Capital Punishment - Should we do away with it?

[Lord Nemesis]

So what do you guys think and your justifications for it?

I have seen a lot of debate around the topic and those who want to do away with it typically argue that its inhumane or that it is not the place of humans to judge others like that.

IMO, there are several reasons to have this entire system of punishments in general

Corrective punishments: This is to make the culprits understand that there are consequences for their actions, give them time to realize their mistakes by themselves or through help and give them opportunity to correct themselves. Community service/labor, short term imprisonment, fines etc are examples.

Setting an Example: This is to act as a deterrent to prevent others from committing the same crime. The main theme of this category is to induce fear about consequences thereby making people not commit the crime by virtue of that fear if not because of moral reasons.

Preventive punishments: Some people are just dangerous to the society and don't stop doing the same crimes again and again if allowed to go back into the society. Or they may be the kind who show no remorse about their actions. The goal of this category is to prevent such people from going back in the society to commit more crimes.

The capital punishment fits into the last two categories. Some people just never stop committing grievous crimes and are a threat to the society as a whole.

There are only two ways to deal with them.

1. Lock them up for the entirely of their life which also incurs a huge cost.
2. Capital punishment. Some people call it legal murder. But I personally think its still necessary. It is no different than how people kill a rabid dog or a decease causing vermin. You kill them because they are a threat to the rest of society.

Locking away people costs tax money. If the goal is to prevent them from every interacting with society again, then capital punishment is not only cheaper, but less cruel overall.

I also think that that the age limit being used for juvenile protection is absurd. A 13~14 year old is aware enough to know right from wrong. In fact most of the kids above 14 who commit brutal crimes do so with the knowledge that they can get away form legal consequences for their actions. While not every case maybe the same, I think it makes sense that based on the context, even kids in this age group be tried as adults if its deemed necessary. Just having a cut off like 18 years while disregarding the crime is absurd.

 

[iamnew]

India has the right approach.Capital punishment in only the rarest of rare cases.I still cant decide which is more inhumane,a life time in prison or death.

 

[Spacescreamer]

Nope.

We have way too much lax govt + police officials out there. Add to it the corruption and politics involved, the whole procedure more often than not becomes a running joke. A punishment should not only dole out appropriate penalty, but also instill fear in other people regarding the aftermaths of crime. We havent reached the level where people will actively debate/think over criminal acts to abstain or respect human or social conduct.

 

[drkrack]

Ideally we shouldn't give a Punishment which we cannot retract or compensate in case of a wrong verdict.
But Keeping a guy like Kasab in prison for life is economically non viable. with terrorists this problem is going to arise quite frequently. What if they were to do a successful Jail Break ??
So India has a right approach I think, Death Penalty in Rarest Rare cases, Where proofs are quite clear & the criminal is a repeat offender.

Our Judicial system is very Lax, takes years to get a relatively simple verdict. Nobody is bothered about Civil Suits, Justice in this country is almost always delayed.
That is why a capital punishment as a deterrent is a must, may not work in case of organized criminals But, we can get rid of them if the need be.

Two important questions, may not be directly related to OP but,
Why are we allowing the Judges to take holidays similar to a British structure, followed 70 yrs ago. When so many amount of cases pending why can't we ask them to work a little more in par with other officials. 45 Days summer Vacations ??
http://www.firstpost.com/ideas/why-does-our-supreme-court-vacation-so-much-57236.html

When we are paying a fee , Why can't Judges be brought under Consumer Protection Law ( or some other Law), in case of a Flawed Verdict ?
I hardly see any accountability on the part of Judges, Remember Reddy brothers Bail Plea ?

Judicial System needs lot of reforms, it's corrupt like any other govt department, if we are able correct those deficiencies and bring the fear of Judiciary in the minds of criminals, we can consider abolishing Death Penalty, But not presently .

 

[blr_p]

I said yes for the simple reason that to hang a murderer is to create another

The glaring contradiction of state saying you cannot kill somebody and then itself doing just that (!)

