Mumbai attack gunman executed

[mr friendly guy]

The hanging of Qasab is a case of better late than never. It also sends out a strong message and warning to India's enemies and to forces across the border that are running factories of terrorism," he said.

What message? That if anyone sends terrorist to kill three digit number of our civilians we might capture and execute a disposable pawn they no longer need anyway?

It was ultimately hollow gesture aimed at bloodthirsty public opinion that neither won't return life to the dead nor will punish real perpetrators who planned it any.

Just for interest, how many pro capital punishment people do you know believe killing the perpetrator will "return life to the dead." I am going to guess as many as these "lets spare the fucker" people who believe sparing Qasab will magically return life to the dead, which is about zero. In which case, why bring this up as an argument against capital punishment?

[Irbis]

Just for interest, how many pro capital punishment people do you know believe killing the perpetrator will "return life to the dead." I am going to guess as many as these "lets spare the fucker" people who believe sparing Qasab will magically return life to the dead, which is about zero. In which case, why bring this up as an argument against capital punishment?

Please read the whole sentence - I said it's pointless execution because it will do nothing to the victims or won't affect people who ordered the attack, the only ones who *might* maybe warrant such fate. As it is, India executed brainwashed pawn who might not even had full control of his actions or had fully fair trial. Seeing it is country where major non-violent religions and philosophical systems emerged, I'd have liked them to maintain moral superiority, like Norway did, but oh well, what happened happened.

And as for the nitpicked part, yes, I saw a lot of pro capital punishment people (not the ones who try to approach it rationally) that seem to have some atavistic feeling killing everyone guilty of anything will somehow do good to victim, maybe even raising them from the dead in some afterlife or cause the gods to smile upon him or something. Sorry, I can't explain what non-rational fairy-thinking people imagine, their way of thinking is too alien for me, just like the way of thinking of other extremes (xenophobes, gay haters, etc.). Still, the number believing blood of perpetrator regardless of circumstances will somehow magically put the world right is way higher than 'zero', most far right wing portals are full of these.

[mr friendly guy]

Just for interest, how many pro capital punishment people do you know believe killing the perpetrator will "return life to the dead." I am going to guess as many as these "lets spare the fucker" people who believe sparing Qasab will magically return life to the dead, which is about zero. In which case, why bring this up as an argument against capital punishment?

Please read the whole sentence - I said it's pointless execution because it will do nothing to the victims or won't affect people who ordered the attack, the only ones who *might* maybe warrant such fate. As it is, India executed brainwashed pawn who might not even had full control of his actions or had fully fair trial. Seeing it is country where major non-violent religions and philosophical systems emerged, I'd have liked them to maintain moral superiority, like Norway did, but oh well, what happened happened.

To be honest the part about the masterminds not being caught yet, didn't clash with my position because frankly if India caught them, had a fair trial, then yeah I wouldn't be sadden if they also got executed. That being said I read on the flight home the WSJ Asian edition where some relatives of the victims were happy that he finally got executed. This seems to be borne out with a quick search as well, so I disagree that it won't do anything for the victims. It clearly gave them comfort but not closure (since the Masterminds are still loose).

And as for the nitpicked part, yes, I saw a lot of pro capital punishment people (not the ones who try to approach it rationally) that seem to have some atavistic feeling killing everyone guilty of anything will somehow do good to victim, maybe even raising them from the dead in some afterlife or cause the gods to smile upon him or something. Sorry, I can't explain what non-rational fairy-thinking people imagine, their way of thinking is too alien for me, just like the way of thinking of other extremes (xenophobes, gay haters, etc.). Still, the number believing blood of perpetrator regardless of circumstances will somehow magically put the world right is way higher than 'zero', most far right wing portals are full of these.

Hmm. Fair enough.

[Sidewinder]

As it is, India executed brainwashed pawn who might not even had full control of his actions or had fully fair trial.

Legally, for Qasab to lack "full control of his actions," he must be diagnosed with a mental illness, by a licensed physician. (Feel free to argue over the presence or absence of professional diagnosis, would justify the court's ruling.) I doubt claiming he was "brainwashed" would convince a jury, although saying he was coerced, e.g., "Al-Qaeda threatened to butcher his family like pigs, if he refused to go along with the terrorists' plans," might.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

As it is, India executed brainwashed pawn who might not even had full control of his actions or had fully fair trial.

