Barbaric

[DBT]

Morality has no place?

Punishing wrongdoers is not immoral.

The issue is the double standard of teaching that killing is wrong for any reason other than self defence, that it is immoral and illegal, yet a government may reserve the right to kill for convenience, expediency or setting an example, thereby contradicting its own professed moral standards and laws that apply to the general population, but not to itself.

Is that not hypocrisy? A double standard where might makes right. We have many examples of how that can go wrong.



Aren't we supposed to be better than the people that do wrong? Would you have them crucified in public to set an example?

There are actually three (3) questions buried in there
1. Should the authorities protect society from those who would prey on its members aka justice?
2. How then do the authorities protect society aka deterrence?
3. What takes precedence - the victims or the criminal aka rehabilitation?

Sadly it seems to me too much emphasis is placed on no. 3, next to nothing on no. 1 and a bit of effort on no. 2

The point here is the morality of execution. The prisoner has been tried, found guilty, locked away, no longer a threat to public safety. Then after having spent decades on death row they are taken to a place of execution and killed.

I am sure you see a problem in there somewhere.

You see no moral problems associated with executing prisoners?

 

[aupmanyav]

Never mind those wrongly convicted, or the moral implications of execution.
Expediency and cost takes precedence.
Stalin, eat your heart out.

Wrong conviction is not possible in India. Cases go through 1. District Court, 2. High Court of he state, 3. Supreme Court. Judges somewhere in the line will spot deficiencies in the case.
Not for the judges, they will go by the word of law. People like me may have their views.
I am a right-winger, though not of the extreme kind. I have no connection with Stalin.

 

[aupmanyav]

You see no moral problems associated with executing prisoners?

Absolutely none. I see its necessity in such cases. For me, safety of the public is paramount.
Teach morality to criminals.

 

[aupmanyav]

Appeals are permitted at all levels. In case of an appeal, the case is heard by more than on judge, different from the one who was handling the case. The jury system has been discarded in favor of qualified, experienced judges to hear the cases and appeals. No conviction in case if deficiencies are found. Indian legal system and law education is primarily, based on the British Judicial system.

Bench Types in Indian Courts: Single, Division, Full and Constitution - eCourtsIndia Blog

Single, Division, Full, Larger and Constitution benches explained: how many judges sit, which rulings bind which bench, and how to search cases by bench.

blogs.ecourtsindia.com

 

[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]

 

[aupmanyav]

At no stage, government is involved in selection of judges and their transfers from one court to another. Government can ask for a reconsideration of a particular candidate, but if the Collegium persists with its choice, then government has to accept it. Do not think that our judges are not aware of these studies. Death punishment is given only to what is termed as "Rarest of rare cases).

The Ultimate is a nine member bench of the Indian Supreme Court which decides on constitutional matters.

"Recent Notable Cases
Here are some recent notable cases that have been heard by the Indian Supreme Court's constitution benches:
Case Name Issue Outcome
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India Decriminalization of homosexuality under Section 377 Ruled unconstitutional, affirming LGBTQ+ rights
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India Validity of instant triple talaq (Divorce by three declartions). Declared unconstitutional, protecting women's rights
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India Right to privacy as a fundamental right Recognized privacy as a fundamental right
- Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala Entry of women into Sabarimala temple Allowed women of all ages to enter the temple
- Constitutionality of CAA Validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act Ongoing hearings regarding its implications

Importance of Constitution Benches
- Legal Precedents: Decisions made by these benches set important legal precedents that influence future cases.
- Constitutional Interpretation: They address complex constitutional issues, ensuring that the interpretation of laws aligns with the Constitution.
- Protection of Rights: These benches often deal with cases that protect fundamental rights and liberties of individuals.

The constitution benches of the Indian Supreme Court are vital for upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice in significant legal matters." DuckAssist

 

[DBT]

At no stage, government is involved in selection of judges and their transfers from one court to another. Government can ask for a reconsideration of a particular candidate, but if the Collegium persists with its choice, then government has to accept it. Do not think that our judges are not aware of these studies. Death punishment is given only to what is termed as "Rarest of rare cases).

The Ultimate is a nine member bench of the Indian Supreme Court which decides on constitutional matters.

"Recent Notable Cases
Here are some recent notable cases that have been heard by the Indian Supreme Court's constitution benches:
Case Name Issue Outcome
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India Decriminalization of homosexuality under Section 377 Ruled unconstitutional, affirming LGBTQ+ rights
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India Validity of instant triple talaq (Divorce by three declartions). Declared unconstitutional, protecting women's rights
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India Right to privacy as a fundamental right Recognized privacy as a fundamental right
- Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala Entry of women into Sabarimala temple Allowed women of all ages to enter the temple
- Constitutionality of CAA Validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act Ongoing hearings regarding its implications

Importance of Constitution Benches
- Legal Precedents: Decisions made by these benches set important legal precedents that influence future cases.
- Constitutional Interpretation: They address complex constitutional issues, ensuring that the interpretation of laws aligns with the Constitution.
- Protection of Rights: These benches often deal with cases that protect fundamental rights and liberties of individuals.

