[harishpr]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

What's truly concerning is this man isn't an isolated example. There are men like him roaming free around us in all walks of life. This man was also part of the 'common man' crowd before this infamous case.

Hanging these convicts won't solve anything if we all go back to life as usual. It's this mentality that needs to be weeded out, not just hanging the criminals once they're convicted and innocent lives already destroyed.

Hang AP SINGH if it's true.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

I'm not trying to argue Gandhi's principles either. I just don't think Gandhi or Buddha had any place in the arguments of this particular case. Gandhi's comments were made in a time & context that's not relevant to this case. Even if he was against capital punishment under 'any circumstances', then I would just agree to disagree with him. Just my personal opinion, not necessarily right.

All quotes from Gandhi or Buddha should be taken seriously if they were in this age. I bet they would have said different for today.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by harishpr

Hang AP SINGH if it's true.

As I said before, I don't think hanging will solve anything. There are far too many people around us who think this way, and we can't go about hanging people for their point-of-view, as disgusted as we may be by them.

And hanging them 'after' they've manifested their beliefs into action just defeats the purpose, as the damage is already done. We don't need more stringent punishment, we need better deterrents. Fear (unfortunately) is not an effective deterrent, as much as we'd like to believe it is.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by invincible7

I am sorry but I fail to understand this argument from your end, do you mean to say the court was helpless

Yes. The chap got the maximum possible punishment as per our laws. The Court isn't allowed to sentence him to anything more.

[nareshov]

So many of us advocating death penalties and public stoning! Do they really "work"? Are we confusing vengeance with justice?

Here's some food for thought: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ngle_page=true

The Brain on Trial
Advances in brain science are calling into question the volition behind many criminal acts. A leading neuroscientist describes how the foundations of our criminal-justice system are beginning to crumble, and proposes a new way forward for law and order.

[mannubhai]

To the above comments of not hanging and letting them reform, to prove that we are a civilized society ,; Why should you and me pay our hard earned money to extend the life of a rapist who had no mercy in violating a helpless girl with an iron rod, rupturing her intestines with 16 different wounds, ravaging her and throwing her out naked on to the road from a running bus to die , just because they couldn't control their itch ??

Its not an emotional judgement from my side, but someone whose mind is so cruel that they could think of doing something like this,needs no mercy.

Life imprisonment gets transformed as 14 years and then he is free to walk away, back to the society. What guarantee does the system have that he is reformed ? Can we put them behind bars for life with out parole ? We cant . Even If we can, what is his use to himself and society ? Why should the society bear the cost of a criminal till he is dead of old age in a prison cell ?

As long as we don't have answers to these questions, death penalty is the only thing these criminals deserve.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by mannubhai

To the above comments of not hanging and letting them reform, to prove that we are a civilized society ,; Why should you and me pay our hard earned money to extend the life of a rapist who had no mercy in violating a helpless girl with an iron rod, rupturing her intestines with 16 different wounds, ravaging her and throwing her out naked on to the road from a running bus to die , just because they couldn't control their itch ??

Its not an emotional judgement from my side, but someone whose mind is so cruel that they could think of doing something like this,needs no mercy.

Life imprisonment gets transformed as 14 years and then he is free to walk away, back to the society. What guarantee does the system have that he is reformed ? Can we put them behind bars for life with out parole ? We cant . Even If we can, what is his use to himself and society ? Why should the society bear the cost of a criminal till he is dead of old age in a prison cell ?

As long as we don't have answers to these questions, death penalty is the only thing these criminals deserve.

I'm not sure if you were referring to my post above. When I said "hanging won't solve anything", the conversation was about the defense lawyer and societal mindsets, not the convicts themselves. Refer my response to harishpr's post above to clarify.

In the wider scheme of things, this conversation needs to move beyond crime and punishment into our collective social conscious of right & wrong. These men were not born criminals, though they ended up there. They got what they deserved, but it would be foolish to assume that they became what they're today in a vacuum without any external influence. It's those influences that we need to weed out, or we'll just be caught in an endless cycle of crime-trial-punishment. We actually already are, if the news is anything to go by. Time to try & break that cycle.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by mannubhai

To the above comments of not hanging and letting them reform, to prove that we are a civilized society ,;

We don't have to prove now that we are a civilized society. The rules of the game are written in the penal code. Is this case unprecedented that an exception must be made? If so the exception cannot be made by the judge.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

We don't need more stringent punishment, we need better deterrents. Fear (unfortunately) is not an effective deterrent, as much as we'd like to believe it is.