Why is it so hard for you people to believe that there are, in fact, people in Pakistan who want to kill Jews and Hindus? There were plenty of people in Germany who wanted to kill Jews, after all. Brainwashing is an overdone term that isn't scientifically validated. You can't put someone in a machine and programme them to commit military acts of terrorism, not even the KGB could do that. His attack represented an attack on the authority and ability of the Republic of India to protect her own citizens, from a group avowed to the Islamic conquest thereof (The sub-continent Islamist groups are really nuts). The normal rules do not apply--and it is the silliness of trying to assert that each criminal situation is equivalent and needs to be handled equivalently when they stem from such radically different causes and motivations which is the failure here--and this isn't like Gitmo, where people are held with no proof they were actually involved in said acts. This guy was caught with arms fleeing the scene with video tape showing him machine-gunning people.

[K. A. Pital]

It's funny all the excuses you guys make to justify why killing someone is okay if you don't like him.

"Keeping people alive takes up resources!"

Murdering to save another life is perfectly viable if, in fact, another life is indeed saved by this act. It would take some math to prove that a bullet or a rope in India would be cheap enough to save some lives, but I believe it can very well be proven.

[Lord Zentei]

Burden of proof would then presumably be on the one making the claim.

I for one am skeptical, since the man is not free to act. If he were in a combat situation and armed, then that would be a very different matter, of course.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What Stas is I think saying is that India is an impoverished country where most of the population subsists on about $1.00 a day, so shooting someone rather than pay to keep him in prison for life may literally allow the government to save multiple lives by using the money that would be spent on confinement to feed x number of poor people.

[UnderAGreySky]

Not to mention that India has a precedent of being forced to release terrorists under the threat of hijacking. I've mentioned the hijacking of IC814 in this thread, one of the terrorists released that day went on to found the Jaish-e-Mohammed group that, among other things, beheaded Daniel Pearl. Not that this should be a reason for continuing capital punishment, but it's probably a reason why the death penalty won't go away soon.

Also, we don't execute offenders often; this was the first since 2004 I think. Even in the case of Afzal Guru, convicted of conspiring and planning the attacks on the Indian Parliament - also organised by the J-e-M - the sentence has been stayed (as opposed to commuted) because there's a lot of political and human rights back-and-forth. Quite a few (26) cases are pending, from as far back as 1992 (thanks, wiki). This is after the previous president commuted 35 in the single largest action on death penalty cases in the history of the country.

[Sidewinder]

What Stas is I think saying is that India is an impoverished country where most of the population subsists on about $1.00 a day, so shooting someone rather than pay to keep him in prison for life may literally allow the government to save multiple lives by using the money that would be spent on confinement to feed x number of poor people.

Qasab's friends and family should consider him lucky. During the Ming Dynasty, one of the capital punishments prescribed was to cut the criminal to pieces- each piece no larger than a bronze coin, to prolong the (living) criminal's suffering- and then selling the pieces to the public, so they may eat the meat and complete their vengeance.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know, I was in support of executing him, but, damn, dude, bringing that up was sort of like escalating this thread straight to Sparta kicking a guy down a well.

[Stark]

The Ming Dynasty, surely the height of Indian jurisprudence! Taste the posturing torture fantasies, now with vore.

I think the Indian situation is different enough from safer Western nations that the death penalty debate is different. Good old regional stablity etc.

[Flagg]

The internet toughguy torture fantasies in this thread are both hilarious and disturbing.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Please read the whole sentence - I said it's pointless execution because it will do nothing to the victims or won't affect people who ordered the attack, the only ones who *might* maybe warrant such fate. As it is, India executed brainwashed pawn who might not even had full control of his actions or had fully fair trial. Seeing it is country where major non-violent religions and philosophical systems emerged, I'd have liked them to maintain moral superiority, like Norway did, but oh well, what happened happened.

Have you ever been a victim of a violent crime or the family member of a victim? I'm not sure why you think you can speak for these people. Even if you have though your position is because of values that make you who you are. It doesn't make you superior to those that feel otherwise. Some people do find justice in the execution of their family members killers. Others do not. Declaring which side is "morally superior" is only because you feel it is that way because you feel you wouldn't find justice in the death of someone who killed your family member. Again, not everyone is this way.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's funny all the excuses you guys make to justify why killing someone is okay if you don't like him.

"But it's legal!"
"Keeping people alive takes up resources!"
"Being in prison is just as bad as being murdered!"
"You can't prove he won't get superpowers and kill EVERYONE!"

You're simplifying this to a ridiculous degree. "because you don't like him" are you serious? Yeah, Qasab was executed because the Indian people didn't like him. He had terrible sense of fashion and talked too much during movies. It had nothing to do with his part in the premeditated murder of 166 innocent civilians.

