Delhi gang rapists sentenced to death.

[Darkstrike]

an eye for an eye ,a tooth for a tooth ,blood for blood

Good ridance.

[Deleted]

I'm not for the death-penalty in any circumstance.

Those monsters believed in the death penalty for the woman, the minima is to give them the fruit of their own spirit.

[Stir]

Those monsters believed in the death penalty for the woman, the minima is to give them the fruit of their own spirit.

Absolutely not. Those monsters did not believe in the death penalty for that woman. Those monsters didn't believe in that woman (as a person). They frankly didn't care. The woman was not being punished for anything.

[Velaniz]

I can 100% guarantee if your daughter, girlfriend, mother or a female you loved was raped to death, you would most certainly want them dead. Don't try and act above the natural instinct to seek revenge for the pains you've suffered.

Of course I would. I'd certainly want them to die, and I'd want them to die painfully. I'd also, however, know that my decision on that wasn't governed by rational thought. That's what happens when your own loved ones are involved.

[xytech]

They shouldn't get away that easily. A clean quick death for that crime? Give them a lifetime in jail instead, or a slow painful death filled with torture. I'd never show them the mercy of death in such a case.

[Makarena]

Death sentence ain't a good way to punish for such crime. Life imrpisonment w/o option of release and with some horrific conditions is the best imo.

[Dendrek]

If 1 person out of 1 billion is wrongly executed then the death penalty is not worth it.

Forgive the slightly off-topic nature of my reply, but your argument is, I think, wholly based on the premise that "life is sacred." It's a highly "moral" position to take, but is it logical?

The apparent opposite of "life is sacred" is a psychopathic disregard for human life. But is there a reasonable middle ground? Is there a spectrum of beliefs between those two that might be worth considering, or is any position other than "life is sacred" automatically a psychopathic one? If you take the hard stance that life is sacred, and if you are not a hypocrite, then do you also believe that war is universally wrong? Is assisted suicide for people suffering chronic and incurable pain wrong? Is putting down a rabid dog wrong? Is abortion for victims of rape or incest wrong?

Your position on all of the above questions will very likely be dictated by emotional replies, and may, I suspect, be hypocritical in at least a few cases.

My point, in case it's not obvious, is that your position on the death penalty is an emotionally-charged, moral, and (as a consequence) irrational position. It's ok to have that opinion, but to expect others to share it requires that you either are unaware of the inherent irrationality of it, or you expect all people to share your moral beliefs.

As for my own opinion, I believe that life is to be cherished and is worth protecting, but that it is not "sacred." There are circumstances, I believe, where the loss of life is not a heinous crime, but where such losses should be minimized as much as possible. I believe it is immoral to kill an innocent person, but recognize that "innocent" is a highly subjective term. And I also recognize that it's not possible to avoid the loss of innocent life in all cases either. So instead of being flatly against such losses, I instead advocate that extreme caution and care be taken to avoid such losses where possible.

[Themius]

Some of you people sound really sick, why?

1) Laughing at his breaking down
2) people should have limbs cut off?!

You people live in the damn past.

[Dendrek]

In justice, we should rely as much as possible on cold, hard logic. Our opinions and emotions should not partake in justice because of our inherent personal bias.

It's funny you say that. Please read my above post for my reply to this.

[Deleted]

Absolutely not. Those monsters did not believe in the death penalty for that woman. Those monsters didn't believe in that woman (as a person). They frankly didn't care. The woman was not being punished for anything.

What do you want them to learn and what do you want to learn from this ? Are you still a child ?
The victim was punished because there is no moral in this world. Every monsters should be executed.

[RoboA]

It needs to be done! We would probably have less crime if more of these kind of crimes were punnished by death sentence.

[Stir]

It's funny you say that. Please read my above post for my reply to this.

I agree with your post above. The fact that I am personally against the death penalty does not mean that I dismiss its merits entirely. I just think that, in cases where such a 'penalty' would be deemed necessary or beneficial, we should not try telling ourselves that it was justice, and we shouldn't try telling ourselves that the person we sentenced to death was punished. A destructive element was removed, but it is not punishment unless the perpetrator can learn and rehabilitate.

What do you want them to learn and what do you want to learn from this ? Are you still a child ?
The victim was punished because there is no moral in this world. Every monsters should be executed.

I assure you that I am not still a child, but I find your inability to view things in perspective rather... Worrisome.

The victim was not being punished; she was a victim. She did not, in any way, deserve what she got. What do I want to learn from this? Precious little. What do I want them to learn? Well; the perpetrators will learn precious little. India, however, can learn that women should not, and will no longer, be regarded as second-rate citizens. A lesson that may be worth the cost (of the perpetrators being executed).