Not justice but retribution.

it is a primitive way of enforcing order. it has no deterrent effect that can be demonstrated in peace time. rarest of the rare is a compromise we have worked out for ourselves only because we were unable to get rid of it. Still this means we do better than some US states (in the minority) that are still stuck in the stone ages.

emergency, disturbed areas or war where treason can come into it is a different argument. Where the actions of one can endanger many.

 

[Chaos]

I am completely against it - an eye for an eye does not work in a civilized society. blr_p has already mentioned the most compelling reasons why.

I'd like to add that the countries with the lowest murder rates in the world do not have capital punishment. The whole idea of a justice system should be to reform not exact revenge.

 

[eternoMind]

Death penalty as a deterrent is a joke if you consider China. They still seem to be putting to death more than 2000 of their own citizens every year.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

I am completely against it - an eye for an eye does not work in a civilized society. blr_p has already mentioned the most compelling reasons why.
.

Not justice but retribution.

it is a primitive way of enforcing order. it has no deterrent effect that can be demonstrated in peace time.

You are assuming that everybody in that society is civilized and can be reasoned with, but that is not true. If everybody is civilized and reasonable, there will be no need for writing laws or having punishments in the first place. Human is an unique animal. While most other animals hurts or kills because of its own survival instincts (defence, food) etc. humans can do those things just for fun and can be insanely cruel about it too. The bounds of cruelty that can be portrayed by humans is way beyond that of any other animal.

So, how do you deal with people who hurt others and feel no remorse about their actions and would not think twice about repeating it again. Not everybody is a victim of circumstances and not everyone can be reformed. For instance a vast number of rapists are repeat offenders. You let them out and they will repeat the crime again and again and again.

How do you prevent others like them from following the same example? No education, medical/psychological treatment is going to reform them. So, should we just let let them out into the society since nothing else can be done?

Should they be kept locked up for life at tax payers expense? But then isn't that punishing the innocent citizens for the crimes of a few. Also, imprisonment is for most people vastly more cruel than a death sentence. Isn't it a bit of hypocrisy to condemn death sentence saying that its uncivilized, but still being fine with imprisonments which can be for many people a torture worse than a quick death? So, should a civilized society do away with imprisonments as well and when ever somebody commits a rape or murder, just slap them on the wrist, give them an earful and then let them go back into the society hoping that they won't do it again?

Does the threat of death penalty act as a deterrent? I believe it does. Just like every other animal, humans too retain the instinct to survive and so losing their life is something they still fear instinctively. A person would by instinct not like to lose his life over his desire to hurt others for fun or other reasons that he does not deem as important as his life. So yes, death penalty can be a deterrent.

Lastly, that statistic about lowest murder rates in places without death sentence does not have any correlation. One place may have lower crime rates despite not having death penalty and another place might need death penalty to act act as a deterrent and control the crime level. It does not mean that removing death penalty in the later case would magically transform the later place to be like the former place.

 

[Chaos]

So, how do you deal with people who hurt others and feel no remorse about their actions and would not think twice about repeating it again. Not everybody is a victim of circumstances and not everyone can be reformed. For instance a vast number of rapists are repeat offenders. You let them out and they will repeat the crime again and again and again.

They repeat the crime simply because they have not been rehabilitated. Why do people released from jail go back to a life of crime? Simply because they are not accepted as a part of society even after they have done their time. The way prisoners are treated in jails in India only exacerbates this issue and inculcates recidivism. The main thing to understand is that folks do bad things because of circumstances and upbringing. If they are given a second chance, they might change.

Should they be kept locked up for life at tax payers expense? But then isn't that punishing the innocent citizens for the crimes of a few. Also, imprisonment is for most people vastly more cruel than a death sentence. Isn't it a bit of hypocrisy to condemn death sentence saying that its uncivilized, but still being fine with imprisonments which can be for many people a torture worse than a quick death? So, should a civilized society do away with imprisonments as well and when ever somebody commits a rape or murder, just slap them on the wrist, give them an earful and then let them go back into the society hoping that they won't do it again?

