Mumbai gunman sentenced to death

[Beefster]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7685083/Mumbai-attack-gunman-sentenced-to-death.html

As an individual, jointly, responsible for 166 deaths is it right that his punishment will be his own death?

[Woody1985]

Yep, after a long stint in jail.

[ArabHibee]

It's a hard question to answer and one that always stumps me.

If someone has murdered another human being (beyond all doubt), then I don't think they should be allowed to live and should be put to death.

On the other hand, death is too quick for them and they should be put to prison with no parole to live out the rest of their life.

The problem with the 2nd scenario (for me) is that prison time in this country is namby pamby, with tv's and computer consoles in their cells. If the prisons weren't like this, then it would be more of a punishment.

I don't think this boy would have had an easy life in prison.

[Betty Boop]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7685083/Mumbai-attack-gunman-sentenced-to-death.html

As an individual, jointly, responsible for 166 deaths is it right that his punishment will be his own death?

No! An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[Jack]

Scenario 1. He become a martyr for the cause.

Scenario 2. He becomes a lever where the terrorists demand his freedom for the release of innocent, soon to become, dead hostages.

Outcome – no win situation, his death will at least save them from the expense of keeping him in jail and avoiding scenario 2.

[Sir David Gray]

I am strongly opposed to the death penalty as I don't believe anyone has the right to take someone else's life so, no, I don't think he should be executed. He should be in jail for the rest of his life, without the possibility of parole.

It's just as well he didn't attack Scotland, he would be out next week if he claimed to have a serious illness.

[Onceinawhile]

No! An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

but this isn't an eye for an eye, its 166 eyes for an eye.

Normally I'm against the death penalty but given the premeditated nature and sheer scale of the attack, I think it's correct on this occasion.

[joe_hfc]

It's a hard question to answer and one that always stumps me.

If someone has murdered another human being (beyond all doubt), then I don't think they should be allowed to live and should be put to death.

On the other hand, death is too quick for them and they should be put to prison with no parole to live out the rest of their life.

The problem with the 2nd scenario (for me) is that prison time in this country is namby pamby, with tv's and computer consoles in their cells. If the prisons weren't like this, then it would be more of a punishment.

I don't think this boy would have had an easy life in prison.


Have you seen a prison? They are not as much of a holiday resort as people make out. For starters, prisoners generally only have some small luxeries in their cell in cat D and C prisons.

The point in prison is to take you out from society, which deprives your freedom. No amount of GTA or Jeremy Kyle could make up for a small fraction of the sense of freedom lost - a heavy punishment.

Try asking a prisoner if they think its 'namby bamby' being inside.

AND to the OP, if somebody does something as terrible as murder and is proved beyond all reasonable doubt - and shows little to no remorse for his/her actions, they should have their life taken from them as so they cant harm society financially in prison, or actually, after their release

[ArabHibee]

Have you seen a prison? They are not as much of a holiday resort as people make out. For starters, prisoners generally only have some small luxeries in their cell in cat D and C prisons.

The point in prison is to take you out from society, which deprives your freedom. No amount of GTA or Jeremy Kyle could make up for a small fraction of the sense of freedom lost - a heavy punishment.

Try asking a prisoner if they think its 'namby bamby' being inside.

AND to the OP, if somebody does something as terrible as murder and is proved beyond all reasonable doubt - and shows little to no remorse for his/her actions, they should have their life taken from them as so they cant harm society financially in prison, or actually, after their release

Yes I have seen a prison. There's a big one along the road from me in Perth.

Have you? You seem to know a lot about it? :cool2:

[MSK]

Have you seen a prison? They are not as much of a holiday resort as people make out. For starters, prisoners generally only have some small luxeries in their cell in cat D and C prisons.

The point in prison is to take you out from society, which deprives your freedom. No amount of GTA or Jeremy Kyle could make up for a small fraction of the sense of freedom lost - a heavy punishment.

Try asking a prisoner if they think its 'namby bamby' being inside.

I know two or three "prisoners" each has done various lengths of time in prison...two of them are young guys with no family ties & simply treat prison as a vacation, roof over their heads, warmth, well fed, a bit of tv here & there, a bit o pool or gym & a chance to catch up wi "auld muckers"..no mention of pc or playstation games though...they come out ..get bored or are skint ..do a bit of crime then they are away for another 6 to 8 months ...do they care ..?...not a jot ..namby pamby ..?...yes !!

[Woody1985]

I know guys who've been in saughton a couple of times and it doesn't stop them going back.

One guy in particular, who is a good friend got to play 5s a couple of times a week, got certificates in physical education courses and had a TV in his cell with Setanta to watch the games when they were on every Sunday. He was never in any bother inside, partly due to who he knew and partly his non aggressive personality.

He says that he wouldn't like to go back but whilst he was there it was easy going. He says once you're out of the remand hall it's plain sailing from there.

[AgentDaleCooper]

It's a hard question to answer and one that always stumps me.

