[Closed] That Indian Gang Rape Case - Death Penalties Handed Down

They did what they did, were tried, convicted and sentenced by the law of the land.

Split hairs all you like, it won't make any difference, they'll be nothing but jam on a wall within hours.

But the 17 year old gets 3 years? Surely he should be in that line.

Article 11.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

That (retrospective changes) is clearly in contravention of the Rule of Law.

And I don't believe in the death penalty.

... the do deserve a fair trial an fair punishment.

Nah.

They won't be doing that again then.

Have you read the details of this case? They are truly horrific! They're animals!

I suppose the punishment they're getting I suppose reflects the revulsion felt by Indian society to people who are capable of doing things like this

As I said, I dont doubt that they deserve to be killed for their crimes. A mark of civilised society is to give everyone a fair trial and fair punishment. This is neither, and is not civilised.

They did what they did, were tried, convicted and sentenced by the law of the land.

Can't say I'll lose any sleep over it.....

In what way did they not receive a fair trial?

Of the punishment, the judge said: [i]"This case definitely falls in the rarest of rare categories and warrants the exemplary punishment of death" [/i]

Seems fair enough to me. As deterrents go, potential rapists now know what the benchmark for punishment is

But the 17 year old gets 3 years?

I'm no expert on law whether Indian or otherwise, but does that reflects his involvement in the crime or maybe the max sentence available for that age...

This is neither, and is not civilised.

Why?

I'm no expert on law whether Indian or otherwise, [b]but does that reflects his involvement in the crime[/b] or maybe the max sentence available for that age...

According to the International Business Times, a police spokesman said that the minor was the most brutal attacker and had "sexually abused his victim twice...

The next part of the description of his actions is worse, I'll let you pop over to wikipedia if you wish to read it.

India has a terrible reputation on Human Rights, this doesn't counter that argument in the slightest.

It does however send a clear message to Indian men who do commit these heanus crimes that you will get what you deserve.

Poor Girl I say, and all the others who get acid thrown in their faces, utterly barbaric.

Grrrrr.

Patriot, the 17 y/o was the worst of the lot of them

For what it's worth, I agree with Glupton* here, abhorrent as their crimes were they should be tried according to the law as it was when they were committed.

*and seemingly the UN.

'they inserted iron rods in her, resulting in a complete destruction of the vital parts of her body'

String em up now!

The 17 year old only got three years as that was the maximum possible due to him being a juvenile.
His involvement was as bad as the others.
Good luck to him when he comes out of jail.

@Rockape63; Come on mate, some of us don't need to read that shit.

clearly in contravention of the Rule of Law

as a citizen of the world and therefore someone who the Rule of Law is designed to protect I'm prepared to let this clear contravention of law slide. just this once.

how will they be put to death?

Seems fair enough to me. As deterrents go, potential rapists now know what the benchmark for punishment

Cos we all know rape is a rational calculated process with risk assessment 🙄

Welcome to the Indian concept of justice. This is maybe why countries are reluctant to extradite their citizens to face trial in India.

[i]@Rockape63; Come on mate, some of us don't need to read that shit.[/i]

Just quoting from any report on the Telegraph web site.....which gives you a full understanding of why they they were sentenced to death

Cos we all know rape is a rational calculated process with risk assessment

I think in many cases it is. The rational calculation is certainly true of the power exertion of the rapist over the victim and risk assessments are unconscious things that we do all the time. If you believ you can do something this abhorrent and get away with it, and it gives you a kick to do it then you'll do it.

I don't think it's a spur of the moment thing in many cases.

Cos we all know rape is a rational calculated process with risk assessment

You've not read the specific details of this case then Molls? This crime was indeed planned and calculated from the off. They set out to find someone to do this too, among other fun and games they got up to.

They're getting what society seems to demand as a punishment for that. Boo hoo for them eh? The injustice of it all!!! 🙄

how will they be put to death?

Iron rod would be fitting

Alright fair play it is calculated sometimes.. but not always.

