Do you think hardcore criminals deserve capital punishment instead of period of reformation or lifeterms?

Question

(With reference to India specially.)
What other solutions do you suggest for the judiciary?

Answer 1

Hardcore criminals have no place in society. They are burden to the whole human civilization & should be eradicated completely. If you think they can be reformed at any stage then let them be put in an isolated place far away from society & if possible away from other humans may be in some forest or desert area where they survive to live by their own means. Why should government & tax payers lift their burden even by keeping them in prison for all their deeds which brought suffering to common man in general & victim in particular? I have no sympathies for hardcore criminals & feel the money spent in investigating & prosecuting them itself cost a lot to us & what for we spend this money for them to get released either at the time of prosecution or after completion of their sentence & start their criminal activities once again. Do you know the various investigating test such as Narco analysis test done on them cost a lot of money, similarly the prosecution lawyer's fees spent in getting them prosecuted is born by the government. All this money is being collected from us the tax payers. Why should we pay for these rascals who brought such suffering for us & spoilt the whole peaceful atmosphere of the society? If we spend more to get them reformed what’s the guarantee they will change & live like civilized citizen in future? Can any one give that assurance?

Answer 2

Hi, Indu. Indeed yours is a question of debatable subject. Some criminals misuse the kind and lenient view of the State and in the course of time they would become our rulers. This has been proved in our country. Some others have been proved themseleves to be better citizens of the country. The paramount duty lies with the Parliament as it is the law-making body. The judiciary is the watch-dog of the Constitution and it can only interpret the law. It can say whether a particular law is good or a bad one. When a Parliament consists of a band of criminals, with due pain and apology I have to say, we cannot anticipate qualitiatively good laws. Since democracy and illiteracy cannot go together, it is our prime duty to train the electorate so that they elect better candidates. This possible impossibility is a challenge for us.

Answer 3

There are laws which prescribe the punishment for various offences. The death penalty or life imprisonment is one form of punishment prescribed by statute. The debate about validity of death penalty has long ago been settled by the supreme court. The supreme court has laid down the test of "rarest of rare" in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab. While the right to life under Art. 21 is a fundamental right, the state may deprive a person of his life or personal liberty under the procdure established by law and such procedure must be just, fair and reasonable as per Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India.

Prior conviction is a factor considered by the judge while fixing the quantum of punishment under the statute, so hardcore criminals are more likely to get a harsher sentence then first time offenders. The reformative theory of punishment is accepted world wide and is followed in all civilized countries.

Answer 4

I don't believe the state has the right to take life any more than murderers do, so I believe the worst criminals deserve life sentences in prison without possibility of parole. I'm aware that some prisons are "hard time" and some are better, with prisoners who behave well getting TV, library, recreation, and other privileges. I've got no problem with hardcore convicted criminals serving hard time with only minimal privileges, like an hour out of the cell per day.

Answer 5

I was pro-death penalty for a long time, but I have changed my stance over the years, for several reasons:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the people who have been released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. In the U.S., violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty states. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government becomes the bad parent who says, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.”

5. Governments ought to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 6

Hard core criminals deserve capital punishment like hanging, shot at by firing squads, or publich beheading like in Islamic countries. You are very right in putting this question for debate. Why hard core criminals be served in jail for reformation or life time imprisionment, it is sheer waste of public resources. They won"t reform inspite of all the efforts of the Government. If I were the authority to decide matters, I would suggest direct and straight shooting of criminals by firing squads rather than putting them in jail.

Answer 7

Jail term makes even an ordinary convict a hard ore criminals. Actually prisoners are not reformed in jail.
they are transformed as hard core criminals by criminal police force. Unless the police force is reformed nothing can be done for reformation. If hard core criminals are to be executed, it should start from police force.

Answer 8

Hard core criminals are not made suddenly. They do not deserve the capital punishment ,can be and should be reformed.

Answer 9

who is a hardcore criminal- a person who pays the killer or the killer on supari ( on contract).

Answer 10

YES