All was pretty straightforward until I got to acid attacks. Acid attacks? I'm assuming like, flinging it into a victim's face or something? That's just weird.
Edit: Not implying that rape or murder are "normal" but I would say they're more common...
I understand where parents of victim are coming from adn most probably take the same stance of more harsh paunishment for these crimes. But entirely reducing the age for juvenile some how does not sound right. The reasons are
1. While the kids are more clever now a days I see not much done to to improve morality in education -- Not even as much as physical education periods
2. Internet in hand means lots of wrong things show as right, i personally know adults who beleive the news or forwarded news like items in WhatsApp is right (99% of them are wrong) and actual news website/new watching is redcuing close to zero with youngsters
3. No vent out for youngsters i.e. not enough parks, parents pushing youngsters to money - no matter what. i.e. If you tell your kid it is ok to cheat govt or give bribe now-a-days and say that eve teasing is bad then they take either both bad (if they are intelligent) or both ok.
4. There is a serious need for parent to know and teach kids about internet - about 60% parents know kids can watch nasty stuff on internet but they just dont know how bad it is and how to educate kid on what is right and what is wrong, i would even encourage indian telecom providers take ownership of teaching this to parents and kids
Many people wanted the juvenile to be retried retroactively as an adult, "because this case is special".
India should:
1. Not pass knee-jerk laws, it takes a long time to undo the damage.
2. Do away with the death penalty.
Mobs of 'concerned citizens' always turn into sadistic assholes when they know their anger is righteous. But once the punishment of death is off the table, there would be one less way to cause serious damage.
You should see how the discourse in India has become, with good people suggesting more and more creative ways of torturing the rapists; disembowelment, chemical castration, and reversed re-enactment of the original rape have all been suggested.
A national exercise in revenge is sickening.
Good, kind people braying for blood is sickening.
This is no knee jerk reaction, it was tabled a good two years ago, the Lok Sabha had already passed the bill and today the Rajya Sabha. Though it might appear as a brash move to lower the age, the clause of being under age has been misused by organized crime as the least punishment was applicable.
Creative suggestions and covering those in detail is a media propaganda to keep the minutes running on their 24hr news channels.
the clause of being under age has been misused by organized crime as the least punishment was applicable
And should we change our morals and flush away decades of cultivated ethics about juvenile justice because organized crime groups recruit underage people?
Creative suggestions and covering those in detail is a media propaganda
Here's an MP from the upper house of parliament, saying:
"Hands and legs of the males who commit rapes should be broken. A law for this should be enacted in this House." [1]
That's not propaganda. This is happening openly - because this time it's okay for people to show their worst sides.
If the real problem is misuse of clause of being underage by organized criminals, then laws against organized crime and even more importantly it seems in India's case the infrastructure to prosecute the guilty should be strengthened. Toughening the laws for under aged does not seem the appropriate response in that case.
>Good, kind people braying for blood is sickening.
Then they aren't good people. They think their horrible behavior is justified for some reason, just like most people who do horrible things. That one may personally empathized with one group over the others shouldn't blind us to the same underlying pattern.
The problem is not punishing the rapist; it is catching the rapist and pushing the case towards sentence.
A lot of rape cases are unreported, unfilled, not looked for thoroughly, misattributed or the criminal is let go because he is well-connected, minor, minority or inconvenient in any other way.
Pushing the severity of punishment for the slim share of criminals who we managed to catch does not do much towards crime prevention. They should clearly be aiming at inescapable justice rather than sadistic justice.
Actually, I agree with such changes. It's not like India is now going to hang children for petty crimes, the change will only affect teens of 16-18 years old that committed really serious crimes (i.e. murder, rape). Seriously, do you think 3 years of imprisonment for brutal murder and gang rape(0) is adequate? In my point of view, a person capable of such actions (despite their age) is worth the maximum sentence.
>In my point of view, a person capable of such actions (despite their age) is worth the maximum sentence.
So what is your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if 15, why not 12, or 10, or 7, or 5?
