SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Sunday April 22 2018, @12:34PM (4 children)
In legal terms it is not very easy in fact, but irrespective of that you can make that point about any form of punishment. There are cases of people being imprisoned for years, and it then being discovered with new evidence that they were innocent, and by extension no doubt others whose innocence is never discovered. Those lost years can never be got back.
However, we need to be pragmatic and accept a small number of cases of error in punisments. WIth modern forensics it is not so much a question of whether A killed B or not, more an issue of how deliberate it was and the mental state of the killer as legal mitigations. Personally I would not lose any sleep about executing someone who for example drives into a crowd and claims afterwards that he did not mean to kill, only frighten, and therefore it is manslaughter, not murder.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Sunday April 22 2018, @10:39PM
With the death penalty the number is not so small. In any case, in a death penalty case there must be 100% certainty that the person is guilty and that is just not possible in nearly every case.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday April 23 2018, @01:12AM (1 child)
Oh really? Are you saying that forensics, which are often a matter of looking at a couple of pictures and seeing if they're similar, are completely unquestionably correct, always? DNA is much better, but has not prevented convictions of innocent people for murder on the flimsiest of evidence, even today.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday April 23 2018, @04:18AM
Yes -- Not to mention multiple scandals in recent years where it's been shown that forensics "experts" were incompetent, tainted the evidence, or even deliberately fabricated results
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 23 2018, @04:55AM
And you should be one of the "small number of cases" - you have it coming.