True, however severe the punishment may be, crime can never be eliminated.

Originally Posted by Jebs

Yes, this is the landmark Judgement ever. Hope there is no way to appeal further and prolong the period.

Right. Public interest build up to this case did influence the judges. I wish public interest is maintained in other cases too.

Originally Posted by mannubhai

I feel quite the opposite. The quantum of punishment should be the same.

Different offences have different punishments. If punishment is same, then in this case, all rape victims will be murdered. Reason being, if caught, both carry same punishment. If the victim is alive, she can explain what happened & could identify the criminal. If she is dead, it is less likely the criminal will be caught.

Originally Posted by sa_kiran

This judgement will be followed for the Mumbai rape case as well. A juvenile has been created (yes, he will not be punished) and the rest will be punished.

You are making it look like fiction

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

These men were not born criminals, though they ended up there.

Nobody is born a criminal. Each as individual couldn't have committed that crime. But a team,they did. Truman Capote's book 'In Cold Blood' deals with this aspect and he says a team assumes a different personality, different from any of the individuals. Hence they can commit such a crime.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

the lawyer did his bit in getting his clients hanged with his (reportedly) nonsensical arguments.

Right. If the lawyer wanted to help his case, he must have pleaded guilty and hope for a lesser sentence. But he tried to get off hook against hard evidence in a high profile case like this.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by msdivy

Right. Public interest build up to this case did influence the judges. I wish public interest is maintained in other cases too.

If public interest did influence the judges, then that's really bad. And IANAL, it may be grounds for appeal.

Originally Posted by msdivy

Right. If the lawyer wanted to help his case, he must have pleaded guilty and hope for a lesser sentence. But he tried to get off hook against hard evidence in a high profile case like this.

I doubt it. I don't see any reason to be believe that the prosecution would have considered asking for a non-hanging sentence even if the defendants had pleaded guilty.

[CaliAtenza]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

I'm not sure if you were referring to my post above. When I said "hanging won't solve anything", the conversation was about the defense lawyer and societal mindsets, not the convicts themselves. Refer my response to harishpr's post above to clarify.

In the wider scheme of things, this conversation needs to move beyond crime and punishment into our collective social conscious of right & wrong. These men were not born criminals, though they ended up there. They got what they deserved, but it would be foolish to assume that they became what they're today in a vacuum without any external influence. It's those influences that we need to weed out, or we'll just be caught in an endless cycle of crime-trial-punishment. We actually already are, if the news is anything to go by. Time to try & break that cycle.

how do you weed this sort of thing out? The lawyer for the accused himself said he would burn his daughter if she was out at night or with her boyfriend or whatever it is. There are millions more who think like him too . There are a billion plus people in India, and as much as i and everyone else here want things to change rapidly, it isnt happening fast enough. The rape cases and incidents only seem to be increasing, not decreasing. Who knows how many thousands or even tens of thousands of cases have gone unreported.

Originally Posted by drmohitg

I have always wanted to ask this and the last couple of pages of discussion on this thread have been raising the same issue. What exactly is the working style of the law anywhere in the world? We are told that every person has a right to defence in the court of law. So going by this every accused ( regardless of the criminal act he or she has been accused of committing) has a legal right for defense. In which case why are we feeling enraged on the defence lawyers arguments? If we never intended to give this a fair hearing then why not just shoot the accused or give whatever punishment you deem fit and spare us all this hoopla about courts. The same thing was raised even in Kasab's case which was another open and shut case according to many. Infact this age old practice of letting every accused have a right to defence is what ensures the pardon of so many rich and powerful criminals/politicians in our courts everyday. Where is the justice in all this? But ofcourse it sounds very morally correct that every person has a right to a defence attorney!