If someone has murdered another human being (beyond all doubt), then I don't think they should be allowed to live and should be put to death.

On the other hand, death is too quick for them and they should be put to prison with no parole to live out the rest of their life.

The problem with the 2nd scenario (for me) is that prison time in this country is namby pamby, with tv's and computer consoles in their cells. If the prisons weren't like this, then it would be more of a punishment.

I don't think this boy would have had an easy life in prison.

there is no such thing.

[Woody1985]

there is no such thing.

How do you figure that?

If someone is caught on camera with numerous witnesses murdering someone you think there can be an element of doubt about who committed the crime? :confused:

[HibsMax]

I am strongly opposed to the death penalty as I don't believe anyone has the right to take someone else's life so, no, I don't think he should be executed.
Does this extend to war? Soldiers kill soldiers (and civilians) all the time in the course of their daily job. I assume you're against this killing as well? Just checking.


there is no such thing.
Of course there is such a thing as "beyond a doubt". That doesn't mean that mistakes haven't been made in the past but try arguing for animals such as Jeffrey Dahmer. Perhaps an extreme example but in my opinion that's precisely when you enforce an extreme punishment.

[(((Fergus)))]

Q to the pro-capital punishment people. What would be the purpose of capital punishment?

[Sir David Gray]

Does this extend to war? Soldiers kill soldiers (and civilians) all the time in the course of their daily job. I assume you're against this killing as well? Just checking.

I'm against war in general but sometimes it is necessary as a last resort if all other possible avenues have been exhausted.

[snooky]

Question: Is the death penalty a deterent to a suicide bomber?

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. One thing I will say for it though is, it stops the guilty party being a repeat offender.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Does this extend to war? Soldiers kill soldiers (and civilians) all the time in the course of their daily job. I assume you're against this killing as well? Just checking.


Of course there is such a thing as "beyond a doubt". That doesn't mean that mistakes haven't been made in the past but try arguing for animals such as Jeffrey Dahmer. Perhaps an extreme example but in my opinion that's precisely when you enforce an extreme punishment.

i'm being pedantic, smart arse twat really, but it's not possible for someone's guilt to be totally, completely beyond doubt, no matter how certain it may seem. i mean in a mathematical sense.

(does whanker sign at self)

poncey point, but you can probably see the potential relevence...

sorry :rolleyes:

[AgentDaleCooper]

Of course there is such a thing as "beyond a doubt". That doesn't mean that mistakes haven't been made in the past but try arguing for animals such as Jeffrey Dahmer. Perhaps an extreme example but in my opinion that's precisely when you enforce an extreme punishment.

i'll try again and not refer to philosophy that i don't really understand anyway...

two problems for me:

1) has there never been a case where it would appear that there is no reasonable doubt, but then evidence has appeared out of the blue? this evidence doesn't necessarily need to show the defendant's innocence, but maybe a diminished capacity of some description, that would reduce the sentence to life imprisonment perhaps? maybe a crap description but you know what i'm getting at.

2) what about when people can't agree whether something is beyond doubt or not?

if you introduce a cut off line, no matter where it is, mistakes will be made - stakes are too high for even one mistake for capital punishment to be a viable option IMO.

[Sir David Gray]

i'll try again and not refer to philosophy that i don't really understand anyway...

two problems for me:

1) has there never been a case where it would appear that there is no reasonable doubt, but then evidence has appeared out of the blue? this evidence doesn't necessarily need to show the defendant's innocence, but maybe a diminished capacity of some description, that would reduce the sentence to life imprisonment perhaps? maybe a crap description but you know what i'm getting at.

2) what about when people can't agree whether something is beyond doubt or not?

if you introduce a cut off line, no matter where it is, mistakes will be made - stakes are too high for even one mistake for capital punishment to be a viable option IMO.

:agree: Apart from the fact that I am very much of the belief that no-one has the right to end someone else's life, the fact that even one innocent person could be put to death is one too many for me.

Despite all the promises to the contrary, no supporter of capital punishment can give me a cast-iron guarantee that there would never be an innocent person wrongly executed.

That is just completely unacceptable to me.

[Woody1985]

Question: Is the death penalty a deterent to a suicide bomber?

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. One thing I will say for it though is, it stops the guilty party being a repeat offender.

Why does the law have to be a deterrent?

The law should be strong enough to be a deterrent for the vast majority of people. However, those that go past those boundaries deserve to be punished. There will always be people who ignore the deterrent that exists, no matter what.

You're question is irrelevant because the end result for that person is death. A better example may be someone walking through one of the major cities in the world with a gun and shooting people randomly. That person is not going to be deterred by the death sentence.

[snooky]

Why does the law have to be a deterrent?

The law should be strong enough to be a deterrent for the vast majority of people. However, those that go past those boundaries deserve to be punished. There will always be people who ignore the deterrent that exists, no matter what.

You're question is irrelevant because the end result for that person is death. A better example may be someone walking through one of the major cities in the world with a gun and shooting people randomly. That person is not going to be deterred by the death sentence.

