Announcement

**aneeshm** · August 16, 2004, 06:12

To put the debate into context , I must add that there had not been an execution in India for many years . And that the murder was proven to be his work beyond reasonable doubt .

**Ben Kenobi** · August 16, 2004, 14:25

Now how do you determine how much punishment is justified?

Generally depends on precedent. If a person was charged with a similar crime, than this person will likely recieve the same punishment not accounting for any factors that may mitigate or intensify the punishment.

**Ben Kenobi** · August 16, 2004, 14:27

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.

Which is why the Mosaic code specifies a repayment of 5x the amount stolen.

**Ben Kenobi** · August 16, 2004, 14:29

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.

So? How do you know this man is beyond rehabilitation? This is my question from before.

**Kontiki** · August 16, 2004, 15:08

My two cents on the caning thing:

Cane the hell out of him, and then shove the cane up his ass. Even though vandalism doesn't impact the victim nearly as much as say, robbery or rape, it's one of the few crimes that just about never has a justification for it other than pure maliciousness. Unless you're quite young or mentally handicapped (both of which should obviously be mitigating factors in trial/sentencing), you always know it's wrong, it's always deliberate is never a matter of self defence and always has an alternative.

**Kidlicious** · August 16, 2004, 15:09

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Generally depends on precedent. If a person was charged with a similar crime, than this person will likely recieve the same punishment not accounting for any factors that may mitigate or intensify the punishment.

I know, but this is what I call unfair. Judges punish some people more for doing the same crime. Just because the were caught doing the same crime before. They were already punished for that, and they shouldn't be punished again.

**Snowflake** · August 16, 2004, 15:27

Reading this thread is so depressing. I can't believe how many of you would argue to keep the life of a murderer and a rapist of a 16 year girl. Some said that his right of life shouldn't be taken away. Some said he might not be beyond rehabilitation. Don't you realize that no matter how much he could be rehabilized the young girl is long dead and no matter how many times he is killed he cannot repay the suffer of that young girl? Why what a convenient excuse it is. Anybody could do anything he wants, rape, and kill, and still do not need to pay it off because he has the rights and he could be rehabed.

What is this world coming to?

**Ben Kenobi** · August 16, 2004, 15:30

Judges punish some people more for doing the same crime. Just because the were caught doing the same crime before. They were already punished for that, and they shouldn't be punished again.

Generally, doing a crime more than once signifies that you are much more responsible than you would be otherwise. A person can commit a crime by accident once, but to do so multiple times is not plausible.

**Ben Kenobi** · August 16, 2004, 15:32

Reading this thread is so depressing. I can't believe how many of you would argue to keep the life of a murderer and a rapist of a 16 year girl. Some said that his right of life shouldn't be taken away. Some said he might not be beyond rehabilitation. Don't you realize that no matter how much he could be rehabilized the young girl is long dead and no matter how many times he is killed he cannot repay the suffer of that young girl?

Death ends suffering. Would you not want the man to suffer for his crime?

**Snowflake** · August 16, 2004, 15:34

I don't want him to suffer for his crime. His suffering means nothing to the little girl. I want him to pay for it. A life to pay for a life.

**Ben Kenobi** · August 16, 2004, 15:37

I don't want him to suffer for his crime.

I do.

**Snowflake** · August 16, 2004, 15:37

Then you should advocate him being raped. And then killed.

**DinoDoc** · August 16, 2004, 15:38

Vicious bastard.

**Ben Kenobi** · August 16, 2004, 15:38

Then you should advocate him being raped.

I'm in favour of him being imprisoned, am I not?

**Snowflake** · August 16, 2004, 15:40

You think being imprisoned is a suffering that is similar to being raped and killed? I'm sure many will not agree with you.

Announcement

Rapist and murderer of schoolgirl hanged

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment