Yeah both are same. I don't know how many people who thought about raping a girl stopped because of fear of death. Also capital punishment is handed in rare cases, so not sure how much impact that will have on criminal minded people.
Robinho sentenced to 9 years for involvement in sexual assault
- Thread starter Santos J
- Start date
Yeah both are same.
They don't need to be the same. That's the point of analogies, to show principles that exist regardless of which end of the spectrum an example is. If they were the same, then you wouldn't need to make an analogy in the first place. The principle here is 'some of us think differently' is not a valid defense, because when you apply it to other examples it doesn't hold up. Hope you find that insightful. At the end of the day, everyone here is telling you that you're having trouble understanding what they're saying and you're telling everyone that they're thick. Maybe the common denominator here is you. You're so backed up about this issue that you're seeing what you want to see so that you can make your outraged reply. You're also not putting enough thought into the words being used, and what they mean and are just jumping to the first thing you think is being said - even when it's blatantly obvious that what you're taking from a post isn't what it said.
There are tons of researches on capital punishment and crime deterrent, the conclusion is at this point quite obvious. If you want to put your head in the sand, fine, but let's not pretend your desire to see more violent/severe punishment dealt out has anything to do with fact or logic.
This applies to all the people in this thread with the 'cut his dick off' posts as well.
This applies to all the people in this thread with the 'cut his dick off' posts as well.
Why not? Maybe you guys think killing hundreds of people is not a serious issue to warrant capital punishment, I think they deserve so does the Govt of India.
You might think raping a girl and pulling her intestine out doesn't warrant capital punishment, I think they deserve it.
It's not about having different opinion on committing crimes, it's about how differently you view criminals who did the cruelest things imaginable.
Seems to me that introducing the death penalty for "clear cut" rape cases would if anything give the rapist incentive to remove a eye witness by killing his victim. After all, if you're already facing death then murder is hardly an escalation of risk.
I dunno, murderers are much, much more likely to be caught than rapists. Most rapes aren't even reported, are they? Let alone the offenders caught.
That’s actually also what the guy said in the bbc article @roonster09 linked to.
You're welcome to whatever thought you want, the difference is when you start to legislate your opinion and take action, when your line of thinking is flawed to begin with.
I've seen first hand many people in the US be exonerated of rapes and murders they were on death row for who turned out to be completely innocent. Under your way of thinking, they'd be dead. An innocent person dead. Because your immediate knee jerk reaction was 'feck that guy, he deserves to die'. These possibilities have to be considered and anyone who advocates some kind of brutal medieval punishment that has no place in 2017 clearly hasn't taken even 10 seconds to think about this possibility, hence it's not intelligent. It's just an immediate knee jerk response to show how morally outraged you are to everyone and get a sense of belonging like you're all in agreement. We don't cut the penises off of people who commit genocide let alone those who carry out a rape. The crime itself is already incredibly heinous enough to discuss proper punishment without you reacting and proposing a punishment like they actually just wiped out half the human race.
I gave example of Kasab and somehow that gets ignored and people start with their imaginary arguments.
Immediate knee jerk response
I was talking about the incidents that happened 5-6 years ago and in Kasab's case nearly 10 years ago.How is it that you can't understand such a basic principle that the law isn't based on one goddam case?I gave example of Kasab and somehow that gets ignored and people start with their imaginary arguments.
Immediate knee jerk response
You keep banging on and on and on about Kasab, and ignoring the point being repeatedly made to you that THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER.
fecking hell.
I haven't been talking to you about Kasab, you're moving the goal posts. I made a post about people talking about cutting rapists penises off, drowning them in lava and giving them the death penalty and you replied to me mocking my post. Therefore that's what we're talking about. The conversation you're having with another poster is of no concern to me. It's concerning that you can't keep track of what's being discussed, but then try to make out like I'm the one at fault here. You replied to me about rapists, why do I care about Kasab?I gave example of Kasab and somehow that gets ignored and people start with their imaginary arguments.
Immediate knee jerk response
You're not proposing a law to deal with Kasab though, you're proposing a law to deal with all "clear cut" cases. It suits your argument to focus in on one case when in reality your argument needs to account for all "clear cut" cases to be valid. Which is a problem when, as been repeatedly pointed out to you, many apparently "clear cut" convictions are later proven to be wrong.I gave example of Kasab and somehow that gets ignored and people start with their imaginary arguments.
Immediate knee jerk response
Maybe sometimes it's good to do some research?
Law was amended because of one goddamn case.
Also I said terrorists who are caught deserve capital punishment, you disagree with that one too?
It becomes a problem when you're saying 'let's kill everyone who does this'. Sometimes the system gets it wrong, it's just a fact of life. But it's much easier to release and compensate someone when you didn't murder them 10 years ago.I gave example of Kasab and somehow that gets ignored and people start with their imaginary arguments.
Immediate knee jerk response
Also, how does the state tell people not to murder, while itself murdering people?
The same way it tells people not to kidnap others, whilst locking people in cells.
Except the people in cells had a choice in the matter. Anybody being kidnapped didn't.
I don't know, I never said cutting dicks was the way to go or drowning them in lava. I vouched for death penalty for the cases I gave examples of which includes Delhi rape case and was given capital punishment rightly.
Kasab thing started as I asked the guy "if the terrorists are caught, they don't deserve capital punishment?".