The constitution benches of the Indian Supreme Court are vital for upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice in significant legal matters." DuckAssist

Selection of judges is not the issue. Who makes the laws? Who decides what is good or moral?

As the research shows that the death penalty does not deter offenders, which may be crimes of passion, hardened criminals, deranged minds, sociopaths, etc, the reason why you support the death penalty appears to come down financial concerns - it 'costs too much to house prisoners" - expediency - perhaps that you find it satisfying to have murderers killed, which is a matter of revenge.

Which is not a matter of justice, deterrence or morality....rather, resulting in a brutalisation of society. A society that is ready and willing to kill out of satisfaction, cost, expediency, yet claims to value life and teaches that it is wrong to kill. In other words, hypocrisy.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wrong conviction is not possible in India

I thought you were from india. Don't they use the Rupee there? Why you out here with Shillings?

 

[aupmanyav]

Selection of judges is not the issue. Who makes the laws? Who decides what is good or moral?

As the research shows that the death penalty does not deter offenders, which may be crimes of passion, hardened criminals, deranged minds, sociopaths, etc, the reason why you support the death penalty appears to come down financial concerns - it 'costs too much to house prisoners" - expediency - perhaps that you find it satisfying to have murderers killed, which is a matter of revenge.

Which is not a matter of justice, deterrence or morality....rather, resulting in a brutalisation of society. A society that is ready and willing to kill out of satisfaction, cost, expediency, yet claims to value life and teaches that it is wrong to kill. In other words, hypocrisy.

Who else can make the laws in a democracy, other than the representatives of the people? Whether they are according to the Constitution is checked by the Supreme Court. If they pass that test, then they are good and moral. For that reason, if there is a provision of punishment for death under whatever conditions it is permitted, then it is good and moral. The last is your personal view with which I differ, many other people may also have different views. Your saying that it is bad and immoral does not make it so.

 

[aupmanyav]

I thought you were from India. Don't they use the Rupee there? Why you out here with Shillings?

Why would I use shillings? I have tried to explain in my posts as to how many judges may be involved in a death sentence and what all options a convict has. If the convict still fails to prove his innocence, not even able to create a doubt in the mind of judges, then why should we not take it that his/her conviction is correct?

 

[Jarhyn]

I thought you were from India. Don't they use the Rupee there? Why you out here with Shillings?

Why would I use shillings? I have tried to explain in my posts as to how many judges may be involved in a death sentence and what all options a convict has. If the convict still fails to prove his innocence, not even able to create a doubt in the mind of judges, then why should we not take it that his/her conviction is correct?

You appealed to possibility, when it's well established there is a great deal of corruption and barbarism in India's legal system.

If someone can be let go for rape and acid attacks, if the police themselves can overlook actual crimes, there is very little to believe that the crimes they do prosecute are real at all.

Furthermore, different standards of evidence and process are needed for different levels of enforcement.

A completely unidentified 12 year old on the street pointing at a guy and saying "he just littered that thing he dropped" is sufficient evidence for the very low level of enforcement directed by some other completely identified party to say "you're a piece of shit, pick that up", for instance, but it's not at the standard of process or evidence required for a police officer to actually cite them.

Likewise, I don't give a shit how many corrupt Indian magistrates need to be corrupt in a chain so as to murder someone. Honestly, I think only the first couple need to be and then the momentum inappropriately assuages doubts as to the process; they trust the corrupt decisions, and in order to get that far, there is usually something that "looks bad" for whoever it, regardless of the truth of it.

Worse, some people seek that position for a chance to wield its power, not for any reason associated with doing the job well. You don't need to be a GOOD magistrate to be a PRESTIGIOUS one, and as you yourself have noted, many do it not for tiresome boring justice, but for the prestige of being a magistrate.

Then, I suspect for many murdered by the state in india, their real crime is being (insert lower caste name/category here). If they had been (insert higher caste here), I expect they would have gotten a mere slap on the wrist.

 

[Tigers!]

Morality has no place?

Punishing wrongdoers is not immoral.

The issue is the double standard of teaching that killing is wrong for any reason other than self defence, that it is immoral and illegal, yet a government may reserve the right to kill for convenience, expediency or setting an example, thereby contradicting its own professed moral standards and laws that apply to the general population, but not to itself.

Is that not hypocrisy? A double standard where might makes right. We have many examples of how that can go wrong.



Aren't we supposed to be better than the people that do wrong? Would you have them crucified in public to set an example?

There are actually three (3) questions buried in there
1. Should the authorities protect society from those who would prey on its members aka justice?
2. How then do the authorities protect society aka deterrence?
3. What takes precedence - the victims or the criminal aka rehabilitation?

Sadly it seems to me too much emphasis is placed on no. 3, next to nothing on no. 1 and a bit of effort on no. 2

The point here is the morality of execution. The prisoner has been tried, found guilty, locked away, no longer a threat to public safety. Then after having spent decades on death row they are taken to a place of execution and killed.

I am sure you see a problem in there somewhere.

You see no moral problems associated with executing prisoners?

If they are guilty then no.
We are protecting society from predators.

 

[Tigers!]