Don't think tax payer's money has anything to do with it. The way you are portraying this, it appears you want to create a next holocaust where you execute every single prisoner that is in jail immaterial of their crime. Do you really want that?

Anyways I'm out of here - no matter however much you argue, you can't convince me to accept death penalty.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

^^ Not everyone is a victim of circumstances. Not everyone can be rehabilitated.

If you think that death penalty is never a good idea, then it follows that there is no case for imprisonment either. Just send them all for rehabilitation and let them go free whether they change or not. If they do it again, repeat rehabilitation.

At some point of time, the very attempt at rehabilitation would be deemed uncivilized because the person does not want to change who he was and trying to force the change on them through counselling, therapy and other other kinds of help to fit them into society is also cruelty.

 

[eternoMind]

You are saying fear of death is what will keep things in line. Play that over in your head again, FEAR OF DEATH!

A similar analogy can be drawn in making corporal punishment the default way of keeping a child in line. Do you think beating the shit out of children is the best way to make them understand their mistake?
Is that how you want a society to be and function?

A place where people refrain from committing crimes for the fear of death penalty (which by the way is a theory that has no proof other than your own vociferous support). Can you explain why China hasn't seen an end to their execution numbers for the longest time now?

Like it or not, the Indian government has found it difficult to see the sense in this part of our law, which is why the low number of death penalties over the years. As a taxpayer, when so much of my tax money does get wasted in various ways, I wouldn't mind if part of it goes towards the rehabilitation or incarceration of what are at the end of the day, products of the very society I live in.

To be honest, the only place where I see the inevitability of a death penalty is a national threat scenario. A journalist on a TV debate expressed her support for the death penalty only for cases like those of terrorists (talking in Memon context) in order to avoid a repeat of the IC814 fiasco. Even that reason had a semblance of precedence and sense than the one you are talking about.

 

[toocool6600]

I am completely against it - an eye for an eye does not work in a civilized society. blr_p has already mentioned the most compelling reasons why.

I'd like to add that the countries with the lowest murder rates in the world do not have capital punishment. The whole idea of a justice system should be to reform not exact revenge.

Yup feeding them biryani makes much more sense

 

[toocool6600]

They repeat the crime simply because they have not been rehabilitated. Why do people released from jail go back to a life of crime? Simply because they are not accepted as a part of society even after they have done their time. The way prisoners are treated in jails in India only exacerbates this issue and inculcates recidivism. The main thing to understand is that folks do bad things because of circumstances and upbringing. If they are given a second chance, they might change.


Don't think tax payer's money has anything to do with it. The way you are portraying this, it appears you want to create a next holocaust where you execute every single prisoner that is in jail immaterial of their crime. Do you really want that?

Anyways I'm out of here - no matter however much you argue, you can't convince me to accept death penalty.

Terrorist and serial killers /serial rapists will also not change your mind.

I know

 

[Lord Nemesis]

You are saying fear of death is what will keep things in line. Play that over in your head again, FEAR OF DEATH!

A similar analogy can be drawn in making corporal punishment the default way of keeping a child in line. Do you think beating the shit out of children is the best way to make them understand their mistake?
Is that how you want a society to be and function?

1. Lets get this straight.. you are trying to compare children who are still immature with adults who can think and make decisions for themselves and are in state that cannot be easily swayed or changed.
2. Despite that, guess what tool most parents use to straighten out their unruly children? It is fear. It may not necessarily be fear of a trashing from the parents, but fear is used in all kinds and forms on children. It may be fear of losing play time, fear of losing pocket money, fear of boogeymen and what not. In fact I have never seen a parent who hasn't ever used fear against his children. Show me a parent who has never ever used fear of any form of kind as a tool to discipline their children.

