Rapist and murderer of schoolgirl hanged

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Not in countries that abide by human rights. The punishment can't be greater than the crime.

Not really. I believe just about every country will fine you for more than you stole. The punishment usually has to have some deterrant effect as well, or else it's useless.

Of course we don't just make thieves give the money back. The stolen money is not the only pain that the criminal caused. It's because of criminals that we have to have so many police and prisons. You have to act in moderation though. And certainly you have to punish humanely.

[Winston]

From what little I know of the case, I think the execution was justified.

On a side note, apparently the 83 year old hangman had an emotional breakdown following the hanging, from newspaper reports mainly because it was his last of more than a dozen executions before retirement (a bit strange, since he hasn't had the opportunity to hang anyone for the past 9 years, but anyway). He also noted the condemned man's personal dignity and "bravery" in the face of the gallows as factors in his inability to compose himself. It was reported that he drank himself senseless in the aftermath, and had to be carried into his home on a stretcher by police officers who were called to the tavern where he'd passed out.

Good thing his grandson is ready to take over his position now.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Of course we don't just make thieves give the money back. The stolen money is not the only pain that the criminal caused. It's because of criminals that we have to have so many police and prisons. You have to act in moderation though. And certainly you have to punish humanely.

Restitution is the pay back of what is stolen. Retribution is the pay back for the harm caused to society. The restitution and retribution deter criminals. Any further deterence is unjustified. That would be like punishing innocent people.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q]The punishment usually has to have some deterrant effect as well, or else it's useless.

Btw, I have no problem with the Singapore caning. It's ridiculous that Americans go into other counties, do illegal things, and then complain that they are being punished in the way that country punishes criminals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Restitution is the pay back of what is stolen. Retribution is the pay back for the harm caused to society. The restitution and retribution deter criminals. Any further deterence is unjustified.

Why? Isn't one purpose of punishing so that others won't do the same crime again? If the crime is shoplifting, the restitution is small and so is the retribution (harm to society is very small for shoplifting, say, a CD). There is no reason why the criminal won't steal again, unless there are extra fines to deter.

[ajbera]

A couple of idle thoughts I've had regarding capital punishment:

1) The family of the murder victim should be the ones to approve the usage of CP. Say the criminal is found guilty. The victim's family decides whether they will accept the prisoner's execution. They relay this info to the judge. The judge then decides whether the criminal gets life imprisonment or the death penalty, but he/she can only sentence to death if the family OKs it.

2) After being convicted of murder, the prisoner's life should be maintained only if they do something while incarcerated that is productive or otherwise leads to the betterment of society. I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but they must do this for the rest of their lives or else they'll be executed. This way the prisoner isn't just sitting and rotting for life, but actually making a contribution to the world (even if it's a small one).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Restitution is the pay back of what is stolen. Retribution is the pay back for the harm caused to society. The restitution and retribution deter criminals. Any further deterence is unjustified.

Why? Isn't one purpose of punishing so that others won't do the same crime again? If the crime is shoplifting, the restitution is small and so is the retribution (harm to society is very small for shoplifting, say, a CD). There is no reason why the criminal won't steal again, unless there are extra fines to deter.

Sure it's a purpose, but is it justified? You're using utilitarian ethics. It's not fair to individuals to make them suffer more than they have made others suffer, even if it is better for society.

[Kuciwalker]

Who says fairness is the basis of morality?

[ajbera]

If a rich person steals from a poor one, it's fair for him to repay the amount that was taken and no more. However, this hurts the perp not at all, because he has so much money, therefore simply repaying the amount stolen offers no incentive for him to stop.

It's more than a matter of fairness -- the punishment must deter further occurrences of the crime, while also fiting the crime. So the punishment for theft should fall somewhere between paying back the amount taken and no more, and executing the thief. Exactly where between these two limits is the question.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Who says fairness is the basis of morality?

You don't?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by ajbera
If a rich person steals from a poor one, it's fair for him to repay the amount that was taken and no more. However, this hurts the perp not at all, because he has so much money, therefore simply repaying the amount stolen offers no incentive for him to stop.

It's more than a matter of fairness -- the punishment must deter further occurrences of the crime, while also fiting the crime. So the punishment for theft should fall somewhere between paying back the amount taken and no more, and executing the thief. Exactly where between these two limits is the question.

You're misunderstanding fairness and justice.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by ajbera
It's more than a matter of fairness -- the punishment must deter further occurrences of the crime, while also fiting the crime. So the punishment for theft should fall somewhere between paying back the amount taken and no more, and executing the thief. Exactly where between these two limits is the question.

Again. If I steal $5 from you I don't cause you $5 worth of suffering. If you get the $5 back you're still pissed and want me to pay for doing the crime to you. So the punishment has to be more than just giving the $5 back. Neither should the punishment be more than the suffering that I have cuased, because then I'm getting punishment that I don't deserve.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You're misunderstanding fairness and justice.

He's saying that justice isn't fair. That's what I thought you were saying.

[Uncle Sparky]

Was he convicted on DNA evidence ?

[atomant]

I have been following this debate with interest and agree that the purpose of prison and the judical service is two fold: 1) punish 2) rehabilitate.

However, my comment is what happens when a convicted prisoner is beyond rehabilitation? As an example, I was watching Carte Blanche (a South African TV show like 60 minutes) on Sunday night and they where showing a man convicted of 42 counts of Child Rape. He received 42 life sentences plus 60 years (AKA never to be released). For the record, South Africa abolished the Death Penalty at the end of Aparthid (sp?), but public opinion wants it brought back.

I would rather see this person excecuted, preferably as painfully as possible.

Those people who complain that a persons civil rights have been violated by cruel and unusal punishment (death penalty etc etc etc) forget that aside from an indivudals civil rights, they also have civil obiligations, such as adhereing to the laws of the land. When a person breaks the law they have provern themselves beyond the limitations of their society. Whilst I am not advocating the death penalty for speeding, serious crimes such as drug dealing, rape, murder, genocide, torture etc etc should be meet in kind.

Finally, those who view the death penalty as unconstitutional in the States, I believe the US constitution states (to the effect that) cruel and unusual punishments is a big no no, unless due process of law has been followed. Ergo, you can use 'cruel and unusal' punishment provided you have followed due process.

Thumb Screws anyone....?