Whooosh!

[Woody1985]

Whooosh!

It's been widely discussed on here in the past about the law being a deterrent and occasionally those who object to it cite the suicide bomber arguement as an example of why we don't need stricter punishment in some cases.

If you want to act like a cock on a serious thread then go ahead.

[--------]

:agree: Apart from the fact that I am very much of the belief that no-one has the right to end someone else's life, the fact that even one innocent person could be put to death is one too many for me.

Despite all the promises to the contrary, no supporter of capital punishment can give me a cast-iron guarantee that there would never be an innocent person wrongly executed.

That is just completely unacceptable to me.


I'm reading Lloyd C. Gardner's book on the Lindbergh kidnapping right now - "The Case That Never Dies". I recommend it.

A complete travesty of 'justice' that ended with a man in the electric chair.

[Woody1985]

I'm reading Lloyd C. Gardner's book on the Lindbergh kidnapping right now - "The Case That Never Dies". I recommend it.

A complete travesty of 'justice' that ended with a man in the electric chair.

Did you read about the case in the last week or two where the man was deemed to have raped an 11 year old girl and sentenced to life (IIRC) but new DNA evidence confirmed it wasn't him.

I think that he had spent 20-30 years in jail. Crazy ****.

[khib70]

Did you read about the case in the last week or two where the man was deemed to have raped an 11 year old girl and sentenced to life (IIRC) but new DNA evidence confirmed it wasn't him.

I think that he had spent 20-30 years in jail. Crazy ****.

:agree:An astonishing case. As reported here

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7120167.ece

Even more scary that over 250 (mainly black) people have been cleared by DNA evidence.

How many might have died on a gurney or in the chair for crimes they didn't commit. Regardless of the seriousness of the crime, there is no moral justification and no practical value to the death penalty.

[HibsMax]

I'm against war in general but sometimes it is necessary as a last resort if all other possible avenues have been exhausted.
One thing I find interesting is that as much as the human race has advanced over the last couple of thousand years, we still resort to using the same methods to settle our differences. It amazes me that there is no better way to settle a dispute other than simply killing people and destroying infrastructure. The only advancements we've made is HOW to kill each other. Pity we haven't invested as much time and money coming up with an alternative approach. I guess losing at a game of chess is far less satisfying.

[HibsMax]

i'll try again and not refer to philosophy that i don't really understand anyway...

two problems for me:

1) has there never been a case where it would appear that there is no reasonable doubt, but then evidence has appeared out of the blue? this evidence doesn't necessarily need to show the defendant's innocence, but maybe a diminished capacity of some description, that would reduce the sentence to life imprisonment perhaps? maybe a crap description but you know what i'm getting at.

2) what about when people can't agree whether something is beyond doubt or not?

if you introduce a cut off line, no matter where it is, mistakes will be made - stakes are too high for even one mistake for capital punishment to be a viable option IMO.
This is really a different argument. To me there are two issues:
1. Should we even have Capital Punishment?
2. How do we ensure it is implemented with 100% accuracy?

I am all for capital punishment but I am all too aware of the short-comings of the system and I know those have to be addressed.

There have been cases where innocent people have been executed, mistakes have been made.

I do believe that "beyond reasonable doubt" does exist and I do believe there are people on death row how absolutely committed the crimes they are being punished for, without a shadow of a doubt. How about the case that was discussed (or maybe that should be disgust?) a few weeks on here about those kids killing a man with a hammer on tape? Not much doubt there. As I said, as far as I am concerned the death penalty should exist to deal with the extreme cases. Now I see the hole in that logic. Surely everyone in jail is there because they were found guilty without any reasonable doubt? Following on from that, all murderers should be executed or set free because they either committed the crime or they didn't. It's a little awkward saying, "Well we think you are guilty enough to lock you up for the rest of your life but we're not quite sure enough to put you to death" because reading between the lines it sounds like you're not 100% after all. It's a tricky issue for sure. I understand the flaws but I don't think it's totally unworkable. Unfortunately everything hinges on humans at every stage in the process and humans are flawed, greedy, stupid, etc.

[HibsMax]

Regardless of the seriousness of the crime, there is no moral justification and no practical value to the death penalty.
Apart from those people how have been released after serving their sentence only to re-offend. In those situations you have a few choices:
1. lock them up for life and that means until they die in prison.
2. release them under 24 hour surveillance.
3. death penalty
4. something else?

I'm not going to address the moral justification because that is subjective. As for practical value, it stops a person from ever offending again.

Just to be clear, and perhaps it doesn't matter, I am not some execution-hungry guy looking to kill everyone, I just think that there is a place for that punishment, albeit it for extreme cases.

[snooky]

It's been widely discussed on here in the past about the law being a deterrent and occasionally those who object to it cite the suicide bomber arguement as an example of why we don't need stricter punishment in some cases.

If you want to act like a cock on a serious thread then go ahead.

Oh dear, sorry I upset you.