Kindness and love are not a language that everybody understands or even desires to understand, but fear is universally understood. Societies do not just include people who play by the rules, it should includes people who don't. Leaders/governments exist for this reason and regardless of the form, it is fear that is ultimately some semblance of control. Can you imagine what is going to happen if its is declared that there would be no punishments, no jails, no police and no government. Do you think everybody in that society would live together happily ever after? Where ever there is control, rest assured that fear is being used in some form or the other.

A place where people refrain from committing crimes for the fear of death penalty (which by the way is a theory that has no proof other than your own vociferous support). Can you explain why China hasn't seen an end to their execution numbers for the longest time now?

Your interpretation is wrong. It is wrong to assume that crime rate would be zero because of fear of death. There would always be a few who do not fear death or who think they are too smart to get caught. But it is still enough of a deterrent to stop many. Guess what happens when you ban death sentences or relax punishments because the crime rate is high and the death sentences and other punishments are not bringing it to zero. No, the crime rate is not going to inexplicably start going down. It is going to get even higher. People whose didn't dare commit those crimes because of fear of punishments earlier would start doing so now.

Like it or not, the Indian government has found it difficult to see the sense in this part of our law, which is why the low number of death penalties over the years. As a taxpayer, when so much of my tax money does get wasted in various ways, I wouldn't mind if part of it goes towards the rehabilitation or incarceration of what are at the end of the day, products of the very society I live in.

I agree to the point that death penalty should be reserved for the rarest of rare situations. That is exactly how it should be. People who can mend their ways do not need to hang.

But, it is so absurd to assume that everyone would stop their wrongs and mend their ways with a little "rehabilitation". There are people who commit crimes because they derive pleasure from it.

The prime accused of the Nirbhaya case was adult enough to realize what he was doing. He is not somebody who is going to mend his ways because of rehabilitation. He is going to get out because he was tried as a juvenile and he is going to victimize some other girl and this time he may or may not get caught. That is how many rape cases are in our country. What about the Uber driver who had supposedly committed so many rapes and had the audacity to threaten lawyers and journalists in court. You think he is going to mend his ways with a rehabilitation. In fact, last year I read about a old case from UP where a guy booked for rape came out after serving partial punishment, decapitated his rape victims parents in their own house while they were sleeping, raped the victim's younger sister, but left his victim unharmed physically just so he could inflict mental torture on her. By the time he was caught again, he had supposedly committed few more rapes. Not sure what happened to the case later though.

If the other alternative for them is life in prison, many would see it as a much worse fate than death. Instead of dying quickly, they would be mentally tortured and killed slowly day by day. I guess many people like this better because they are oblivious to the suffering of the criminals in imprisonment and think they are being so big hearted by condemning the death sentence.

 

[drkrack]

Now What do we do with this Usman alias Kasim Khan, live terrorist caught by BSF?

Feed him Biryaani forever at the expense of exchequer ? He's hardly 18yr, Should we hang him?

He's a programmed killing machine otherwise. Loves killing Hindus & Indian Security personnel. Would've killed many, hadn't he been caught. His native country has disowned him already.

I don't see even a hint of remorse to the crimes he's committed or planning to commit. If we hang him later after 7yrs, so called secular media & political clout will be offended then. He has to be tried in Juvenile courts as of now & can't be awarded a capital punishment.

We caught him & landed ourselves in Catch 22. Probably being killed in a encounter would've been less cruel than life sentence for a 16yr old.

 

[cellar_door]

Your interpretation is wrong. It is wrong to assume that crime rate would be zero because of fear of death. There would always be a few who do not fear death or who think they are too smart to get caught. But it is still enough of a deterrent to stop many. Guess what happens when you ban death sentences or relax punishments because the crime rate is high and the death sentences and other punishments are not bringing it to zero. No, the crime rate is not going to inexplicably start going down. It is going to get even higher. People whose didn't dare commit those crimes because of fear of punishments earlier would start doing so now.

