Hi friends,
I wanted to know your views on this issue..
Some of my points
In Favor of abolishing it:
1. It is inhumane and uncivilized and against right to life and throwback to medieval practice
2. If innocent person is, by mistake, hanged, no amount of justice can be done
3. It doesn't act as deterrence
4. About 140 countries have abolished it, mainly in Europe
Against abolishing it:
1. It is given only in rarest of rare cases in case of heinous crimes
2. It confers right on victim, to justice
3. It acts as deterrence to some extent
4. For punishing masterminds behind international terrorism, it is required.
My points seem theoretical to some extent, I need some deeper insight on whether it should be retained or not, and a concrete stand on it..
I hope to get some help in this regard:)
What does USA, China, North Korea, Iran, and Saudia Arabia have in common?It confers right on victim, to justice
It depends on what you mean by justice.It acts as deterrence to some extent
I haven't seen any evidence of this. Have you? Does state-sanctioned murder teach people not to murder?About 140 countries have abolished it, mainly in Europe.
Mainly in the world. In North America 2/3 countries have abolished it.
I absolutely agree. By comparison, we don't trash the car of people who get into accidents with other people, we don't poison people who are responsible for industrial accidents. We do punish these people, of course, but the whole Hammurabi thing the death penalty has going on is a little much. Anyone who thinks that the "eye for an eye" is a good basis for a criminal justice system needs to listen to this episode of The Moth podcast.. When's the last time you yelled at someone who was yelling at you? Pent up emotional baggage you may have with that person aside, Did it really make you feel better? I can say honestly it's never made me feel better - it makes me feel empty, and doesn't make me less upset abut whatever I was yelling about.
I agree that by seeking revenge we bring down the victims to status of murders and justice can not be retributive. Absolutely true that, an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.. But at least there has to be some sort of punishment, say not for revenge but to prevent further demeaning crimes from happening? For deterrence? Okay, death penalty is not justified, but there has to be life imprisonment. After All we have to balance between Human rights of accused and rights of a society to live safely!
But at least there has to be some sort of punishment, say not for revenge but to prevent further demeaning crimes from happening? For deterrence? well sure there should be punishment. In my view, the punishment we are giving people is a restriction from living a free life. realistically, punishing people for crimes does not tend to prevent those crimes from being committed again by other people, but we can prevent people who have been convicted of a crime from being able to commit that crime again.
I'm just going to give you a "c'mon, really?" look here, and shake my hand disappointedly. Canada is the only of the three that counts. Laws are only as good as their enforcement, and in Mexico the government and their proxies kill so many more people than all the death sentences in the US combined that it's laughable to claim that they have "abolished" anything. Mexico has abolished the death penalty in the same way that Iran has a free press. It's there on paper, and literally no where else.In North America 2/3 countries have abolished it.
Yes, I agree with you that justice does not mean vengeance.. With respect to deterrence aspect, See,we in India have death penalty and yet there are horrible crimes like rapes and murder. So it is not deterrent. In my view, life imprisonment is sufficient and for deterrence what we require is assured and quick punishment, not death penalty. The countries you have mentioned have retained it, but they are in minority as you say.
It grants the government the authority to kill a citizen. That's my primary sticking point. The government is beneath us in the democratic power structure. It is a system that we agree to interact with, but it is one that we modify and/or replace as we see fit. Despotism flips that power structure on its head, and granting the government the authority to exact death upon a citizen is one critical part of that cultural and material difference.
Hmm, agree that government can not be reduced to status of criminal, and thus state sponsored murder and retribution is not justified at any cost.
Id be in favor of it the death penalty if it was cheaper but since its currently cheaper to give criminals life in prison that's my preferred solution. In my perfect world I'd also cut down maximum prison time to 15 to 20 years. Any duration after that should be the death penalty because IMO after spending that much time in prison the person has little hope of functionally integrating back into society. Much less providing a meaningful contribution.
I have never been to prison but would think that given the choice I very well may prefer the death penalty as being more lenient.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who is not theoretically opposed to capital punishment, thinks lethal injection is torture and is in favor of the guillotine or firing squad as swift, honest punishment. "Using drugs meant for individuals with medical needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and beautiful — like something any one of us might experience in our final moments... But executions are, in fact, brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should we. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf."
Let me ask you some questions, if you don't mind, to kind of get the ball rolling. You're from India, right? How is it viewed in India? Do people there seem to be split on the issue and do you think there are any trends on that split. For example, do people in the country feel one way about it while people in the city feel another way? Is there currently a national dialog on it? If so, what do you think is driving the discussion? Lastly, what are your personal thoughts? Why?