I do respect your position on human life. I do not respect your position that capital punishment is the same as what Qasab did. Can it be? Sure. Is it in this case. No. Not by a long shot and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, the Duchess has it right. That's why you get posts like this:

Indian government is spending Rs 31 crores on keeping the sole surviving 26/11 Pakistani terrorist alive and healthy in prison. The cash-strapped Democratic Front government in Maharashtra has so far spent a staggering Rs. 31 crore, or nearly Rs. 85 lakh per day, to keep the 21-year-old terrorist from the Pakistani town of Faridkot safe and secure enough to stand trial in spite of the fact that the state's debt has crossed the Rs. 1.85 lakh crore mark. Still the government is the government is wary of letting out any information on Kasab and is saying Rs 31 crore figure is strictly unofficial.

The expenditure done on Kasab included:-

* The huge expenditure on the construction of a special cell inside the high-security Arthur Road jail. It has been designed in such a manner that even if a truck laden with explosives were to ram into it, the cell would not be dented.

* Nearly Rs. 1 crore was spent for the creation of a bullet-proof cell for Kasab on the JJ Hospital premises but he was never taken there, instead, doctors were summoned to the Arthur Road jail, whenever Kasab had a health problem.

* When Kasab, who was wounded before being captured, has been attended to by anywhere between 16-24 doctors for his various ailments in the past year.

* There was also a huge outgo on deployment of central forces to guard the Arthur Road jail and towards payment of fees for the public prosecutor and lawyers appearing for Kasab.

In spite of spending so much, still government couldn't get any specific success on proving Pakistan's involvement in this attack in front of the UNO and is still keeping Kasab alive.

I just want to ask you people, should we spend on Kasab any more or should we kill him when we are already running short of money and Kasab is doing no great help to us?

It took Rs 50 to hang and Rs 50 crore to keep Kasab alive.

...How much of our tax money was spent on keeping him alive? The official figure according to Maharashtra home minister R R Patil stands at Rs 20 crore. Giving details of the expenditure on Kasab, he said Rs 34,975 has been spent on his food, Rs 28,066 on medicines and medical expenditure, Rs 5.25 crore in construction costs towards building bulletproof cell for him, Rs 1.22 crore for staff salary and Rs 19.28 crore was charged by the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). But we are smart enough to realize that official figures are not to be believed blindly. Kasab has been in police or jail custody since his arrest on November 26, 2008.

According to a TOI report, the real expenditure on Kasab - Qaidi Number C-7096 was roughly Rs 53 crore. Here is the breakup:

Rs 43 Crore:
For special security at the Arthur Road jail, expenses on judicial officers, special public prosecutor and special security cover for the judge and lawyers associated with the case.

Rs 8 Crore :
Spent on the construction of a special cell at the Arthur Road jail. Initially, Kasab was lodged in an 'anda' cell, but following then Union home minister P Chidambaram's intervention a special cell was constructed. Its speciality? Even if a truck laden with explosives hit the cell, it would cause no damage.

Rs 1.5 Crore:
Spent on the construction of a special ward at the government run JJ Hospital for Kasab's treatment.

Rs 1 Crore:
Spent on special vehicles & infrastructure around the jail.

Rs 50 Lakhs:
Approximate figure for the Apex court expenses.

Another report by NDTV, states that while his medical expenses cost Rs. 28,066, the state had paid another Rs. 34,975 for his food keeping in mind his ill-health which called for a special diet and expensive medicines everyday.

As one can see, people do understand that Qasab is going to be killed. Not "legally liquidated", but killed - so it's not a question of playing with words.

The real question is why Maharashtra with a 20-30% child malnourishment rate and 25% child mortality (sic!) is spending literally billions on this person's continued life in prison. How is this person's life worth so much more than the lives of the Indian poor? That's bullshit. No utilitarian calculation could ever come to the conclusion that if the people were to choose between the life of a poor or a poor child and the life of a fighter who killed a lot of people, it should choose the latter. And the choice, as we see, is there; covering your ears and saying "la-la-la, these destitute from the slums would die prematurely anyway" is just crazy.

If you still think there isn't a choice between Qasab's life and the lives of innocents, just click the link below and see the video
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/maharashtra- ... 228-3.html

[Simon_Jester]

"Billions" sounds grossly excessive. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with Indian currency. Looking it up, a lakh is a hundred thousand and a crore is ten million.

So virtually all the money here is being spent on elaborate construction of facilities to house him; you'd skip most of the expense by just treating him like any other prisoner in solitary confinement. Moreover, the highest estimate I'm seeing here... well, at the moment the rupee:dollar conversion rate is 60:1 or so. They've spent ~200 million rupees or three million dollars according to the highest figures I'm seeing as presented realistically in the article.

Which is, yes, enough to validate the core of your argument since you could do a huge amount of good for humankind in a place like that, with three million dollars. Or a lot less.



