Barbaric

[aupmanyav]

Procedure for impeachment of a judge in India:

Initiation of Motion:
A motion for impeachment must be signed by at least:
50 members of the Rajya Sabha (Upper House) - Out of 245
100 members of the Lok Sabha (Lower House) - Out of 543

Constitution of Inquiry Committee:
Upon admission of the motion, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha forms an inquiry committee.
This committee consists of:
One Supreme Court judge
One Chief Justice of a High Court
One eminent jurist

Investigation:
The committee investigates the allegations of "proved misbehaviour or incapacity."
The judge in question has the right to respond to the charges and examine witnesses.

Committee Report:
After the investigation, the committee submits its findings to the Parliament.
If the committee finds the judge guilty, the motion proceeds to the next step.

Parliamentary Debate and Voting:
The motion is debated in the House where it was initiated.
The motion must receive:
A two-thirds majority of those present and voting
Majority support of the total membership of that House

Proceedings in the Other House:
If passed, the motion is then sent to the other House (Rajya Sabha or Lok Sabha) for a similar process of debate and voting.

Presidential Address:
If both Houses approve the motion, an address is sent to the President of India for the removal of the judge.

Key Points to Remember:
The impeachment process is governed by Articles 124(4), (5), 217, and 218 of the Constitution of India, along with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The grounds for impeachment must be clearly established as "proved misbehaviour or incapacity."
The process is designed to maintain the independence of the judiciary while ensuring accountability.

 

[DBT]

There is no case to be made for capital punishment;

Brutalization Effect Studies: Research published in legal and criminological journals (such as work examining state-by-state impacts) suggests that executions may actually increase murder rates in certain states through a "brutalization effect" rather than reducing them. [1]

Deterrence versus Brutalization: Capital Punishment's Differing Impacts among States

Recent empirical studies by economists have shown, without exception, that capital punishment deters crime. Using large data sets that combine information from all fifty states over many years, the studies show that, on average, an additional execution deters many murders. The studies have...

scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu

Meta-Analyses: Broad reviews spanning hundreds of capital punishment studies find zero empirical evidence of unique homicide deterrence compared to long-term imprisonment or life without parole. [1]

I am sure such studies show that life in prison (in Australia ) is such a deterrence too.

Maybe it would suit you?

Jail time does not seem to act as a deterrence against crimes being committed.

Though, I doubt it. Your flippant reply is not a rebuttal, just a sign of defeat. The evidence is against you, you lack understanding of the moral implications of capital punishment, so resort to emojis.


''Proponents of capital punishment argue that the only just punishment for taking a life is to take a life in return. However, this approach is not replicated in most other criminal contexts. The punishment for theft is not to simply return the money, the punishment for rape is not to be raped, and the punishment for arson is not to burn down the arsonist’s home. In our criminal justice system, we seek certain objectives through punishment: deterrence of future crimes, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and denunciation. The death penalty has no deterrent effect.[8] This has been thoroughly studied and it is evident that states with capital punishment do not have lower crime or murder rates than states without such laws, and states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in crime or murder rates.[9] The death penalty certainly incapacitates a person who is a danger to society, but so do methods of punishment that take away freedom without putting someone to death. The true objectives served by the death penalty are retribution and denunciation.

Retribution is like vengeance in that it’s an emotional response. Retribution leads to excessive punishment and cruelty because full emotional closure after a crime is nearly impossible to attain...''

Capital Punishment: A Barbaric Act in a “Civilized” Society | Race & Social Justice Review

Yes I know. When you punish someone it is "justice" . When another punishes it is retribution.

Retribution is when you get satisfaction from having people executed when it serves no purpose in terms of prevention, deterrence, justice or morality. Your satisfaction is not a matter of justice.

Execution is not the act of a civilised society.

 

[aupmanyav]

Or maybe they are just as sloppy, corrupt, and self+motivated to maintain that perception of (not reality of) prestige.
Do you ever get tired exchanging shillings for rupees (or perhaps nothing)?

I have nothing to do with the currency of a small European island growing at the rate of 1.5% where as India's growth is around 6.8% in 2026.
They have a foreign exchange reserve of 189 billion USD where as India has 735 billion USD (Wikipedia).
I am proud of Indian Judiciary. They are honest, forthright and forward-looking. They are very considerate of the effect of their judgements on public.
It has worked out just as the makers of the Constitution intended, maintaining a fine balance between government, administration and judiciary.

 

[aupmanyav]

Retribution is when you get satisfaction from having people executed when it serves no purpose in terms of prevention, deterrence, justice or morality. Your satisfaction is not a matter of justice.

Execution is not the act of a civilised society.

War is an act of civilized society?
Why satisfaction? Because it prevents, deters, criminals. It should be strong otherwise it will have no effect. Morality, as I have always said, is subjective.
Our views differ on morality.