Yes, I am from India. Currently there is death penalty in India for rarest of rare cases, cases which stir our concise and are barbaric. Yes, there is a national dialogue on it, but there is no split rural-urban wise. Let me tell you the situation: The problem is that our, criminal justice system is so overburdened with delays that most of the criminals are not convicted in time, even for minor punishments, what to say of death penalty.. And what drives me crazy is crime against women, our honorable Supreme court has said that rapes which lead victim's murder or leave them in vegetative state are liable to fall under rarest of rare case. Yet again, the clog in justice system prevents justice and Justice delayed is justice denied. Law commission here has recently favored abolishing death penalty except in Terrorism cases.It says crime rates have come down, moreover death penalty does not act as deterrent, sentencing as per rarest of rare case is arbitrary, and the biggest point is WAITING for trials is almost torture, besides we are also on minority on death penalty in world. So, finally my views on death penalty: This is the land of Gandhi and Buddha preaching "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" and non-violence, so, how can we support state sponsored murder and vengeance?The justice system is and has to be reformative and not retributive. As for rarest of rare cases are concerned I feel Life sentence is enough punishment and can be more harsh for some. With regard to deterrence aspect, what i feel is, first we need to ensure punishment at least ,without delays. Assured and guaranteed punishment of whatever amount will be surely instrumental in bringing down crime rates.
Philosophy aside, you can't really exonerate a corpse. That should be enough.
I'd prefer the death penalty to life in prison. Life in prison is in my eyes just a slow death sentence. The death penalty isn't applied with any consistency from case to case. A prosecutor will go for the death penalty against an unsympathetic defendant but not for a more sympathetic one. While I'm not for the death penalty, it would be better if justice were applied with a more even hand, everyone who commits capital murder faces the death penalty instead of just low IQ black men with a minor criminal historys.It confers right on victim, to justice
This bothers me for a bunch of reasons I don't even want to get into.
The "right to life" is a meaningless buzzphrase. No one believes in the absolute sanctity of human life. On one hand, the death penalty as it is implemented in the US does not accomplish the goals of justice or deterrence it purports to but certainly gives many the pleasure of blood-lust and revenge. There is no certainty that only guilty people are executed and we know that innocent people have been. Most people charged with death penalty offenses are not OJ and can not afford to mount a defence with the same resources that the State can. Sure they will get a free lawyer(s) but with limited resources. In the event that the defence does not work, even in the face of new exculpatory evidence, prosecutors are rarely willing to admit a mistake and it is difficult to get a case reopened. It is also far more expensive than housing someone in prison due to the cost of appeals, motions, etc. Very high cost and arbitrary deaths. On the other hand, the State and all of us (even the most ardent pro-lifers) accept the fact that "innocent" people die all the time because that is what we have decided is good for society. We could design cars and roadways so that no occupant or bystander is ever killed. But that would be more expensive than what we are willing to bear. We could prevent all high-rise construction workers deaths, but we value high-rises more than the cost of worker's lives. So the State and populace have decided that some level of death among otherwise innocent people is OK because we value other things more highly than the value of life. We could enact safety standards that would prevent it but that would also drive the price of those things out of the realm of economic possibility for its citizens. Sure the State is not actively causing death in these scenarios but it is actively condoning it by structuring laws so it is a necessary result. Low cost and arbitrary deaths. So here is the odd juxtaposition: we prefer cheap buildings, cars, etc. but also seem to prefer the higher cost of blood-lust more than the absolute sanctity of life.
That isn't an argument in favor of it. If the death penalty is acceptable for certain offenses, then obviously it should only be used for those offenses. Assuming that there are offenses deserving the death penalty, it will be applied only to those offenses. That is all I get out of it. I think the death penalty had a place in history. There were times when a life sentence wasn't an option but we aren't that medieval anymore. Additionally, because of the automatic appeal process involved, the death purgatory in Texas costs the state more than a typical life sentence does.1. It is given only in rarest of rare cases in case of heinous crimes
Rarest of rare cases are barbaric offenses which stir up humanity....they are most heinous, demeaning crimes... but again whether these offences are rarest of rare or not is very subjective, and is at discretion of judiciary.. So, yeah, in my opinion too this clause must be removed.and yup state can not come down to the level of criminals by way of seeking retribution!