what even if they kill babies? Surely then you should be able to rip their arms off and feed them their own testicles!"

Well that's a very good example.

Many parents have been convicted of killing their own babies on the basis of expert evidence, when years later that evidence has been found to be faulty.

Rickets for example often leads to multiple fractures, which can lead ultimately to the death of a child, and if misdiagnosed (as it often is) parents face conviction for abuse and murder of the child.

See this page for example

A court of law will convict such people in good faith. How are you going to feel when years later several seemingly "open and shut" cases are overturned because of advances in science?

How are you going to be able to say sorry for "ripping their arms off and feeding them their own testicles" and giving them the death penalty?

The answer is, you can't. This is why the death penalty shouldn't be allowed.

Trills · 14/01/2013 13:04

Exactly, I would FEEL that I wanted to do this is not the same as I THINK that this is the right thing to do.

LouiseFisher · 14/01/2013 13:09

The death penalty isn't just a form of punishment but also alerts the community of the seriousness of the crime. Hence others who may think of doing such horrific crimes may not participate in such acts, once they are aware of the punishment if found guilty.

Absolutely disgusting behaviour and I believe the death penalty is a fair punishment for their crimes.

FairyJen · 14/01/2013 13:11

I dunno < in for flaming > I just sort of think we don't has resources etc for genuine life in prison. It's a burden and a drain on society and really once they are acclimatised its not really a punishment in my opinion.

The death penalty tho..their gone, job done and once less arsehile in the world.

perceptionreality · 14/01/2013 13:12

'The death penalty isn't just a form of punishment but also alerts the community of the seriousness of the crime. Hence others who may think of doing such horrific crimes may not participate in such acts, once they are aware of the punishment if found guilty.'

The death penalty doesn't seem to deter homicide in the US.

MurderOfGoths · 14/01/2013 13:17

"Even if you call it state sanctioned murder, for men who committed such a heinous crime, why is that wrong?"

Because murder is wrong.

There's no grey area. Either it's wrong or it's not.

It's not that some murder is wrong.

And if we accept that murder is wrong and should be punished then you'd also need to punish those who participate in the death penalty. And if their punishment is then the death penalty you'd then need to punish those who sanctioned that death penalty, and so on and so forth.

I believe the saying is, "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind".

MurderOfGoths · 14/01/2013 13:20

Also could someone please tell me where anyone has made excuses for what these men did?

Moominsarehippos · 14/01/2013 13:20

These men are facing the death penalty. It did not prevent the attack or subsequent murder of this woman - and from what I have read, they tried to run her over on purpose (so her murder wasn't accidental or as a result or her horrific ordeal). These men were not deterred by a possible death penalty.

This says more about their assumption that they would not be caught and/or prosecuted.

Trills · 14/01/2013 13:26

Nobody has made excuses for what they did.

Some posters seem to think that those of us who disagree with the death penalty do so only because we are not sufficiently upset and repelled by the crimes committed, and so have been listing abhorrent crimes and saying "what about this?". They cannot grasp that anyone could feel just as strongly as they do but still not think that it is right for the state to kill them.

(not ICE, she was just taking the piss)

MurderOfGoths · 14/01/2013 13:31

"Trills you are disgusting. You need help seriously, if you still see a baby rapist or any other rapist as human."

Seriously? How do you define "human"? Because me, I define it as a member of the species we know as homo sapien. What were these men if not homo sapiens?

Also treating rapists/murderers as being "not human" is actually counter productive. It makes sense why you'd think like that, of course it does, you want to disassociate yourself from people like that, me too! But by society acting as if they are "other" it means that society is less able to put preventative measures in place.

In order to prevent horrific crime you have to (no matter how distasteful it is) be able to see the human in the criminals and see why they do these things. This doesn't mean excusing them, far from it, it means being able to tackle the root causes and stop others following in their footsteps.

By just saying "they are subhuman" you are denying that anyone could do the same, you are also then not looking at the reasons behind it.

And so the cycle continues.

These men need punishing, severely. What they did is beyond disgusting. But the death penalty wont help.

  • It doesn't discourage crime (show me one country with the death penalty for murder where murders have stopped)
  • It can make the crime worse (eg. murdering victims as they have more to lose by letting them live and nothing to lose by killing them)
  • It sanctions murder
  • It means that those doling out this form of "justice" are not morally above those they condemn

Also in terms of wanting revenge how does the death penalty help? The moment these men die they stop suffering, they are free and at peace. Their families will suffer, but their families haven't committed the crime.