 

[DBT]

Retribution is when you get satisfaction from having people executed when it serves no purpose in terms of prevention, deterrence, justice or morality. Your satisfaction is not a matter of justice.

Execution is not the act of a civilised society.

War is an act of civilized society?

Of course not. Has anyone claimed that it is?

Why satisfaction? Because it prevents, deters, criminals. It should be strong otherwise it will have no effect. Morality, as I have always said, is subjective.
Our views differ on morality.

You maintain that the death penalty prevents and deters crime, yet the evidence does not support your claim. Which means that your belief is irrational.

''Capital punishment was halted in the U.S. in 1972 but reinstated in 1976, and since then, nearly 1,600 people have been executed. To whose gain? Study after study shows that the death penalty does not deter crime, puts innocent people to death, is racially biased, and is cruel and inhumane. It is state-sanctioned homicide, wholly ineffective, often botched, and a much more expensive punishment than life imprisonment. There is no ethical, scientifically supported, medically acceptable or morally justifiable way to carry it out.''

Evidence Does Not Support the Use of the Death Penalty

Capital punishment must come to an end. It does not deter crime, is not humane and has no moral or medical basis

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[dendrast]

IIRC, in Japan when the death penalty is sentenced, no date is given, (or so I have heard) which means that you never know when you are to be executed until they come for you. Talk about living each day like it's your last.
It reminds me of that Zen koan where a person is being chased by a tiger , falls over a cliff, and clings to some bushes, only to see another tiger below. The bushes had berries on them. How sweet they tasted.

 

[aupmanyav]

Of course not. Has anyone claimed that it is?

What I see is that the civilized society in constantly engaged in wars. The more civilized it is, the more war-like and oppressive it is for other people.

''Capital punishment was halted in the U.S. in 1972 but reinstated in 1976, and since then, nearly 1,600 people have been executed. To whose gain? Study after study shows that the death penalty does not deter crime, puts innocent people to death, is racially biased, and is cruel and inhumane. It is state-sanctioned homicide, wholly ineffective, often botched, and a much more expensive punishment than life imprisonment. There is no ethical, scientifically supported, medically acceptable or morally justifiable way to carry it out.''

Why was it reinstated? Death penalty in India is not based on anything other than the severity of the crime. How is it more expensive? It requires just a well-aimed bullet or not even that if a guillotine is used. It depends on the government as to how costly they will make it. Even a nail for American Army can cost a 1,000 dollars.

 

[aupmanyav]

''Capital punishment was halted in the U.S. in 1972 but reinstated in 1976, and since then, nearly 1,600 people have been executed. To whose gain? Study after study shows that the death penalty does not deter crime, puts innocent people to death, is racially biased, and is cruel and inhumane. It is state-sanctioned homicide, wholly ineffective, often botched, and a much more expensive punishment than life imprisonment. There is no ethical, scientifically supported, medically acceptable or morally justifiable way to carry it out.''

What is true for USA or an European country is not necessarily true for India. We have a saying "Laat se to bhoot bhi bhaagate hain" (Even ghosts are afraid of a kick in the buttocks)."

 

[Tigers!]

There is no case to be made for capital punishment;

Brutalization Effect Studies: Research published in legal and criminological journals (such as work examining state-by-state impacts) suggests that executions may actually increase murder rates in certain states through a "brutalization effect" rather than reducing them. [1]

Deterrence versus Brutalization: Capital Punishment's Differing Impacts among States

Recent empirical studies by economists have shown, without exception, that capital punishment deters crime. Using large data sets that combine information from all fifty states over many years, the studies show that, on average, an additional execution deters many murders. The studies have...

scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu

Meta-Analyses: Broad reviews spanning hundreds of capital punishment studies find zero empirical evidence of unique homicide deterrence compared to long-term imprisonment or life without parole. [1]

I am sure such studies show that life in prison (in Australia ) is such a deterrence too.

Maybe it would suit you?

Jail time does not seem to act as a deterrence against crimes being committed.

Though, I doubt it. Your flippant reply is not a rebuttal, just a sign of defeat. The evidence is against you, you lack understanding of the moral implications of capital punishment, so resort to emojis.


''Proponents of capital punishment argue that the only just punishment for taking a life is to take a life in return. However, this approach is not replicated in most other criminal contexts. The punishment for theft is not to simply return the money, the punishment for rape is not to be raped, and the punishment for arson is not to burn down the arsonist’s home. In our criminal justice system, we seek certain objectives through punishment: deterrence of future crimes, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and denunciation. The death penalty has no deterrent effect.[8] This has been thoroughly studied and it is evident that states with capital punishment do not have lower crime or murder rates than states without such laws, and states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in crime or murder rates.[9] The death penalty certainly incapacitates a person who is a danger to society, but so do methods of punishment that take away freedom without putting someone to death. The true objectives served by the death penalty are retribution and denunciation.

