Islamic propaganda and real face of islam.

[Ace Novice]

Should justice be about crime and punishment? In that case, capital punishment, nay, something even lesser than capital punishment, might suffice. But does it matter to the victim to what extent the perpetrator is punished? I believe in civil cases it would but once you examine criminal cases, the rationale for civilized forms of punishment dwindles.

My belief is that not all punishments should be meted out for the sake of obtaining justice. There are some crimes where the punishment should not only rise above mere dispensation of justice but serve as a strong deterrent. If such deterrence immerses civilized society into barbaric and inhumane behavior, I believe it is a price that society should willingly pay to uphold the rights of law abiding citizens. This is better than to, consciously or not, callously dismiss our responsibility to treat victims as something more than statistics or delude ourselves into thinking justice has been done.

[swajayr]

Next time you go to your local pakistani corner/grocery shop or a pakistani restaurante, stop for a moment and think where your money may end up. I have personal experience of how this money is channeled to Kashmiri terrorists, guys its about time indians used their brain & conscious and showed some unity.


Revealed: Muslim bomb plot gang's links to 'mega-mosque' in east London[/quote]

i had thought about this while back and stopped going to indian ( pak) stores .it helped me with most of the tesco stores having reasonable indian products.
about pakistani restaurant i take proactive role to stop my friends to visit them, it helps that the food is world class rubbish

[Sid]

My belief is that not all punishments should be meted out for the sake of obtaining justice. There are some crimes where the punishment should not only rise above mere dispensation of justice but serve as a strong deterrent. [/quote]
The statement above has been a classic argument for those supporting capital punishment. And the classic argument against this argument has been "Had capital punishment been a big enough deterrent against heinous crimes, such crimes would have been erased from the face of earth by now." Most heinous crimes are done under an effect of passion/rage/emotion/duress/peer-pressure/self-defense. And under such circumstances, fear of capital punishment is not effective in preventing crime.

And the question also remains that what is the benefit for the victim or his family, by giving the criminal capital punishment?

Wouldn't a better approach be to keep the criminal alive (but maybe behind bars for the rest of the life), and give him a chance to do some good for society?

[quote]If such deterrence immerses civilized society into barbaric and inhumane behavior, I believe it is a price that society should willingly pay to uphold the rights of law abiding citizens. This is better than to, consciously or not, callously dismiss our responsibility to treat victims as something more than statistics or delude ourselves into thinking justice has been done.[/quote]

Isn't a society that asks an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life, an example of Barbaric society? How is it different from much maligned Muslim societies where a thief's hands are cut, or a person blinded for throwing acid on eyes of a girl, or a woman stoned to death on "accusation" of some crime?

And the biggest problem of all is that humans are not error free. So for every hundred capital punishments, there will always be some that were wrong. What is the probability ratio, at which human error becomes large enough to discard capital punishment? 50%? 20%? 1%? 0.00001%? Who will decide the threshold for an irreversible punishment? And How?

So keeps coming back to the same question: What is the value of a life?

If one can't answer it, then one can't take it away from another. Isn't it?

[tejasvee]

I don't think 'Quick' or 'improvization' or 'rational thinking' or 'usage of tools' is something that sets us apart. Most animals have much less age span. And their offsprings come up to speed with adults of their class way quickly than a human infant comes up to speed with a human adult. Maybe animals think of humans as weaker organism class because of this incapability. Most birds create way too complex nests than what most humans can weave. And they don't even need to learn it. [/quote]
Look at 'quick' adaptation as a species. Birds have been weaving nests in pretty much the same way over the past 2000 years. Have humans been constructing homes in the same way? It's not a question of whether a deer's cub (?) starts running within 30 minutes while a human child takes 3 years. It's how quickly we as a species are innovating, improvize and adapt compared to the previous generations - which sets us apart.

Animals also adapt. Bear diet is a classic example. But the speed of a species as a whole is what sets humans apart.

That is true for most animals too. Rarely an animal attacks or indulges in violence without a cause. [/quote]
Take it to the next level now. If a baboon gets very bully and attacks it's immediate neighbors, what do the rest do? Compare that to a human bully and how society unites to keep the bully nature away. So in essence, there is more deterrants to violence among humans than animals.

For a person in 23rd century, our 21st century "humane" methods of capital punishment may seem barbaric. Maybe killing by stone throwing was considered more "Humane" in 1st century BC as opposed to "peeling one's skin and letting the person die with blood dripping". [/quote]
That's a very good point sid. I am fully with you on this. Every century, we need to keep the good/relevant stuff passed on from previous generation, while discarding/reforming what is not relevant/good anymore. The decision is of course on the current generation.

So yes, if there is a vote tomorrow to replace capital punishment by hanging with sophesticated pottassium or other 'death chemical' cocktails, I would go for it. But what I don't like about utipian/pacifist ideas is to abolish stronger punishments. This is an area where I am usually at the opposite end from my wife's viewpoints. She is such a big time pacifist who would 'forgive' anyone & everyone. I don't think a society can function well without strong deterrants for crime.

Is taxpayer's money bigger than a life? Comes to the original question: "What is the value of one life"? [/quote]
There are two ways of looking at this.

Theoretical - which involves utipian humanistic world, philosophical twists and spiritual dhaara.

Practical - What you and me can observe from real life. Let me focus on the practical aspect here.

The simple answer is 2 words: 'it depends'. One Indira Gandhi's life was valued with blood of 3000+ Delhiites. A few dozen westerners caught in Mumbai terror incident caught the attention of the entire world whereas 250+ death toll from 1993 hardly made any news. While the world was focused on Mumbai, 300 or so Nigerian Christians & Muslims butchered each othered.. the world didn't bother to blink. While a few thousand deathtoll in erstwhile Yugoslavia caused major military mobilization, millions who died in Rwanda were not cared for at all. 3000 or so 9/11 lives were valued with blood of over a lakh Iraqi & Afghani bodies. So I really mean it.. 'it depends' upon whose life we are talking about here. There has never been an equal valuation for a human life in history and I doubt there will ever be.

I have not made up my mind yet. Maybe some life-experience will tilt me more towards one extreme. [/quote]
Whichever way you make up your mind, ask yourself a practical question. For a hardened & apparently going to be convicted criminal of manslaughter, Qasab, what would be your punishment (or lack of it)? Would you keep him in jail for 50 years considering he is only 21 with tax payer money or would you kill him in the most humane way possible? Be practical in your answer and check it with a few of your friends in real life to see their reaction.

But does it matter to the victim to what extent the perpetrator is punished? I believe in civil cases it would but once you examine criminal cases, the rationale for civilized forms of punishment dwindles. [/quote]

Very good question. I have seen stories where victim's families pardoned the killer. Some cases that we are taught like Valmiki's indicate that hardened criminals (he was a robber) can reform back in real life contributing immensely to the society later... the paschattApa concept, if you know what I mean. If Valmiki was condemned & punished, we might not have had RamAyana :)

Seriously.. punishments are a must. To what degree is not just decided by the victim's familities or victim herself/himself if they are alive. The whole local society has a say in how the punishment should be meted out. The key is to influence the society's thinking towards a solid enough deterrant, yet as humane as necessary to avoid state barbarism.