So potential premeditated rapists might think twice, but one would assume that people planning a crime are also planning not to get caught?

Not a fan of murder regardless of the circumstances, tbh.

You've not read the specific details of this case then Molls? This crime was indeed planned and calculated from the off. They set out to find someone to do this too, among other fun and games they got up to.

I've read it, its horrific. But they appear to have been relatively easy to catch (having used a victims mobile to trace them) and must surely have know the punishment, yet it didn't stop them carrying out the crime?

Seems fair enough to me. As deterrents go, potential rapists now know what the benchmark for punishment is

A study of the homicide rate in the US will tell you that the deterrent effect is something of a myth.

It's a bitter irony that the Indian state was founded by Ghandi "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

Have you read the details of this case? They are truly horrific! They're animals!

It's a bitter irony that the Indian state was founded by Ghandi

Not that ironic if this article has any truth:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/27/mohandas-gandhi-women-india

Red hot poker up the arse?

So potential premeditated rapists might think twice, but one would assume that people planning a crime are also planning not to get caught?

Not a fan of murder regardless of the circumstances, tbh.

I agree with you and Ransos, not a fan of the death penalty (although this case makes my moral convictions waiver), plus the deterrent effect is largely unproven.

Have you read the details of this case? They are truly horrific! They're animals!

Yes and they are. Are they any worse than the gang of men who weeks after this attacked and raped a girl on a building site setting fire to her afterwards so see wouldn't identify them. The girl in that case was 11, it received little media coverage, no arrests were made and the father reports he now cannot get police to continue the investigation. There has been no reduction in these crimes since then, and i doubt these sentences will change anything.

It looks more like pandering to the international community rather than addressing the deeper societal issues driving these cases. Overall it paints a more depressing picture of the society to me.

Pretty murky as far as the rule of law is concerned and am not a natural advocate of the death penalty (cant be revoked on appeal and all that) but in this case my reasoning for the death penalty would be as follows:

Deterrent - no, clearly people commit these crimes all the time all over the world

Revenge/public molification - no, an abhorrent concept

means of disposing of individuals that pose an unacceptable risk to the rest of society - well it's cheaper than prison and you don't have to put up them whining about the injustice of their whole life tariffs

no ceremony, no publicity, just a double tap to the back head and a quiet burial in an unmarked grave.

You'd be very hard pushed to find an animal that behaves in that way, so don't insult them (i.e. animals) like that.

dolphins gang rape females to death
ducks gang rape females to death
bears rape female
snakes gang rape females
baboons maul females to prevent them mating with other males
sea otters rape baby seals to death
dog's penises are designed to tear the female if she attempts to leave copulation

And don't get started on the invertebrates...

Not that ironic if this article has any truth:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/27/mohandas-gandhi-women-india

So we should blame contemporary violence against women on a man who died over 60 years ago?

in depth and graphic look at the case
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/delhi-gang-rape-india-women

after reading that I really dont know what to think

State sanctioned murder will never sit comfortably with me I'm afraid. They are loathsome things (human is not a word I would use to describe them) who are of no use to society whatsoever and this planet would undoubtably be better off with them not absorbing the oxygen on it, but regardless the notion of the state sanctioning something so violent as murder is not something I could ever support in any circumstance.

I find the defendants lawyers comments quite dreadfull.

On 10 January, their lawyer, Manohar Lal Sharma, said in a media interview that the victims are responsible for the assault because they should not have been using public transportation and, as an unmarried couple, they should not have been on the streets at night. He went on to say: "Until today I have not seen a single incident or example of rape with a respected lady. Even an underworld don would not like to touch a girl with respect." He also called the male victim "wholly responsible" for the incident because he "failed in his duty to protect the woman".

seems to show quite clearly the attitude to women in general.

Out at night = Slut asking for it. 🙁

The 4 of them have been sentenced to death. They bit that I don't like is that when they committed their offences their crime was not punishable by death.

the notion of the state sanctioning something so violent as murder is not something I could ever support in any circumstance.