This actually makes me think about the way medieval and earlier societies handled punishment of criminals. Could such a society afford to feed and house prisoners in a reasonable degree of warmth and comfort, when they often weren't able to afford such benefits to law-abiding citizens? It's not a problem in the developed world... but that's because we don't have huge famines whenever the crops fail. At least, not at the moment.

[Lord Zentei]

My counterpoint to the death penalty argument remains as follows:

(a) Principled restriction of the power of the state over the individual beyond that required for functionality and basic defense, and
(b) The prospect of false positives.

This should be most particularly applied when the crime involved is disgusting or contemptible, and when people are all riled up about the crime, because that is the time when people are most apt at sacrificing their rights in return for security and/or making errors of judgement.

[Irbis]

Some people do find justice in the execution of their family members killers.

Some people do find justice in the execution of a hungry child who stole loaf of bread. Does this mean we should go and placate them?

Declaring which side is "morally superior" is only because you feel it is that way because you feel you wouldn't find justice in the death of someone who killed your family member. Again, not everyone is this way.

No, I am saying we should leave decisions in the hands of people who A) don't have personal stake in what is happening, B) are not acting irrationally, if only because they're hurt. If either, or both conditions are failed, it's lynch, not justice, no matter how well argued or justified.

Not to mention that India has a precedent of being forced to release terrorists under the threat of hijacking.

I could accept this argument for capital punishment in this particular case, despite not agreeing with it, because it's at least an attempt at trying to rationally find greater good for everyone, unlike all the vindictive fantasies in this thread.

How is this person's life worth so much more than the lives of the Indian poor? That's bullshit.

Billions?

Maybe give costs in Zimbabwean Dollars, then you can use trillions or quadrillions for even more impressive numbers (not sure how high inflation has taken them). Also, to be fair, you can as well use this argument to execute everyone ever coming to an Indian prison. You know how many malnourished children you could feed for the costs of keeping one car radio thief?

Let me point out he cost "billions" to keep because of ministerial intervention that insisted on building completely pointless, or not even once used facilities, and anyway, since when justice cost-effectiveness only system? Off with their 'eads, I say!

Why is it so hard for you people to believe that there are, in fact, people in Pakistan who want to kill Jews and Hindus?

Because maybe, just maybe a teenager who lived in poverty all his life, who then got a lot of attention from someone and agreed to do what he had been told afterwards might not exactly be in full command of his actions? Humans are social animals, you know.

There were plenty of people in Germany who wanted to kill Jews, after all.

If Germany proved anything, it's that with a bit of propaganda brainwashing you might convince a lot of quite normal people to not see others as humans, then make same said people successfully reintegrate into working, peaceful society.

You can't put someone in a machine and programme them to commit military acts of terrorism

Tell me, where shahids come from, then? If you can convince someone to suicide bombing, you can convince them to do anything.

His attack represented an attack on the authority and ability of the Republic of India to protect her own citizens, from a group avowed to the Islamic conquest thereof (The sub-continent Islamist groups are really nuts).

Let me rephrase this:

His attack represented an attack on the authority and ability of the Republic of Norway to protect her own citizens, from a group avowed to the Nationalist/Christian re-conquest thereof (The Scandinavian sub-continent right-wing groups are really nuts).

Guess what happened to that guy? Sorry, still think Norwegians did prove their moral superiority.

The normal rules do not apply

The quote above is the beginning of any tyranny. India might have had reasons to do this, even good ones, but trying to paint them as morally superior justice is hypocrisy, IMHO.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

My counterpoint to the death penalty argument remains as follows:

(a) Principled restriction of the power of the state over the individual beyond that required for functionality and basic defense, and
(b) The prospect of false positives.

This should be most particularly applied when the crime involved is disgusting or contemptible, and when people are all riled up about the crime, because that is the time when people are most apt at sacrificing their rights in return for security and/or making errors of judgement.

Rights are also rights of the collective common of humanity represented by the State as an institution created from a shared identity of individuals who do not have rights exceeding those of the rest of the group. The focus on individual rights is ethnocentric to the United States and ridiculous, as humans are inherently social creatures.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

His attack represented an attack on the authority and ability of the Republic of India to protect her own citizens, from a group avowed to the Islamic conquest thereof (The sub-continent Islamist groups are really nuts).

Let me rephrase this:

His attack represented an attack on the authority and ability of the Republic of Norway to protect her own citizens, from a group avowed to the Nationalist/Christian re-conquest thereof (The Scandinavian sub-continent right-wing groups are really nuts).

Guess what happened to that guy? Sorry, still think Norwegians did prove their moral superiority.