The only thing we can say with any certainty is that the Victorians tried and tested the hang-em-high method of crime reduction, with less than stellar results to show for it.
>So what is your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if 15, why not 12, or 10, or 7, or 5?
This seems necessarily goading. Why does 18 magically make someone an adult? If anything, we've swung way too far to the left on this issue. A 14 or 15 old person is mature enough to understand complex moral issues. At 15 I drove a 6,000lbs death machine car and had a part time job on top of school. The idea that I didn't understand rape or murder was wrong at that age is asinine. I'd say high school age is fair game for serious prison time for serious offenses.
Here in Chicago a lot of our shooters are 15-17. These aren't innocent children, but fairly serious criminals with nothing but a life of crime ahead of them. Catching them early has potential for betterment compared to leaving them in the loving arms of the gang system and more or less guaranteeing the further victimization of others.
>A 14 or 15 old person is mature enough to understand complex moral issues.
You're proposing hanging 14 and 15-year-olds?
Purely and genuinely because I'm curious: at what age would you say "stop, they're too young to hang"?
>Catching them early has potential for betterment...
But once they've crossed a line, despite having another 40-50 years of life in front of them, that's it? Not any chance of trying to turn them into contributing, worthwhile members of society?
I'm proposing trying them like adults with adult sentences, instead of the juvie system. Here in the states we already do this for many crimes. India is just catching up to what most countries do.
>But once they've crossed a line, despite having another 40-50 years of life in front of them, that's it?
Average murder sentence in the USA is around 20 years, that's 10 years with good behavior. Yes, I think they're better locked up than in the streets hurting innocents. If you're murdering people as a teen, you aren't fit for society. Period.
You'd change your tune if it was your kid they shot, but you have the white suburban privilege of not living in the Chicago ghettos. That doesn't mean your pet liberal politics is correct. It just means you bought yourself out of the high crime areas (yay! money!) so you have this overly generous attitude because you're so incredibly disconnected from the reality on the streets.
>So what is your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if 15, why not 12, or 10, or 7, or 5?
so why 18 then. The age limit is just a line in the sand that is different in differents states and for different things (driving, drinking, having sexual relationships)
Why should there be an age limit? If a person is capable of consciously plan a crime and execute it, he/she should be able to take a responsibility and punishment for it. What I mean, is that such incidents should be decided case by case basis, not setting some hard limit just because a perpetrator is below a certain age. A person doesn't become somehow magically different at midnight he turns 18. Aand it's not like we have a problem of minors of 5 years old running around and killing people, so the bar sets itself naturally (I'd guess proposed 16yo is pretty accurate for the serious crimes).
I don't decide personally, it's not in my authority. Even if it would, again, it depends on a certain case. There are specialists in court -- medics, psychologist etc. that decide if a tried person is sane, understands his actions, committed a crime consciously and is capable of prison sentence or other means better be taken.
> Fine, but give them the rights to go with the responsibilities.
What rights are you referring to here?
In New Delhi, the drinking age is 25, but you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that the fact that he's not of legal age to drink means he's not of legal age to be expected not to brutally rape and murder a young woman.
31 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 79.1 ms ] threadEdit: Not implying that rape or murder are "normal" but I would say they're more common...
India should:
1. Not pass knee-jerk laws, it takes a long time to undo the damage.
2. Do away with the death penalty.
Mobs of 'concerned citizens' always turn into sadistic assholes when they know their anger is righteous. But once the punishment of death is off the table, there would be one less way to cause serious damage.
You should see how the discourse in India has become, with good people suggesting more and more creative ways of torturing the rapists; disembowelment, chemical castration, and reversed re-enactment of the original rape have all been suggested.
A national exercise in revenge is sickening. Good, kind people braying for blood is sickening.
Creative suggestions and covering those in detail is a media propaganda to keep the minutes running on their 24hr news channels.
And should we change our morals and flush away decades of cultivated ethics about juvenile justice because organized crime groups recruit underage people?