Yup, that's it for me.

lemonysam - Member

Romanticising nature much?

dolphins gang rape females to death
ducks gang rape females to death
bears rape female
snakes gang rape females
baboons maul females to prevent them mating with other males
sea otters rape baby seals to death
dog's penises are designed to tear the female if she attempts to leave copulation

And don't get started on the invertebrates...

which of these animals used the iron bar?

which of these animals used the iron bar?

The only one to have invented wheel jacks.

Iron rod would be fitting

So we should blame contemporary violence against women on a man who died over 60 years ago?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. 🙄

I understand what glupton is saying and agree with it. That doesn't stop me thinking that the death penalty is the most fitting sentence for them.

I don't think India care too much about human rights for law abiding citizens let alone scum like this. I think their justice department will probably sleep soundly with this decision.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

Then tell me what you did mean!

Romanticising nature much?

Anthropomorphising nature much?

Then tell me what you did mean!

I meant that a man preaching "an eye for an eye makes the world blind" in one breath and then possibly (not sure of the sources) believing that "Indian women who were raped lost their value as human beings." and "arguing that fathers could be justified in killing daughters who had been sexually assaulted for the sake of family and community honour." Is maybe not the best role model for a civilised (and equal) society that one first assumes. Therefore the irony is not so ironic after all.

Does that make sense?

PS - Sorry for being glib.

Brakes

I'm prepared to let this clear contravention of law slide. just this once.

That's also against the Rule of Law, it's there so laws can't be changed/made up as we go along.

You can't just pick and choose, that's the whole point.

no shit Sherlock

Anthropomorphising nature much?

Not really, no.

Pretty sure murder has been punishable by death in India for a long, long time. I think OP has got the wrong end of the stick here.

Possibly, and I hope so.

Although the offence at the time may have been rape, it looks pretty clear to me that what was done with the iron bar led to her death. So the offence is murder at most manslaughter at least as even the most uneducated know that sticking iron bars where the sun don't shine is bad for your health. Seems to me that when truly shocking incidents occur that we as a society rather not look at the elephant in the room and will react by either clearing the room by state sponsored murder or look the other way and make sure that the crockery is all adjusted and in line in an OCD manner by insisting that these monsters are treated in the most civilised way possible and afford them every right possible.

Its difficult to read the accounts of what happened and not feel a deep down visceral disgust at what these men did.

The disgust quickly gives way to anger and the need for retribution. This is a totally understandable emotional response.

But laws should not be based upon emotion.

Sentencing these men to death doesn't change the fact that the poor woman is dead, nor does it go very far towards addressing the wider issues with violence towards women in Indian society or the traditional caste system as a whole.

They bit that I don't like is that when they committed their offences their crime was not punishable by death. Surely their punishment should only be the maximum allowed at the time they committed the offence

I meant that a man preaching "an eye for an eye makes the world blind" in one breath and then possibly (not sure of the sources) believing that "Indian women who were raped lost their value as human beings." and "arguing that fathers could be justified in killing daughters who had been sexually assaulted for the sake of family and community honour." Is maybe not the best role model for a civilised (and equal) society that one first assumes. Therefore the irony is not so ironic after all.

Does that make sense?

PS - Sorry for being glib.

Thanks. I'm not sure it's not ironic: my point was simply that the state - which has just sanctioned killing - was founded by someone who spent his life opposing vengeance. That Ghandi may well have been flawed, repressed and held misogynistic views is unpleasant indeed, but not altogether surprising for a man of his time.

I'm hard pressed to find anything in this judgement that is unacceptable to me on an emotional level, but I'm also not a great believer in the death penalty on an intellectual level. However, I do wonder if a life time in solitary in an Indian Jail, with the constant threat of a violent unsanctioned death hanging over them is any more or less abhorrent than a quick exit.

Difficult all round IMHO.

Patriot, the 17 y/o was the worst of the lot of them

Maximum-sentence syndrome then.

He'll suffer in jail I would have thought *shudders* maybe the deathers got off lightly...