As for 'every monster should be executed:' At what point, I ask, does the executioner (or rather: the one demanding execution) become just another monster? Can we oppose murder by committing murder? That is the question we should be asking ourselves. In what manner are we actively stopping monstrosities by committing more monstrosities?
There are things to be said in favour or removing these destructive elements from society by abruptly ending their existence, but vengeance should never be involved.

[Deleted]

Some of you people sound really sick, why?

1) Laughing at his breaking down
2) people should have limbs cut off?!

You people live in the damn past.

What if it was your loved one?

[Velaniz]

Some of you people sound really sick, why?

1) Laughing at his breaking down
2) people should have limbs cut off?!

You people live in the damn past.

Who said anything about wanting to chop people's limbs off?[/B]

- - - Updated - - -

What if it was your loved one?

You don't think rationally when it's your loved one, that's why the job falls to those with the facility of rational thought still intact to not be barbarians.

[Dezerte]

Justice system should be about two things:

1. Protect the innocent from harm (i.e. imprison those who would pose a danger to others)
2. Rehabilitate the criminal (i.e. viewing criminality as a symptom or a "broken" human if you will, and because it is morally right to try and "fix" them instead of "disposing" of them)

I can say that this is morally superior on the basis that human harm is bad, human flourishing is good. Rehabilitating humans brings more human flourishing, executing or punishing is causing human harm. This is fact.

[MiLLeR]

Our 'opinions' are not equal in this particular situation. I am sorry, but an opinion that promotes detriment to society is not, and will never be, equal to an opinion that is beneficial to society. Furthermore, an 'opinion' that is based on on rational thought and causality will always win out over an opinion that is based on absolutely nothing but a sense of personal satisfaction.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that your opinion in this particular situation is equal to mine.

Edit: Yes, I understand that this sounds incredibly arrogant. Let me then put that in perspective with the thought that I am quite sure that there are things I am passionate about, and you can be more rational about. In those situations, my opinion will not be equal to yours.

You are such a fool. Please explain how it is detrimental to society. You are yet to do so. You just saying that it is, does not make it so. That is how opinion works, now if you wish to back it up with fact be my guest.. until then, you are just spouting arrogant opinion. I also love that you assume my opinion is out of personal satisfaction.. did I ever say that? But please continue trying to bash my opinion based on your own, mixed with dumb assumption's. I guess you didn't account for this in your "rational thought"

[Stir]

You are such a fool. Please explain how it is detrimental to society. You are yet to do so. You just saying that it is, does not make it so. That is how opinion works, now if you wish to back it up with fact be my guest.. until then, you are just spouting arrogant opinion. I also love that you assume my opinion is out of personal satisfaction.. did I ever say that? But please continue trying to bash my opinion based on your own, mixed with dumb assumption's. I guess you didn't account for this in your "rational thought"

I did explain.
You just chose to not read or comprehend.

[Dendrek]

Rehabilitating humans brings more human flourishing, executing or punishing is causing human harm. This is fact.

And what about the cases where rehabilitation is not possible? You seem to think there's a dichotomy between rehabilitation and execution. There is a whole spectrum between them: from people who are only partially rehabilitated, to people who are released but become worse than when they went in. And then there is a case like this, where they might be capable of rehabilitation, but they will never be capable of redemption. And where letting them off lightly will cause more harm than good because it lets others know that their crime wasn't really that bad.

[Themius]

What if it was your loved one?

It wasn't... it's more understandable for a person related to them because of that deep connection it's perfectly normal for them to be irrational, but are any of you related to the girl?

- - - Updated - - -

Who said anything about wanting to chop people's limbs off?[/B]

- - - Updated - - -



You don't think rationally when it's your loved one, that's why the job falls to those with the facility of rational thought still intact to not be barbarians.

It's on the first page or 2nd.

[MiLLeR]

I did explain.
You just chose to not read or comprehend.

You explained with.. opinion.. Ok cool, thats how facts work now guys!

And that's why your voice shouldn't be heard in such matters. It's detrimental to society as a whole. We've been there, we've done that, and it didn't work out too well.

Violence begets violence, and an eye for an eye makes the world go blind. In justice, we should rely as much as possible on cold, hard logic. Our opinions and emotions should not partake in justice because of our inherent personal bias. Once that line is crossed, the result is the rule of the strongest, dictatorship and abuse of the general public in order to satisfy the desires of the very few in wealth and power, to a degree that far exceeds anything we know today in the first world.

Mob mentality, and all the knee-jerk reactions and thoughtless emotional outrage creates a world of oppression, violence and, quite frankly, madness.

So if you cannot, or refuse to, distance yourself emotionally from the subjects that require rational thinking, your voice should not be heard in those matters.

Again, if you wish to provide some facts other then your own ideas feel free. Until then fool, yes your opinion is equal to mine, that of which you don't even know fully.