Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday April 22 2018, @05:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the make-the-punishment-fit-the-crime dept.

After a number of high-profile crimes that sparked outrage and protests, India will allow the death penalty for those convicted of raping girls under the age of 12:

The executive order was cleared at a special cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It allows capital punishment for anyone convicted of raping children under the age of 12. Minimum prison sentences for rape against girls under the age of 16 and women have also been raised.

According to Reuters, which has seen a copy of the order, there was no mention of boys or men.

Two recent rape cases have shocked the nation. Protests erupted earlier this month after police released horrific details of the rape of an eight-year-old Muslim girl by Hindu men in Kathua, in Indian-administered Kashmir in January. Anger has also been mounting after a member of the governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was accused last week over the rape of a 16-year-old girl in northern Uttar Pradesh state.

India's poor record of dealing with sexual violence came to the fore after the 2012 gang rape and murder of a student on a Delhi bus. This led to huge protests and changes to the country's rape laws. But sexual attacks against women and children have since continued to be reported across the country.

Some activists have criticized the application of the death penalty, saying it will deter reporting, especially given that almost all perpetrators are family members or acquaintances.

Also at Reuters and Bloomberg. Editorial at The Indian Express.

Related: Indian Government Attempts to Suppress Rape Documentary


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @05:52AM (25 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @05:52AM (#670254)

    Because if someone 12 or older is raped, then it just doesn't matter as much.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=2, Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @05:58AM (24 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @05:58AM (#670256)

    There are different levels of horrible.

    Minimum prison sentences for rape against girls under the age of 16 and women have also been raised.

    • (Score: 3, Troll) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 22 2018, @06:33AM (5 children)

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday April 22 2018, @06:33AM (#670261) Journal

      However:

      According to Reuters, which has seen a copy of the order, there was no mention of boys or men.

      So raping a young boy is not as bad as raping a young girl?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @09:12AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @09:12AM (#670289)

        Goddammit.

        I have NOT said that. I replied directly to the GP's complaint about AGE.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 22 2018, @10:55AM (3 children)

        Short answer: no, it's not. Much in the same way that men entering boot camp get their heads shaved while women do not. The effect is not going to be the same because of societal conditioning. It's not equality but it is realistic.

        This is an issue worth a lot more words but I dislike long comments, so I'll save it for a journal entry.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @03:57PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @03:57PM (#670378)

          because of societal conditioning.

          Right, and the fact that many young girls raped can never bear children is also "societal conditioning." You sound like one of those "gender-rolls are imposed by society" retards.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday April 23 2018, @11:57AM

          by TheRaven (270) on Monday April 23 2018, @11:57AM (#670697) Journal
          Yup, society is far more accepting of men who are victims of rape than of women. That must be why male rape victims are even less likely to report the incident than women and why they have even higher suicide rates. Because society is so accepting of and supporting towards them.
          --
          sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @08:39AM (17 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @08:39AM (#670277)

      There are different levels of horrible.

      Really? So raping an 11 year old girl is automatically worse than raping a 12 year old girl? Why? There's no objectivity there. None. An 11 year old isn't inherently more important than a 12 year old, a 15 year old, or a 20 year old.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @09:32AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @09:32AM (#670291)

        Goddammit, again.

        Yes, no one person is "inherently more important" than another. However, for us huu-mans, some crimes are instinctively worse than others. Our instinct to protect children is much stronger than our instinct to protect 50-year-old dudes, and the laws tend to reflect this. The younger the child, the more horrified I am about crimes committed on them.

        With rape and murder, it just so happens that the "baseline" crime is already so horrible that, if you ask me, the maximum sentence should be applied regardless of the victim (barring extenuating circumstances). I don't agree with the death sentence (see post by mendax, below, for some reasons why), but something like life sentence without parole.

        But in general, yes, inherent importance be damned, hurting 11-year-olds is worse than hurting 12-year-olds, and so on. It's subjective as hell, but that's what being a human is.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @09:43AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @09:43AM (#670294)

          However, for us huu-mans, some crimes are instinctively worse than others.

          Speak for yourself. And I certainly don't think the legal system has any business making these completely subjective, irrational determinations.