Creative suggestions and covering those in detail is a media propaganda
Here's an MP from the upper house of parliament, saying:
"Hands and legs of the males who commit rapes should be broken. A law for this should be enacted in this House." [1]
That's not propaganda. This is happening openly - because this time it's okay for people to show their worst sides.
[1]: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-make-law-to-break-hands...
Then they aren't good people. They think their horrible behavior is justified for some reason, just like most people who do horrible things. That one may personally empathized with one group over the others shouldn't blind us to the same underlying pattern.
A lot of rape cases are unreported, unfilled, not looked for thoroughly, misattributed or the criminal is let go because he is well-connected, minor, minority or inconvenient in any other way.
Pushing the severity of punishment for the slim share of criminals who we managed to catch does not do much towards crime prevention. They should clearly be aiming at inescapable justice rather than sadistic justice.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape
So what is your age limit? If 16, why not 15? And if 15, why not 12, or 10, or 7, or 5?
The only thing we can say with any certainty is that the Victorians tried and tested the hang-em-high method of crime reduction, with less than stellar results to show for it.
This seems necessarily goading. Why does 18 magically make someone an adult? If anything, we've swung way too far to the left on this issue. A 14 or 15 old person is mature enough to understand complex moral issues. At 15 I drove a 6,000lbs death machine car and had a part time job on top of school. The idea that I didn't understand rape or murder was wrong at that age is asinine. I'd say high school age is fair game for serious prison time for serious offenses.
Here in Chicago a lot of our shooters are 15-17. These aren't innocent children, but fairly serious criminals with nothing but a life of crime ahead of them. Catching them early has potential for betterment compared to leaving them in the loving arms of the gang system and more or less guaranteeing the further victimization of others.
You're proposing hanging 14 and 15-year-olds?
Purely and genuinely because I'm curious: at what age would you say "stop, they're too young to hang"?
>Catching them early has potential for betterment...
But once they've crossed a line, despite having another 40-50 years of life in front of them, that's it? Not any chance of trying to turn them into contributing, worthwhile members of society?
I'm proposing trying them like adults with adult sentences, instead of the juvie system. Here in the states we already do this for many crimes. India is just catching up to what most countries do.
>But once they've crossed a line, despite having another 40-50 years of life in front of them, that's it?
Average murder sentence in the USA is around 20 years, that's 10 years with good behavior. Yes, I think they're better locked up than in the streets hurting innocents. If you're murdering people as a teen, you aren't fit for society. Period.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt
You'd change your tune if it was your kid they shot, but you have the white suburban privilege of not living in the Chicago ghettos. That doesn't mean your pet liberal politics is correct. It just means you bought yourself out of the high crime areas (yay! money!) so you have this overly generous attitude because you're so incredibly disconnected from the reality on the streets.
so why 18 then. The age limit is just a line in the sand that is different in differents states and for different things (driving, drinking, having sexual relationships)
For what it's worth, I completely agree!
Why should there be an age limit? If a person is capable of consciously plan a crime and execute it, he/she should be able to take a responsibility and punishment for it. What I mean, is that such incidents should be decided case by case basis, not setting some hard limit just because a perpetrator is below a certain age. A person doesn't become somehow magically different at midnight he turns 18. Aand it's not like we have a problem of minors of 5 years old running around and killing people, so the bar sets itself naturally (I'd guess proposed 16yo is pretty accurate for the serious crimes).
OK, so it's bad bad phrasing on my part.
How would you personally decide "if a person is capable of consciously plan a crime and execut[ing] it?"
> Aand it's not like we have a problem of minors of 5 years old running around and killing people
Yeah, that was hypoerbole on my part. It's not unknown for 10-year-olds to commit hideous crimes, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
I'll take that as you're agreeing with me!
What rights are you referring to here?
In New Delhi, the drinking age is 25, but you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that the fact that he's not of legal age to drink means he's not of legal age to be expected not to brutally rape and murder a young woman.
Older teens need to just be treated as adults with respect to both.