• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What should be punishment for crime against humanity?

What should be the punishment for crime against humanity?

  • Forgiveness

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Imprisonment

    Votes: 5 29.4%
  • Death by hang

    Votes: 2 11.8%
  • Death by burning

    Votes: 2 11.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 8 47.1%

  • Total voters
    17

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
If someone in a fair court is proven to have committed crime against humanity, what would be the proper punishment?

My opinion is, although death penalty seems cruel, but if the punishment is not severe enough, it may not scare the criminals to think twice before doing great crimes against humanity. If we are merciful on a cruel person, we would be unfair on the victims.
 

AlexanderG

Active Member
People like a certain invasive autocrat should be made dead as soon as possible. But it should be a humane execution, not for his sake but for the sake of our own dignity.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
If someone in a fair court is proven to have committed crime against humanity, what would be the proper punishment?

My opinion is, although death penalty seems cruel, but if the punishment is not severe enough, it may not scare the criminals to think twice before doing great crimes against humanity. If we are merciful on a cruel person, we would be unfair on the victims.
The proper punishment for a crime against humanity is nothing more or less than humanity.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
If someone in a fair court is proven to have committed crime against humanity, what would be the proper punishment?

My opinion is, although death penalty seems cruel, but if the punishment is not severe enough, it may not scare the criminals to think twice before doing great crimes against humanity. If we are merciful on a cruel person, we would be unfair on the victims.
America has death penalty, but they still kill, rape and harm there. Death penalty does not work.

Of your choices i choose others.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
America has death penalty, but they still kill, rape and harm there. Death penalty does not work.

Of your choices i choose others.
I don't know about that. I am thinking If there was no punishment, there were more crimes. It is like speed tickets if there was no speed tickets, I know for one, would have driven faster.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I don't know about that. I am thinking If there was no punishment, there were more crimes. It is like speed tickets if there was no speed tickets, I know for one, would have driven faster.
But killing people as a punishment? Why are the state allowed to do what they day citizens can't do?

Why are death penalty ok, but killing on the street not allowed? Both are murder ?
 

Sedim Haba

Outa here... bye-bye!
If someone in a fair court is proven to have committed crime against humanity, what would be the proper punishment?

My opinion is, although death penalty seems cruel, but if the punishment is not severe enough, it may not scare the criminals to think twice before doing great crimes against humanity. If we are merciful on a cruel person, we would be unfair on the victims.

Just what kind of crime are we talking about here?
'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'

Perhaps the victims / survivors be given the right of determining 'proper punishment'.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
But killing people as a punishment? Why are the state allowed to do what they day citizens can't do?

Why are death penalty ok, but killing on the street not allowed? Both are murder ?
No, by definition murder is an illegal killing. Killing in self defense is not murder, but it is still killing. And if the state can legally do it by definition it is not murder.

Did you check out my solution?

[EDIT] By the way I am against the death penalty.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
No, by definition murder is an illegal killing. Killing in self defense is not murder, but it is still killing. And if the state can legally do it by definition it is not murder.

Did you check out my solution?
Personally I don't see s difference in state murder or person in street murder.

Not sure I checked your solution no.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
If someone in a fair court is proven to have committed crime against humanity, what would be the proper punishment?
That's simple from my POV..."Kill"

You phrased it perfectly, as "crime against humanity", you didn't specify this, so I can substitute my worst idea of "crime against humanity" committed by a person, and then it is easy to answer correctly

Example: A real life "Satan" (worst imaginable devilish person) plans to nuke the whole world. He is sick to the core and no cure is possible (has been scientifically established as a fact), and he will continue till he reaches his goal (also a known fact). Now he only nuked New Zealand and is caught. The whole world will be destroyed, starting with the USA first, unless his body is dead

Only 1 right Dharmic punishment is there, and it's easy to know what must be done...kill his body to make sure he can't commit his intended worst crime, killing humanity

* On Dharma: Krishna taught us that "not killing" is wrong when it's your duty to "kill". And in reality you can't kill, you just kill their bodies, the Atma is indestructible. And the world needs Satya (truth) and Dharma (righteousness), hence "killing" in certain instances is the correct action, not killing is the wrong action, and shows ignorance and being a coward
@stvdvRF
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member
My opinion is, although death penalty seems cruel, but if the punishment is not severe enough, it may not scare the criminals to think twice before doing great crimes against humanity. If we are merciful on a cruel person, we would be unfair on the victims
I voted for "death by burning" to be the appropriate proportionate way to "kill" his body. Because that is the most uncomfortable punishment suitable for the most horrible crime (see my above post #16)
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member
If someone in a fair court is proven to have committed crime against humanity, what would be the proper punishment?
It is natural to

"not die and do whatever is needed"

Hence

The answer is simple in this hypothetical case: make sure the world, meaning humanity, won't be destroyed. Nothing wrong with death penalty in this case (see #16)
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
I need more information about the crime. In my world wearing a MAGA hat is a crime against humanity. Wearing socks with sandals likewise.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If someone in a fair court is proven to have committed crime against humanity, what would be the proper punishment?

My opinion is, although death penalty seems cruel, but if the punishment is not severe enough, it may not scare the criminals to think twice before doing great crimes against humanity. If we are merciful on a cruel person, we would be unfair on the victims.
Punishment is itself improper.

What should be done is if the criminal can be safely isolated from society (s)/he should be kept in isolation until they can be reformed.

If they can't be safely isolated they should be executed by whatever means are practical, and if they can't be kept safely isolated to the point of reform they should be given the most humane death that is practical.

In my opinion.
 
Top