Do you have any data that backs this up? Cause if its just your "gut feeling" then its as good as anyone else's opinion to the contrary. In fact the contrary of this opinion has data backing it up-

In studies of contiguous states, at least one with the death penalty and at least one without, research has shown that there is no deterrent impact from capital punishment. Because these states are selected and matched on the basis of geographical location, and similar social demographic characteristics, we would expect there to be few confounding factors in measuring the impact of capital punishment. If there is a deterrent, death penalty states should have a markedly lower homicide rate. They do not. Homicide rates in states without the death penalty are no higher, and, in many cases, are lower, than in neighboring states with the death penalty (Sellin, 1980).

Similarly in studies of states where the death penalty was adopted or reinstated after having been abolished, research has once again failed to show any deterrent effect. The adoption or reinstatement of the death penalty does nothing to reduce the homicide rate (Sellin, 1980; Zeisel, 1977).

Comparative data also fails to demonstrate any deterrent value to the death penalty. The United States is the only Western democracy that retains the death penalty. The United States also has, far and away, the highest homicide rate in the industrialized world. Far from a deterrent effect, the death penalty would appear to have an aggravating effect on homicide rates (Kappeler, Blumberg, and Potter, 1996: 310).

The scientific conclusion is clear. The death penalty does not deter homicide.

Source - http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/pubs/Public_Adv/nov97/crime_control.htm

Death penalty as a deterrent does not work.

Having said that, I can agree with the fact that there are reasons (arguably sound ones) where the state can and probably should execute individuals. Keeping high profile terrorists alive in your jail is begging for hostage situations and demands. Some criminals that commit really heinous crimes are beyond rehabilitation. They arent mentally unbalanced either so committing them to an asylum probably wont work.

But all of that is opinion rather than hard science.

The system we have (rarest of rare) isnt the perfect solution but like democracy its the best one to the situation.

Edit Can we please let of the whole "feed them biryani" argument go. It is cheap appeal to rile up anger. Leave that kinda garbage argument on TRP hungry sensationalist news channels. How would someone's incarceration be any better if he had Aloo Gajar for dinner? Anything he eats is at tax payers expense. Thats how jail works. Maybe we should start taking out mirchi and namak to make their food taste worse? Half cook their chapati? That will surely rehabilitate them?

 

[ssslayer]

What about primitive barbaric laws under Sharia?
Are they justified?
Well they do act as a huge deterrent .. aint it?
So shouldn't we start importing such laws into India?


In what cases are you justifying the death penalty?
Can you give me some examples? Do we know the underlying context due to which the "crime" was committed?

 

[drkrack]

Do you have any data that backs this up? Cause if its just your "gut feeling" then its as good as anyone else's opinion to the contrary. In fact the contrary of this opinion has data backing it up-



Source - http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/pubs/Public_Adv/nov97/crime_control.htm

Death penalty as a deterrent does not work.

Having said that, I can agree with the fact that there are reasons (arguably sound ones) where the state can and probably should execute individuals. Keeping high profile terrorists alive in your jail is begging for hostage situations and demands. Some criminals that commit really heinous crimes are beyond rehabilitation. They arent mentally unbalanced either so committing them to an asylum probably wont work.

But all of that is opinion rather than hard science.

The system we have (rarest of rare) isnt the perfect solution but like democracy its the best one to the situation.

Edit Can we please let of the whole "feed them biryani" argument go. It is cheap appeal to rile up anger. Leave that kinda garbage argument on TRP hungry sensationalist news channels. How would someone's incarceration be any better if he had Aloo Gajar for dinner? Anything he eats is at tax payers expense. Thats how jail works. Maybe we should start taking out mirchi and namak to make their food taste worse? Half cook their chapati? That will surely rehabilitate them?

OK, Biryaani point well taken, won't be repeated.

How are you going to evolve a hardcore scientific data on deterrence for certain crime & certain mode of punishment ? It's social science, not a objective science we're talking about. Deterrence, will mean a crime not committed ! How any statistical data is going to address it unquestionably ? It's finally collective or majority opinion of criminologists I think. Finally it's again a opinion.