          But in general, yes, inherent importance be damned, hurting 11-year-olds is worse than hurting 12-year-olds, and so on. It's subjective as hell, but that's what being a human is.

          Seriously? You just admitted that you think hurting an 11 year old is worse than hurting a 12 year old? What shallow, unprincipled drivel.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @07:00PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @07:00PM (#670441)

            You are a moron apparently too literate for your own good. Maybe if you had a little more intelligence then words wouldn't be wasted on you. Why do we have legal ages for drinking / smoking / driving? Why anything? You obviously are too upset about this topic to approach it with any level of rationality.

            All rapes are horrible, but if a country wants to create different legal definitions of HOW horrible then age is the only objective way. Since individuals have different rates of maturation any set age limit is inherently shallow, but care to offer a better system? How would you determine if a teen should be allowed to drink while others should be made to wait until their thirty two?

            Oh right "And I certainly don't think the legal system has any business making these completely subjective, irrational determinations" we should just leave all such decisions up to mob rule, cause that always works so well! In an ideal world we would need no laws since everyone would get along and resolve their conflicts peaceably and amicably. laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawl

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @08:58PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @08:58PM (#670481)

              Why do we have legal ages for drinking / smoking / driving? Why anything?

              We're not talking about restrictions set in place because of the belief that the people being restricted can't handle a substance or activity to the same degree that someone else could. We're talking about the value of life. I do not think an 11 year old's life is more valuable than a 12 year old's (or older). Maybe you do, but I don't.

              You obviously are too upset about this topic to approach it with any level of rationality.

              You are wrong. I am not upset, but merely disagree with this approach.

              All rapes are horrible, but if a country wants to create different legal definitions of HOW horrible then age is the only objective way.

              And I'm saying that I don't see the point in attempting to legally ascertain "how horrible" a rape is based on age.

              Oh right "And I certainly don't think the legal system has any business making these completely subjective, irrational determinations" we should just leave all such decisions up to mob rule, cause that always works so well! In an ideal world we would need no laws since everyone would get along and resolve their conflicts peaceably and amicably. laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawl

              What a complete and total straw man. The subject was the value of life, nothing more. Enjoy your logical fallacies.

        • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday April 23 2018, @12:04PM

          by TheRaven (270) on Monday April 23 2018, @12:04PM (#670699) Journal
          I don't think it's limited to children. We have evolved a subconscious bias against abuse of power because it is essential to functioning social structures. Children are inherently less powerful than pretty much anyone else in most situations and rape is inherently based around power dynamics, so is a particularly emotive case. I'm not particularly in favour of this law, because child rape is such an emotive issue I expect it to have a very high false conviction rate, but in general harsher penalties for people who abuse positions of power make sense.
          --
          sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 22 2018, @11:19AM (5 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 22 2018, @11:19AM (#670304) Journal

        I suggest that you pull your head out of your ass, and allow some oxygen to soak in to your gray matter.

        Laws are not rational, or logical. Democracy isn't either. At present, people are horrified at a long string of the most horrible offenses against females, ranging in age from infancy, right on up to women lying in bed, dying of old age. There really and truly seems to be a rape culture inside of India. Many males seem to believe that any woman he sees without a protector is his to do with as he pleases. Gangs of men use these women, girls, and even babies, often times killing them in the process. Worse, is when the injure the female so badly there is no hope of recovery, and she has to lie in a hospital bed for days, weeks, or months, waiting to die. If that doesn't horrify you, then you might want to have a DNA test to see if you are even human.

        Males are often raped, sure, but for the most part, they aren't used in the same fashion. Few men die from being raped. Well, relatively few, anyway.

        Instead of arguing nonsense here, why don't you take your lame ass to Google, and start searching for infamous rape cases in India.

        Forget about your fantasy sense of "fairness" or "equality". Read. Familiarize yourself with the issues. This is India under discussion, not the US, or Europe, or any of the other civilized western nations.

