My understanding is that they are getting the death penalty due to this being a murder case rather than because the law has been altered to extend the death penalty in rape cases – they are being sentenced under the murder laws that prevailed at the time rather than the new regime for sex offences. Murder has always been a capital crime in India although the death penalty is rarely sought.

Edit – murder has been a capital offence in India since the colonial period, the only major change being its reserved for cases considered truly extreme – hence the judge stating this is “the rarest of the rare”

you <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<—————–>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the point

At the time we weren’t, which was the question, if it’s moraly wrong to retrospectively up the punishment, should the reverse be true?

It’s entirely the point. The state is not allowed to execute people, regardless of when the crime was committed.

It’s entirely the point. The state is not allowed to execute people, regardless of when the crime was committed

<Types slowly>

If the law states that the penalty for a crime is based on what it is at the time of the crime, not as susbsequently changed, then surely that should be the same both ways around: i.e. either penalty should be as at time of crime, or as at time of trial, not as in the example where the punishment for a crime committed when the death penalty was law to be based on current rules. Its contradictory.

Try to move pass the death penalty bit, I think we’ve got the fact you don’t like that and try to grasp the inconsistency between the two things.

That link to the guardian article makes for some grim reading. The rape and the iron bar thing are horrendous, but its what the fella Ram goes on to do afterwards that beggars belief.

Death is just an easy way out for these criminals.. solitary cell for life should be more like it…and im talking third world solitary prison…and believe me you will prefer death than this.

Berm Bandit the answer is no because we would be executing them in 2013 and there is no such punishment now and the execution would therefor be a criminal act.

The punishment at the time idea flows for the idea that you can’t retrospectively change the law to make something that was legal illegal . For example Mountain biking on a bridleway, if the ramblers association come to power they could legitimately outlaw it but they could not say any one who had done so prior to their law was a criminal. In the same way one cannot change the law to increase the sanction for something that has already happened.

There is no real inconsistency in acknowledging the world has moved on and the death penalty has now been abolished.

If the law states that the penalty for a crime is based on what it is at the time of the crime, not as susbsequently changed, then surely that should be the same both ways around: i.e. either penalty should be as at time of crime, or as at time of trial, not as in the example where the punishment for a crime committed when the death penalty was law to be based on current rules. Its contradictory.

Again no, because the law states that the death penalty is illegal, regardless of when the crime was committed. The death penalty is not a sentencing option available to any judge.

In any case, there is no contradiction: the death penalty was not mandatory.

Try to move pass the death penalty bit, I think we’ve got the fact you don’t like that and try to grasp the inconsistency between the two things.

The point about the ECHR is specifically related to the death penalty.

you could always ask the victim for her views on the sentence, Oh hang on that might be a tad difficult.
absolutely no sympathy for them, in fact Id happily shoot them myself.

On this subject:-

One in Four Men Surveyed in Asian Study Say They Raped

just read that Guardian article, I find it difficult to justify the death penalty but not in this case. Totally tragic and very upsetting, I’d still ask her family especially her father. Perhaps he is a better man than many.

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 isn’t 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