The forum discussion centers on the ethical implications of capital punishment, specifically the death penalty, as a form of justice in India. Participants express strong opinions, with some advocating for execution as a necessary measure for public safety, while others argue against it due to the potential for wrongful convictions and the irreversible nature of death. Key points include the belief that some criminals cannot be rehabilitated, the moral dilemmas surrounding the execution of innocent individuals, and the need for a more humane approach to justice that prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment.
PREREQUISITESLegal professionals, ethicists, criminologists, and anyone interested in the complexities of justice systems and the implications of capital punishment.
eringj said:IMO people spend too much time thinking on the nature of the criminal, not enough on the nature of the punisher. When a person is sentenced to death and the sentence is carried out, the government has killed someone.
The state is not merely an abstract concept. It is made up of people. Those people have killed someone.
And in a democratic nation, it's no great exaggeration to say that the citizenry has conspired to kill someone.
Does that person deserve to die? Maybe. But I would not want to be ruled by people who think they have the right to kill. Do you?
It's not 'justice'. It's blood on our hands.
blizeach said:Forgive me but I think we are deviating from the original question of this thread. Not that I don’t agree with you guys about the proper representation of the poor or rich. Praveen asked “Is it right to hang a person in the name of justice?” and “Is the human mind reversible?” I don’t think this has anything to do with whose judicial system is erroneous. The question here is, is it right? Or should we try reform for every case. We need to look at this as a for instance. For instance we no beyond the shadow of a doubt that this person did this unspeakable crime. We all seen the video tape.
blizeach over and out! KCHHHH!
Philocrat said:In fact the question should also ask: what other way, other hanging, could you get a first-degree murderer to contribute to the very society from which he or she took heavily?
blizeach said:I agree. But take Manson for example or Dahmer do you really think that there is anyway that this man can contribute. I think in these case all they do is keep taking from society, as long as they are alive in their air conditioned cells and we are feeding them and taking care of their medical bills. You know?