I hear you, I never said kill everyone who are accused of rape and murder. I gave specific examples, maybe it was too specific.
Terrorists who are caught? Like the Birmingham six or Guildford four you mean? Gee, I wonder what could go wrong there.
These are the sort of cases your argument actually has to take into account rather than solely focusing the one that suits you.
Oh my god you're still not getting it.
Read these posts:
Also talking about reha
Btw I haven't read about Birmingham six, I will read it later though.
No, like i example I gave when the terrorist was caught killing people and have cctv recording everything.
Btw I haven't read about Birmingham six, I will read it later though.
Let me ask you an honest question. Do you believe that the death penalty in those cases makes up for the innocent people put to death every year? Is it an acceptable trade off so that those particular few cases get 'your brand of justice'? Because if not, if it's not an acceptable trade off then it needs to be stopped. It could only be allowed to continue if you believed it to be worth it. Because if it wasn't worth it, then it isn't worth having it.
I genuinely don't understand how he can't get this.
I don't think many would advocate any punishment at all for just the accused.
I'm not sure it even works in just a few specific cases though, because the stuff I said in my last post applies to all cases anyway. What makes you definitely sure you've got the right person in this instance, but not in others?
......
Which is why the death penalty can never work in a just society.
In the same way, those being executed for murder had a choice in the matter. Those being murdered did not.
That's not true though, as there are plenty of people on death row who are in fact innocent. Being locked up can in some way be made up for through financial recompense at a later date, that can't happen if you're dead. That is the single most important part of this debate which people who advocate the death penalty either don't think about - making the whole argument pointless to begin with as it's not intelligent, or they don't care about - making them hypocrites and the whole argument pointless to begin with. For every person who then backtracks and says 'nononono what I actually mean is, only in cases where it's 100% absolutely cast iron guaranteed that they did it and they've got like 30 different kinds of evidence' there is someone else who then points out an example where that supposedly happened and it turned out to be incorrect. Therefore it's incredibly flawed, and you cannot run with it if a possible eventuality is that we have state sponsored execution of innocent people. That's what is essentially being supported.
Again, I didn't say all the accused should get capital punishment. It started when I asked specific question about terrorist being caught (like when they were killing people on streets) and whether they deserve capital punishment or in Delhi rape case where the gang rapists agreed and even gave interviews without any regrets.
I said "rapists and murders should get capital punishment" and when I said that I had 2 specific cases in mind which I have posted. Like I said, my examples was too specific and it was very rare, so rare that in both cases criminals got capital punishment.I don't think many would advocate any punishment at all for just the accused.
I'm not sure it even works in just a few specific cases though, because the stuff I said in my last post applies to all cases anyway. What makes you definitely sure you've got the right person in this instance, but not in others?
Btw, people who think and believe in rehabilitation, there was a case that happened 2 years ago. Uber driver raped a girl and later it was known that he had 5 cases against him in the past. So what do you guys think is the right jail time for rapists. Life time or 5-6 years?
http://www.firstpost.com/india/uber...urvivor-has-moved-on-says-father-2493640.html
Ok, let me ask you a simple and specific question. Do you think a terrorist who was caught killing people deserved death penalty. A simple yes or no would suffice as it's not about whether the accused was guilty or not, as he was caught on the streets killing people.
That's a silly question to ask, because it's so loaded. You can't just say yes or no. If he says no and in his head it's because of reason G, you will take it to mean because of reason A. For example, to most people the reason why they say no because the chance of state-sponsored execution of innocent people means that the whole thing is not worth it at all. Yes that particular guy that you want dead may end up living, but that's better than him dying and then because your need for vengeance means that a program exists that allows people to be put to death, somewhere else an innocent person died.
Let me ask you a question.
Do you believe that if there's even a small chance that somebody is put to death by mistake, that the death penalty should still exist? Because that would be you saying that the trade off is worth it. Yes or no.
Last edited:
I don't think the state should ever put a person to death.
Deserve doesn't have anything to do with it and the emotive response to heinous crimes shouldn't form part of the decision making process for dealing with these people.
They did, but you're only focusing on the ones who did choose to murder someone. What about those wrongly convicted, should the state murder them too? Because that's what happens when you decide to just murder everyone.
I don't think one example of somebody re-offending is a strong enough case for saying we should therefore just murder everyone. Part of the idea of punishment is the need to protect the innocent, but killing them fails to do this as you're by definition going to execute some innocent people.
Fair enough.
I never said "kill everyone". I already said I had 2 specific cases when I said those people deserved what they got.
I never said Kill, I asked you guys question. What do you think is a fair prison time knowing there is a chance that person might commit the same crime?
That has nothing to do with my question, which you keep refusing to answer for seemingly no reason. You keep exempting yourself from the question using some justification that has nothing to do with what I asked. Just answer the question, yes or no. We can then take it from there.
The Birmingham six were clearly guilty at the time. The level of certainty you talk of is so rare as to be irrelevant. In any case killing people is immoral no matter what.
Let me answer you this way, I celebrated when capital punishment was handed to some terrorist and a rapist.
No one wants innocent getting punished but when you know the clear cut case then I don't mind.
Anyways I'm done. Apologies if anyone got offended, I have made my points and there is no point repeating same things again and again
So you're fine with some innocent people being killed because you get to celebrate a terrorist and rapist dying?