Why not ask her family what they'd like for a punishment?

Killing people is wrong. Why because human life is important.

So we demonstrate how wrong killing people is....by killing them. Hmmmm.

I disagree with the death penalty. I think it's an affront to our humanity to plan and carry out an execution. Regardless of what that person done. How behaving like animals deters others from behaving like animals is beyond me. And the relative subjectivity justifies people killing others in the name of God/Allah whoever (after all insulting a superior deity must be worse, right?).

They did something unconscionable. Unforgivable. Disgusting. Killing them doesn't make it better. Adding another inhuman act to the heap just makes us a little dirtier.

Dead easy.
Its none our business.

Thanks. I'm not sure it's not ironic: my point was simply that the state - which has just sanctioned killing - was founded by someone who spent his life opposing vengeance. That Ghandi may well have been flawed, repressed and held misogynistic views is unpleasant indeed, but not altogether surprising for a man of his time.

Well, when you put it like that... ...Point conceded.

Not really, no.

No? Pretty sure rape is a purely human construct. Not that forced sex doesn't occur in animals but I struggle to apply the same moral dimension to their behaviour compared to ours.

Each to their own though.

Killing people is wrong. Why because human life is important.

why is human life important - is this some religious reasoning or something. If so then

"And a man who inflicts an injury upon his fellow man just as he did, so shall be done to him [namely,] fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Just as he inflicted an injury upon a person, so shall it be inflicted upon him."

Death is fair enough for them considering their crimes.

What if they had raped your sister like that - how would you feel then?

Bad cases, bad laws

What if...

Hypotheticals are useless in debates such as these.

What if they had raped your sister like that - how would you feel then?

Yes I'd want them dead, which is generally why victims families don't decide the sentence and we have a judicial system instead.

What if they had raped your sister like that - how would you feel then?

If it was your sister I'd still want them dead.

I used to have an idealized view that human life is special and should never be taken but now I just think too many people treat others like sh!t so lets get rid of them.

why is human life important

It's just this crazy whacked out notion that some of us have.

It was stated on the radio that 1 in 4 men in 6 Asian countries admitted to raping someone during their lifetime. Admittedly none of them were India but it is the same region. My mind was slightly blown by this.

[url= http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2013-09/13/content_16967946.htm ]Article.[/url]

In regards to the OP, thou shalt not kill. No ifs, no buts. Anything less is barbaric. Changing the law so you can execute people speaks volumes about the quality of their justice system and will no doubt come back to haunt them in the future. I reckon it is a big mistake. They should chuck them in the clink and let the other prisoners do the job for them.

They should chuck them in the clink and let the other prisoners do the job for them.

Provide weapons or just turn a blind eye? Actually a Thunderdome approach might be quite good, get it on pay per view for some well needed revenue raising.

Provide weapons or just turn a blind eye?

Neither. It is the duty of the authorities to protect those in their custody. It was a flippant remark but it is far more satisfactory to have an individual break the law than it is for the law to be changed on the whims of victims.

it is my view that with an act as despicable as that they have lost the right to any existence in society.

The only reason to let them live is if they were so intellectually challenged to not realize that they were committing a gross crime against society, let alone the victim.

Having a bit of a conversation about this in the office and I one of my colleagues came up with a bit of a blinder that left me a bit stumped.

I was arguing that we should not be able to apply a new law to an old crime as that undermines the rule of law and people should be punished according to the law at the time that the offence was committed.

He then asked if we should be executing people who were proved to have committed murder in 1963 when capital punishment was legal?

Changing the law so you can execute people speaks volumes about the quality of their justice system and will no doubt come back to haunt them in the future.

committing murder is not necessarily as gross a crime as theirs, in my view.

In addition, rape is one thing, rape with an iron bar is in a different league.

He then asked if we should be executing people who were proved to have committed murder in 1963 when capital punishment was legal?

No. The UK is a signatory to the ECHR, which makes capital punishment illegal.

No. The UK is a signatory to the ECHR, which makes capital punishment illegal.

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?