At no stage, government is involved in selection of judges and their transfers from one court to another. Government can ask for a reconsideration of a particular candidate, but if the Collegium persists with its choice, then government has to accept it. Do not think that our judges are not aware of these studies. Death punishment is given only to what is termed as "Rarest of rare cases).

The Ultimate is a nine member bench of the Indian Supreme Court which decides on constitutional matters.

"Recent Notable Cases
Here are some recent notable cases that have been heard by the Indian Supreme Court's constitution benches:
Case Name Issue Outcome
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India Decriminalization of homosexuality under Section 377 Ruled unconstitutional, affirming LGBTQ+ rights
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India Validity of instant triple talaq (Divorce by three declartions). Declared unconstitutional, protecting women's rights
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India Right to privacy as a fundamental right Recognized privacy as a fundamental right
- Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala Entry of women into Sabarimala temple Allowed women of all ages to enter the temple
- Constitutionality of CAA Validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act Ongoing hearings regarding its implications

Importance of Constitution Benches
- Legal Precedents: Decisions made by these benches set important legal precedents that influence future cases.
- Constitutional Interpretation: They address complex constitutional issues, ensuring that the interpretation of laws aligns with the Constitution.
- Protection of Rights: These benches often deal with cases that protect fundamental rights and liberties of individuals.

The constitution benches of the Indian Supreme Court are vital for upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice in significant legal matters." DuckAssist

Selection of judges is not the issue. Who makes the laws? Who decides what is good or moral?

The people, parliament etc.
And of course your good self.

As the research shows that the death penalty does not deter offenders,

If you see the aims of 'justice system' as rehabilitation and then deterrence then yes the death penalty will not deter.
But with justice as the aim then deterrence is secondary and rehabilitation fades into 3rd place.
I care not much for the offenders I care about the victims and their families, friends.
The offenders had a choice, their victims did not.

which may be crimes of passion, hardened criminals, deranged minds, sociopaths, etc, the reason why you support the death penalty appears to come down financial concerns - it 'costs too much to house prisoners" - expediency - perhaps that you find it satisfying to have murderers killed, which is a matter of revenge.

Again you cry revenge. Have you never considered justice? What about protecting society?

Which is not a matter of justice, deterrence or morality....rather, resulting in a brutalisation of society.

You claim that it is not a matter of justice, deterrence or morality. Why should I take such claims seriously?

A society that is ready and willing to kill out of satisfaction, cost, expediency, yet claims to value life and teaches that it is wrong to kill. In other words, hypocrisy.

Justice and protection of society.
It is hypocrisy to allow offenders to remain in jail with the possibility of release and yet their victims maybe dead or be injured in such a way that their life is poor. The victims are ignored and tossed aside whilst the offenders are allowed to have a life.

 

[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.

 

[bilby]

Wrong conviction is not possible in India.

You clearly do not know the meaning of the word "possible".

 

[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? 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

 

[aupmanyav]

You appealed to possibility, when it's well established there is a great deal of corruption and barbarism in India's legal system.

If someone can be let go for rape and acid attacks, if the police themselves can overlook actual crimes, there is very little to believe that the crimes they do prosecute are real at all.

Likewise, I don't give a shit how many corrupt Indian magistrates need to be corrupt in a chain so as to murder someone. Honestly, I think only the first couple need to be and then the momentum inappropriately assuages doubts as to the process; they trust the corrupt decisions, and in order to get that far, there is usually something that "looks bad" for whoever it, regardless of the truth of it.

Worse, some people seek that position for a chance to wield its power.

Then, I suspect for many murdered by the state in india, their real crime is being (insert lower caste name/category here). If they had been (insert higher caste here), I expect they would have gotten a mere slap on the wrist.

If corruption is the norm in India, then the judges also are Indians. They know the situation and will find the inconsistencies in the case as presented by the police. This many a times leads to collapse of the case and the criminals are freed. But the reverse is not true. It will be near impossible to saddle an innocent person with a serious crime. The judges themselves have practiced as lawyers, they know that their decisions are being watched by their superiors. No judge will risk his job and reputation by ignoring the points in favor of the innocent person.

Sure, if there is no sufficient ground for conviction, a culprit may go free. Judges have recorded their dissatisfaction about the decisions, and many a times have forced the administration to take action against the erring officer.

They do not trust, they always doubt. If they trust what is brought before them, then they are no judges. Someone else along the line will catch them. Supreme Court does not allow corrupt judges to function, their responsibilities are removed, though it is a very long process to impeach a judge. There is one such case currently going on of a Delhi High Court judge. Supreme Court has asked all his 51 decisions to be reviewed.

Yes, power is one reason. The other reason is an assured income and facilities. A lawyer income will depend on the cases that come to him.

Yes, there are state killings, but the persons killed are always hardened declared criminals. Killing of political opponents is always a low-level local affair. Some times the killers are convicted, sometimes they escape conviction.

 

[aupmanyav]

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.

I accept that Brutalization is a problem and that is why death was not kept as the sole punishment for rapists in India, though politicians and public both wanted it that way.

 

[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.

 

[Jarhyn]

They know the situation and will find the inconsistencies in the case as presented by the police

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 never had high opinions of such money changing.