Whether death penalty deters the criminals from committing crimes is a debatable issue. But so is the case for any other punishments. What should we do? Should we leave them in some Asylum?

But death penalty acts as a deterrent for at least the criminal in question forever. He cannot commit a crime henceforth. So it's unquestionably proven that it deters at least one person from committing the crime henceforth.
The killing machines we're dealing today cannot be rehabilitated, they need to be executed.

So you agree that Usman Khan aliyas Md Yakub should be considered for death penalty? I'm not expecting others to stop terrorism after hanging him but stopping him from committing further crimes.
Abolishing death penalty is thereotically exciting but practically death penalty is more logical & economical.

Perhaps, Yakub Memon was a wrong person for initiating this debate. But our thereotically strong secular intellectuals, wouldn't want to leave any stone unturned for saving him.

We badly need judicial system reforms, just Swift hearing and proper judgement acts as a strong deterrent for many people. Our current social & political scenario isn't appropriate for abolishing death penalty.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

Do you have any data that backs this up? Cause if its just your "gut feeling" then its as good as anyone else's opinion to the contrary. In fact the contrary of this opinion has data backing it up-



Source - http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/pubs/Public_Adv/nov97/crime_control.htm

Death penalty as a deterrent does not work.

What is the basis of that article. It looks like it is simply general public opinion and opinion of some criminologists which was also formed based on data collected from the public. There is no indication of data from actual criminals and wannabe criminals. (which is hard to capture) So, there is no hard data there to prove that death penalties doesn't deter crimes. There is only data to indicate that a lot of people and a number of criminologists out of their sample size think that death penalty doesn't deter crime.

Even otherwise, that article does not seem to have any relevance for our country. The background of the country is important and does matte. British law which we inherited for instance is based on the fact the premise that most people can reformed with a bit of correctional punishments and it does not really work for a country like India.

On the other hand, We are already witnessing increases in crimes, their brutality and audacity of the criminals because of all the loop holes and weak punishments systems .The prime accused of Nirbhaya killer got off easy because of juvenile protection laws. Immediately afterwards, there was a spike in crimes by juveniles. In fact there was also a spike in crimes by 18~21 year old's who just claimed they are juveniles when they got caught.

How do you decide whether death penalty is a deterrent or not. Here is how we can go about it?

1. Are there at least 10 people (may be even 1) in the country who would refrain from committing a heinous crime because of fear of the punishment they would get when they get caught?
2. Does having this punishment have any other negative impact on crime rate?
3. How does it fare compared to another measure. For instance if you take two people who like to commit crimes for the heck of it and tell the first one that he is definitely going to be executed if he commits a crime and the tell a second one that he will be made to sit though a one month rehabilitation program with all costs borne by the govt and would be allowed to go free after that. Who is more likely to commit a crime?

Also Remember that death penalty is like a sheathed sword. A sheathed sword is often enough to keep a lot of other swords from being unsheathed, but it does not necessarily mean that it is a failure if it cannot keep all the swords sheathed.

If all people are reasonable enough, you would not need a sword, but it would also not matter that you have a sword by your side. And when not all people are reasonable, the fact that you have a sword will still deter a few out of fear if nothing else.

If even 10 crimes are prevented because of having death penalty in our system, then it has already fulfilled its purpose as a deterrent.

 

[nimod]

Source - http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/pubs/Public_Adv/nov97/crime_control.htm
Death penalty as a deterrent does not work.

Yes, I agree with this. Death penalty doesn't work.
Even jail terms doesn't work as a deterrent. We do have seasoned criminals.

imho, any form of punishment is not working because we are handling the punished people too ethically (or lets say too carefully).
lets start awarding these deserving people their dues in public without caring about their so called human rights.
(lets discuss if the hard core criminals can claim any such thing for themselves)

These public awards should be well known to people so that they can teach about these punishments to their kids.
I am sure it will work;