Retribution is like vengeance in that it’s an emotional response. Retribution leads to excessive punishment and cruelty because full emotional closure after a crime is nearly impossible to attain...''

Capital Punishment: A Barbaric Act in a “Civilized” Society | Race & Social Justice Review

Yes I know. When you punish someone it is "justice" . When another punishes it is retribution.

Retribution is when you get satisfaction from having people executed when it serves no purpose in terms of prevention, deterrence, justice or morality.

Jailing people does not offer any deterrence to crimes being committed. Nor does it appear to prevent crime. So why do you still advocate it?

Your satisfaction is not a matter of justice.

My satisfaction has no nothing to do with it. The victims deserve justice. They deserve acknowledgement of what they and their family, friends have been put through. Unchosen by them of course.
You get much satisifcation from allowing predators to live. Makes you feel superior but it is not justice.

Execution is not the act of a civilised society.

A civilised society would not allow predators upon that the society to be given the chance to flaunt their crimes nor the opportunity to perhaps do them again.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

You're a pretty Old Testament sort of Christian, Tigers!.

This thread prompted me to see which countries still use capital punishment.

The top 5, by number of deaths, were China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. What's the betting the last 4 are also on religious grounds?

And China is not renowned for respecting individual citizens, despite the wording of communist dogma.

I am somewhat confused when governments sink to the level of their least moral citizens, and then expect their children to grow up and not think those values are good and right.

 

[Tigers!]

You're a pretty Old Testament sort of Christian, Tigers!.

I prefer the term, consistent.
No, just want to protect society from predators who seek to attack and destroy its weakess members.

This thread prompted me to see which countries still use capital punishment.

The top 5, by number of deaths, were China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. What's the betting the last 4 are also on religious grounds?

And China is not renowned for respecting individual citizens, despite the wording of communist dogma.

I am somewhat confused when governments sink to the level of their least moral citizens, and then expect their children to grow up and not think those values are good and right.

Why is keeping prisoners in jail for the rest of their lives (hahahaha) morally 'better' to execution?
And being from Australia you would be well aware that life in prison does not mean life in prison.

 

[robnisch]

Of course not. Has anyone claimed that it is?

What I see is that the civilized society in constantly engaged in wars. The more civilized it is, the more war-like and oppressive it is for other people.

''Capital punishment was halted in the U.S. in 1972 but reinstated in 1976, and since then, nearly 1,600 people have been executed. To whose gain? Study after study shows that the death penalty does not deter crime, puts innocent people to death, is racially biased, and is cruel and inhumane. It is state-sanctioned homicide, wholly ineffective, often botched, and a much more expensive punishment than life imprisonment. There is no ethical, scientifically supported, medically acceptable or morally justifiable way to carry it out.''

Why was it reinstated? Death penalty in India is not based on anything other than the severity of the crime. How is it more expensive? It requires just a well-aimed bullet or not even that if a guillotine is used. It depends on the government as to how costly they will make it. Even a nail for American Army can cost a 1,000 dollars.

Lawyers, and appeals that go on for years. $$$

Last number I saw was @ 45,000USD/year to incarcerator. How far would 45 grand go with a descent lawyer?

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Human life is either sacrosanct or it isn't.

You are advocating killing someone for killing someone.

 

[bilby]

Or maybe they are just as sloppy, corrupt, and self+motivated to maintain that perception of (not reality of) prestige.
Do you ever get tired exchanging shillings for rupees (or perhaps nothing)?

I have nothing to do with the currency of a small European island growing at the rate of 1.5% where as India's growth is around 6.8% in 2026.
They have a foreign exchange reserve of 189 billion USD where as India has 735 billion USD (Wikipedia).

You appear to be very mistaken. The countries that currently use the Shilling as a unit of currency are Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. None are European, nor are any of them islands. (Somalia used to use the shilling, and is preparing to reintroduce it, but currently uses the US Dollar for official transactions).

Their GDP growth rates (latest figures according to Google) are 5.1%, 6.0%, and 6.4%, respectively - all significantly better than 1.5%.

In sum total the foreign reserves of all three nations are about USD 25.5billion, more than half of which (USD 14.6 bilion) is Kenyan.

The shilling was more widely used as a currency up until the late 1960s and early '70s, when many Commonwealth countries (including the United Kingdom) decimalised their currency and deprecated the shilling in the process, but the three nations listed above, (plus Somalia and Somaliland)*, are the only ones to use the shilling in the last half a century or more.

Shilling, as a verb rather than as a noun, appears however to be more popular than ever, and is a global phenomenon.





* Somalia suspended the Somali shilling in 1991, but plan to reintroduce it shortly; The US Dollar is currently used for official trade in and with Somalia.

The Somaliland shilling is a de facto currency in Somaliland, and officially replaced the Somali shilling in 1995; It is pegged to the US Dollar. The very existence of Somaliland as a nation independent of Somalia is not widely recognised - the only UN member state to officially recognise it as an independent nation, is Israel.