Well in many places of the world, its a Jury trial. There is no doubt that a Jury would have found these men guilty and sentenced them to death long ago. Second off, lawyers, whether for the defendant or the plantiff, are supposed to be held to a higher standard. I know a lawyer here, in the US, would never say something like what this lawyer did. He would be out of a job and probably disbarred pretty quickly. Moreover, if he had said that argument, in court, in front of a jury, he would have immediately lost the case for his clients.

I know the Trayvon Martin case over here was pretty damn heated, with the Media fueling half the fire, but the Lawyers for both sides didnt say anything too crazy, not like what this fellow has said.

[roy_libran]

Over the last few days I have heard a few people say that 'had these guys not engaged in bestiality and attempt to murder, things would have been fine. They should have let the girl go after they had raped her'.
Needless to say I'm stunned to listen to the above. I don't have words to describe the rage that I feel when I listen to such things.
Whosoever is expectant of positive cultural changes happening in this country, is overly optimistic and also foolish.
We seem to be fundamentally flawed right upwards from our genes.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by CaliAtenza

I know a lawyer here, in the US, would never say something like what this lawyer did. He would be out of a job and probably disbarred pretty quickly. Moreover, if he had said that argument, in court, in front of a jury, he would have immediately lost the case for his clients.

What argument that he made in court would have got him disbarred?

[nitinbose]

Whether such criminals are hanged or sentenced to any capital punishment, it does not make any difference to them. They are quite seasoned. Most of such criminals are not even aware of such laws or society norms, they simply go by their instincts without thinking of any consequences.

Think of it like a cow let to graze. It would eat grass from anywhere it finds suitable, be it your field or someone else's. If you chase the cow, it would still come back the next day. Similarly are such criminals. They were brought up in such situations that no morals were emphasized but mere methods to survive at any cost.

I feel the only way we can reduce such acts is by bringing education on moral and sex sciences from school levels. That way, children would be brought up with certain understanding in mind. Though its the duty of parents to impart such education to their kids, unfortunately, either they do not have the time or themselves not enlightened enough.

We may not see immediate results with such education but over 2-3 generations the fruits would yield!

[amit]

Originally Posted by DRIVE_ADDICT

"Why don't people first control their daughters? I'd burn my daughter alive if she was having pre-marital sex,roaming around with her boyfriend at night"

I am no expert in law but a case can be filed against him for defamation isn't it? What proof does he have that the girl was having pre-marital sex? And even if she was, it doesn't give anyone the right to beat her, rape her & violate her brutally.

Anyway, the defence had nothing in this case so all they have indulged in is in making outrageous statements to get attention. Maybe he expects to get some cases out of this. Still, can't a rape case be fought without having to question the girl's character? No one denies the right of the accused to be defended or of the lawyer defending his client but can't it done with a bit more respect for everyone?

The judge pretty much nailed it while sentencing these beasts. I don't think any court anywhere in the world will disagree to what the judge said or to this sentencing.

Nirbhaya is one step closer to peace. We owe it to her to let her RIP. This will happen the day these guys hang.

[Fillmore]

Originally Posted by amit

I am no expert in law but a case can be filed against him for defamation isn't it? What proof does he have that the girl was having pre-marital sex? And even if she was, it doesn't give anyone the right to beat her, rape her & violate her brutally.

Even if she was , it is none of the lawyers business. He is supposed to stick to the Law. Even in India Pre-marital sex is not an offence.
He is mixing our social upbringing and morals vs what the books of law says.

I am not into law but at least that's what I found like in the reference below
Ref: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pr...nce-sc/613046/

Originally Posted by nareshov

Here's some food for thought: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ngle_page=true

I feel Charles Whitman's case is slightly different. It was found that he did have some abnormalities in his brain as a result of a tumor which could be attributed as a factor causing some mental imbalance.
That can happen for an individual, and is unfortunate.

However this definitely has nothing to do here where 5 individuals joined together and committed such a crime.

[CaliAtenza]

Originally Posted by carboy

What argument that he made in court would have got him disbarred?

when he said i would burn my daughter if she went out at night or had pre marital sex. If he had made that remark in court; he would at the very least, be sued for defamation. I bet someone would try to get him disbarred as well.