The normal rules do not apply

The failure to execute Breivik for a crime against the state demonstrates the weakness of the modern European notions of civil rights.

The quote above is the beginning of any tyranny. India might have had reasons to do this, even good ones, but trying to paint them as morally superior justice is hypocrisy, IMHO.

No, it is simply the view of someone who regards the triumph of a personal atomist ideal of the human individual's wants and needs being the supreme purpose of life to be severely regrettable. I regard societies as having intrinsic value in their own right as a collective of humans much greater than the sum of their parts and that social interests do in fact allow countries to restrict and take away even life. I think that this notion of personal atomist rights has been used as a justification to destroy collective rights in our society, allowing corporations and marketing to essentially dominate the social discourse and that more generally this promotes an attitude which fails to respect the environment and creates divisions which allow capital to control western society.

Broadly speaking, I regard your opposition to the death penalty as coming from a sense of "how can you do this to a PERSON who should have RIGHTS?" And my answer is, "what of the interests of the one billion Indians and their collective culture, environment, strivings, aims, that are threatened by this terror?" Mind you this is basically an unsolvable argument: I regard social interests as having greater priority than the interest of any one individual (minority groups are a different matter entirely, of course), so we can't ever really agree -- assigning a higher valuation to society than to individuals will invariably result in different moral judgements, particularly around matters like this which involve attacks on the character and stability of the state.

[Metahive]

The failure to execute Breivik for a crime against the state demonstrates the weakness of the modern European notions of civil rights.

O, this should be good.

I think that this notion of personal atomist rights has been used as a justification to destroy collective rights in our society, allowing corporations and marketing to essentially dominate the social discourse and that more generally this promotes an attitude which fails to respect the environment and creates divisions which allow capital to control western society.

I guess that makes China the most enlightened state on the globe, huh? After all, nobody kills as many enemies of the state year for year like them, which means they must obviously on the forefront as far as collective rights and environmental respect go. O yeah, and they're totally not corrupt too, killing people makes immune to that after all, Duchess told us so.

[K. A. Pital]

Maybe give costs in Zimbabwean Dollars, then you can use trillions or quadrillions for even more impressive numbers (not sure how high inflation has taken them). Also, to be fair, you can as well use this argument to execute everyone ever coming to an Indian prison. You know how many malnourished children you could feed for the costs of keeping one car radio thief?

Don't be an idiot - a car thief has not prematurely ended any other lives. In any case the costs of keeping him in prison are not comparable with that of an ordinary prisoner (if he was treated like an ordinary prisoner, other prisoners would most likely kill him - perhaps India should've just let that happen and spare the rope). Moreover, yes, if I'd be choosing between the life of a murderer and the life of a malnourished child, I'd choose the latter. A car thief hasn't ended other lives, so obviously his life is at least as valuable as the life of a malnourished child.

Off with their 'eads, I say!

I haven't been a fan of the prison system, so I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here - that we should kill all criminals regardless of the severity of the act? I disagree; in fact, my judgement is not based on the law at all. Some "crimes" against property are victimless crimes and may not be treated as preplanned murder. Just as downloading pirated software is a victimless crime. So the question is not a legal one, but a moral one. And in case of a killer versus an innocent (both lives could be saved by applying a certain amount of money), I obviously choose the latter.

[UnderAGreySky]

Broadly speaking, I regard your opposition to the death penalty as coming from a sense of "how can you do this to a PERSON who should have RIGHTS?" And my answer is, "what of the interests of the one billion Indians and their collective culture, environment, strivings, aims, that are threatened by this terror?" Mind you this is basically an unsolvable argument: I regard social interests as having greater priority than the interest of any one individual (minority groups are a different matter entirely, of course), so we can't ever really agree -- assigning a higher valuation to society than to individuals will invariably result in different moral judgements, particularly around matters like this which involve attacks on the character and stability of the state.

I look at it from a different angle. The worse your crime, the less of a 'human' you are and the less I care about your 'human' rights. Now I do grant that this can be abused, and I'm not denying that being in favour of capital punishment DOES make me uncomfortable, and so I believe in strong checks and balances and a sparing application of the penalty - "rarest of rare" clause - in the interest of India not turning (further?) into a backwards hellhole like some middle-eastern countries or worse still, Texas.

[UnderAGreySky]

PS: One "lakh" = 100,000 (printed as 1,00,000); one "crore" = 10,000,000 (printed as 1,00,00,000). There are denominations above those numbers but we generally use combinations of the two instead (Rupees 10^12 - one trillion - would be one lakh crore). The exchange rate currently is around 55/70/85 (USD/EUR/GBP).