Nahhh ... I think the law got it wrong if they think the method of punishment suits the crime committed.
They got it wrong because there should have applied a more visually enhancing punishment in the form of four elephants splitting the torsos of the criminals. i.e. the elephants pulling the person apart. Yeah! That would be would be good punishment. Then the torsos are fed to the vultures for supper.
Oh ya ... as for the family of the criminals ... hhmmm ... very tempting ...
I should have been the director of horror movies.
Part of the problem is there's a chance the evidence against them was obtained by torture, so they might not be actually guilty, and the guilty party's have got away with it...
If they are guilty then tough shit! but how do you know when it's possible torture was used to obtain evidence.
If you're going to have the death penalty the law needs to be impeccable, or its just appeasing the mob...
We changed an 800 year old double jeopardy law to convict Stephen Lawrence's killers, so not too dissimilar to India changing the penalty after the crime was committed. Both were politically motivated after all.
I have very little sympathy for anyone who takes part in the disembowelling of someone via their genitals using a tire iron.
Exceptional crimes, deserve exceptional punishments.
Will this improve call centre performance?
Despite being vehemently opposed to the death penalty, having read the details of the case, its taking a lot of effort to hold onto my principles in this case :-/
TurnerGuy...
why is human life important - is this some religious reasoning or something. If so then
Not interested in religion of any sort. And don't believe in deities of any variety. I'm afraid your religious quote went unread.
It's not my reckoning that's saying "Killing people is wrong. Why? Because human life is important.".. I think you'll find that pretty much that's the law's view - a view that's taken because of a broad consensus of the general population of the world. Hence why murder is crime. And why that crime is punished.
Of course, if human life [i]isn't[/i] important, or is pretty much worthless, then what's the problem with the original murder?
Religion can be used to justify pretty much anything and is subjective. I'd much rather have an objective viewpoint where we either value our humanity or we don't. Let's not cherry pick.
State sponsored murder is no more palatable, decent or humane than any other sort of murder. And while the method of dispatch is particularly gruesome, I'm more concerned by the end of a life than the method.
Quenching a lust of revenge, while understandable is also no excuse. What makes us 'better' than the murderers? Or should we start to rape rapists too? Would that be just or decent?
I'm with thekingisdead in that the details of this case are beyond the normal levels of horrific and it is difficult to hold onto your principals - especially when the apparent main perpetrator only gets 3 years.
But then you read how Norway is treating anders breivik, someone who deliberately drugged himself so he could commit acts he normally wouldn't be able to do, something that is perhaps even more premeditated than in the India case. And then you see that the Norwegians are probably right
