The Real Debate! - Page 9

Originally posted by: souro

If someone produces evidence that he committed such crimes which according to me deserves capital punishment. But I'm yet to see anyone producing that evidence. Till now the supporters have merely dumped the crime of others on him and declared him guilty.

Souro, is your point that the assassination and plot to assassinate does not fulfill the grounds for capital punishment? Could you please elaborate your point?

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Souro, is your point that the assassination and plot to assassinate does not fulfill the grounds for capital punishment? Could you please elaborate your point?

I meant to say that if a person who has committed crimes deserving of capital punishment is assassinated, only then I'll say that the assassin did the right thing (by killing that person). Otherwise the assassin is wrong in what he did.

Originally posted by: souro

I meant to say that if a person who has committed crimes deserving of capital punishment is assassinated, only then I'll say that the assassin did the right thing (by killing that person). Otherwise the assassin is wrong in what he did.

I disagree with that. I think assassination is an offense, even if the victim is a criminal. No citizen should have the ability to take the law in their own hands.

Originally posted by: souro

If someone produces evidence that he committed such crimes which according to me deserves capital punishment. But I'm yet to see anyone producing that evidence. Till now the supporters have merely dumped the crime of others on him and declared him guilty.

Don't u think that even if Gandhiji was guilty of certain crimes deserving a capital punishment ...he should have been tried in a court of law instead of being assassinated...due you think that Godse was qualified enough to pass a judgement on someone...

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I disagree with that. I think assassination is an offense, even if the victim is a criminal. No citizen should have the ability to take the law in their own hands.

Ideally yes but doesn't necessarily work all the time, especially if the person is in a position of considerably high power.

Originally posted by: blue-ice

Don't u think that even if Gandhiji was guilty of certain crimes deserving a capital punishment ...he should have been tried in a court of law instead of being assassinated...due you think that Godse was qualified enough to pass a judgement on someone...

I don't know whether Godse was qualified enough or not. Depends on how you describe such qualification.
Edited by souro - 12 years ago

Originally posted by: souro

Ideally yes but doesn't necessarily work all the time, especially if the person is in a position of considerably high power.

Actually making assassination a crime no matter what is the most pragmatic solution. Citizen justice is more idealistic in concept.

 

Allowing for pardon based on victim creates too much chaos and confusion for proper execution of the law

-          Too many citizen vigilantes will feel they can murder people based on perceived crimes

-          The average citizen is not well versed to distinguish capital offense

-          Due process is prolonged and made ineffectual as verdict and direction in trials get tied to verdict and direction in others making for a procedural mess

Ok, haven't read thru the entire thread, but got to say the following is debatable:

[quote]Its history and nothing is going to change the fact.[/quote]

people write history; different versions can and do exist. No such thing as a "fact"...just a reality/perception. Not that this is an ontological debate. :)

Originally posted by: persistence

Ok, haven't read thru the entire thread, but got to say the following is debatable:

[quote]Its history and nothing is going to change the fact.[/quote]

people write history; different versions can and do exist. No such thing as a "fact"...just a reality/perception. Not that this is an ontological debate. :)

We were just talking about you elsewhere.

Nice of you to pop in.

Perhaps "The Real Debate", even if as an introspection, should be about "what have you done for your country?!", instead of being an armchair critic and niggling on the decisions taken (in the past) by a great leader and a freedom fighter, who actually sacrificed his life fighting for the betterment of the country. Perhaps, one shouldn't be obtusely oblivious to the reality that while all major decisions potentially affecting millions tend to have wide-reaching ramifications, even bearing upon the future generations, it is not humanly possible to foresee all the corollaries unless one is a soothsayer.

The thing with Gandhi is that you can sling mud all you want and hope some of it sticks. Who knows, it might, if history books (or even the internet for that matter) are rewritten with half truths and hearsays. Based on what I read, in my opinion, Gandhi is indeed a national treasure; his non-cooperative non-violence, satyagraha philosophy bordered on pure brilliance; and I believe his heart actually beat for India, much more than any of us can lay claim to.

Since you are talking in hindsight anyway, may be you can opine on how it would be different if the partition had NOT happened. But I still see no purpose in such a speculative exercise. What 's done is done.