Comments on: Deadly Justice – Part 4

By: Arun g

Arun g — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:52:09 +0000

Hi,
Iam sorry if my comment appeared harsh!!….I never thought it to be.
Thanks for replying

By: Priya Raju

Priya Raju — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:36:03 +0000

Arun – DO NOT post strident comments. You are communicating with a stranger & toning down your language goes a long way. It will take me less than a minute to post a heated response. But, I choose to respond calmly this time.

My post is not just about my views, but about the evolution of the laws. The 8th amendment is about “Prevailing standards of decency in the world”. My “inertia” or “energy levels” will have no impact on the cultural attainment of the world populated by 6 Billion people. Such changes take time.

Please read my series again. What I have shown is the history of the law. The laws have evolved over a period of time. Luckily, we don’t live in a country whose laws are governed by a particular idealogy. So some laws are utilitarian & others aren’t. I have clearly explained where I think a retributive system doesn’t work.

By: Arun g

Arun g — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:45:42 +0000

OK …
So the ‘prevailing notion of decency’ is the only thing that which prevents you from thinking of using methods like crucifiction.If I am right I can also conclude that you are not a wee bit concerned about taking this ‘notion of decency’ one step forward or going further in the direction in which ‘penal system of the country has so far evolved’.
You have acknowledged in the very first post that modern law is a derivative of Utilitarianism;But rather than making a case based on utilitarian philosophy
you have chose to support capital punishment based on retributive justice. Does that mean ,you have basic differences with the underlying philosophy of the modern law?Or if it is no particular philosophy ,but the ‘prevailing notion of decency’ that matters , how will you react if I say that it is only an inertia or complacence with the present law that prevents you from supporting the abolition of capital punishment.

By: Abinav Kumar

Abinav Kumar — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:56:58 +0000

Sorry Priya. You are absolutely right.

I haven’t said anything new and moreover I have done zero research; but I am not contending your position on Capital Punishment yet. I am contending the reason you suggest cap. pun. – revenge. And my line of argument is still that revenge shouldn’t be encouraged. This, of course is a very subjective matter – and the only possible research I would get on this is psychological; and as mentioned – I haven’t done that either. But, as I mentioned before, the need for revenge hasn’t been substantiated methinks. It is mentioned that it is a base instinct – which really hasn’t been proved.

I shouldn’t have suggested alternate methods yet – and frankly it wasn’t my intent to create an idea that I am doing so; I was just trying to provide cushions for my thought. Anyway.

So, the root need for necessitating cap. pun.:
- you say is the need to quench revengeful feelings, and
- I say revenge is an emotion that needs to be done away with and law, last of all, shouldn’t be abetting it

To that extent we both aren’t providing research or data backing! So, I shall create some space and simply assume that the point has been proven objectively; that revenge is indeed an emotion that shouldn’t be quelled – and maybe proceed to think on the lines of capital punishment. But this time, I shall comment IF and WHEN I have done some reading and research myself.

Thanks for responding patiently.

By: Priya Raju

Priya Raju — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 02:32:52 +0000

Arun – Thanks for your comment.

Unfortunately, prevailing notions of decency prevent us from giving cruel & unusual punishments to the likes of Hitler or Milosevic. Even though killing such monsters give us satisfaction, we have to deal with it as voting them off this planet. So, the execution should be done swiftly & as painlessly as possible (such as using the lethal injection).