        And, again, pull your head out of your ass. With that fresh oxygen, you just might make some sensible arguments that would cause some of us to think.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @07:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @07:04PM (#670444)

          I think you may finally be close to understanding all the anger against "the patriarchy"! India has long been a massively patriarchal society with widows not so long ago being burned at their husband's funeral pyre. Paying another man a dowry to marry your daughter, different rules and limitations, etc.

          The "west" has been coming to terms with these issues but it is still a pretty big divide.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @09:03PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @09:03PM (#670483)

          Very little in your post really addresses mine, which was about the value of someone's life and whether or not younger people's lives should be considered more important under the law. I, at least, don't think so, but apparently that's trolling.

          Laws are not rational, or logical. Democracy isn't either.

          But here, we can agree.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 23 2018, @01:45AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 23 2018, @01:45AM (#670571) Journal

            The issues you wish to discuss are not the issues under discussion. I'm glad that we can agree on that final point, though.

            JFK made a great speech: Some people see things as they are, and ask why. I see things as they are not, and ask why not. It was a great, stirring speech. But, fact is, we have to deal with what is, not with what we wish.

            What really is, with people, is that most people find it more horrifying when a very strong person abuses a very weak person. Age and gender affect a person's strength, and helplessness. Sexually molesting an infant is more horrifying than sexually molesting a 25 year old woman. The infant is totally helpless, and worse, has no possible way in which to respond sexually. The 25 year old woman may be helpless, but she is far LESS helpless than the infant. And, she at least has the physical potential to respond to sexual advances. That is - simple penetration won't destroy her, as it can the infant.

            The more helpless the victim, the more horrifying the crime is. That is human nature. The more damage done to the victim, the more horrifying the crime is. Sexual harassment can be as simple as patting a woman's ass as she walks by. In the case of the medical student, not only was she raped multiple times, but foreign objects were forcefully inserted into her body, for the amusement of her rapists. That is sick beyond any understanding. It's just horrifying to anyone capable of understanding the rape.

            These same crimes just don't commonly happen to males. The laws aren't making a comparative value judgement between male and female victims. The laws are directly addressing reality - the reality that subhuman animals that act out on their impulses are overwhelmingly male, and that their victims are overwhelmingly female.

        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday April 23 2018, @02:56AM (1 child)

          by Reziac (2489) on Monday April 23 2018, @02:56AM (#670584) Homepage

          You might want to do a search for "boys raped to death". It's not at all uncommon in Africa and the Middle East.

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
          • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday April 23 2018, @04:07PM

            by isostatic (365) on Monday April 23 2018, @04:07PM (#670785) Journal

            You might want to do a search for "boys raped to death". It's not at all uncommon in Africa and the Middle East.

            India is neither in Africa nor the Middle East

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Entropy on Sunday April 22 2018, @03:52PM (2 children)

        by Entropy (4228) on Sunday April 22 2018, @03:52PM (#670376)

        Same argument of having sex with a 17 year old, vs an 18 year old. They just drew the line somewhere, and stuck with it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @09:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @09:20PM (#670487)

          No, that's more about the ability to consent rather than the value of someone's life. I question the need for this particular line at all, since it seems to declare that the younger you are, the more valuable your life is. I'm not sure I agree with a government establishing such a thing.

        • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday April 23 2018, @09:14AM

          by isostatic (365) on Monday April 23 2018, @09:14AM (#670662) Journal

          Both of those are legal

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 23 2018, @12:14AM (2 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 23 2018, @12:14AM (#670538) Journal

        Really? So raping an 11 year old girl is automatically worse than raping a 12 year old girl? Why?

        Hypothesis: cut off human development potential.
        The older (up to a limit), the less effort to recover from a traumatic incident and the closer to a normal/functional human.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 23 2018, @12:21AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 23 2018, @12:21AM (#670540)

          That depends on the individual person, and really has little to do with the severity of the rights violation in my view.

          There are certainly evolutionary explanations for why people feel this way, but they are explanations and not justifications.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 23 2018, @06:23AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 23 2018, @06:23AM (#670639) Journal

            That depends on the individual person, and really has little to do with the severity of the rights violation in my view.

            It has nothing to do with the "rights", it has to do with the damage caused to an individual and loss of potential for the community.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford