Is this guy a murderer or a Hero ?

The dad is going to be tried for murder simply because he has the 'undivided' attention of media now. The same was the case with that bus incident. Things are way more fishy than you can contemplate. Let's posit that media stop making a fuss over rape everyday. Now the only thing that'll happen is; the court will feel free. It will do nothing. Only bribery, power, interceding from some powerful politician or landlord and getting the media to focus on it again will make those fatasses sitting in the court get their bums in gear again. A man living in the slums has no power to do all that. That is yet another source of frustration for those poor fellas.

One more thing that you're taking wrong here. In each one of my posts, I was proceeding on the assumption that the rapist really was the rapist and the father had concrete evidence for him being the criminal. If there was no proof, or no concrete evidence then it's simply a murder. Now before you raise the question that if the father did had the evidence, why didn't he contact the police? well, it's not so simple. Most of the times, those rapist gangs or people have underground contacts with the police. Hell, sometimes it's the police doing the rape. The common folks are totally overwhelmed by those criminal parties. And let's just say the criminal didn't had any contacts with the police, even then it wouldn't be so simple. There are a lot of radical groups in India and especially in Indian slums who are crooked enough to support something like this. In the end, the most quickest and the efficient way to serve yourself justice, is to do it with your own hands.

I already told you, live in their shoes and you'll know. A father living in a country where by some parties women are already looked down upon and once they're raped, they completely lose any dignity that they've left and can never hope to get married; that father won't think twice if someone rapes his daughter. He will go for the kill. It's the culture difference. Things aren't that simple that you can understand neither too simple for me to do justice inditing them.

Because that's too subjective and too subject to personal bias to be a justification for criminal acts. Some people think that gays deserve to die. Some people think that women deserve to be raped. And so on. It's up to SOCIETY to determine what punishment a criminal deserves, it's not up to the individual.

But more to the point...just because "this scumbag deserved to die", that doesn't mean that I have a justification to give him the punishment that he deserves. Even if someone deserves to be tortured or murdered, then it still stands that not just any random asshole has the authority to torture or murder him. There are rules and procedures involving this, in order to avoid a Total Anarchy situation in which everyone does whatever the hell they want to and then justify it under the basis of "well, he deserves it." Even if a dude does deserve to be tortured or killed, that job is designated for the state sanctioned executioner. Not the random dude on the street. Most people don't have that authorization. This is not a weird concept. If I get a job working the cash register at Wal-Mart, and I think that Wal-Mart isn't ordering enough of a certain product, I don't get to just order more of that product on the company tab. Whether or not that product was ACTUALLY needed is irrelevant. The point is that only management has authorization to take that action, and by doing it myself I have overstepped my bounds and deserve to be punished.

THE DAD DIDN'T REPORT THE RAPE.

As I mentioned before, I could at least maybe have sympathy for the dad (while still thinking that his actions were wrong) if he had reported the rape and then the cops didn't even bother to investigate. But he didn't report the rape.

Do you see how this is a problem?

Your defense of the man basically amounts to "well, the cops wouldn't have done anything". But in this particular case, the reason that the cops didn't do anything was because the rape was never reported.

In other words, the defense for this man torturing and murdering his neighbor rests entirely on conditions that were set up by the killer himself. He set up the conditions for the defense of his actions (the cops won't do anything) by failing to even report the crime. He then uses the "fact" that the police won't do anything as justification to commit the torture and murder, even though it was his actions (failing to report the crime) that guaranteed that the cops wouldn't do anything.

You don't even see the slightest thing wrong with that? Letting him off the hook would literally be endorsing a free pass to get away with torture and murder.

Well, I guess, slowly slowly I'll have to explain everything.

There's always a possibility that the police might take the criminal in detention and let him off the hook when the victim is comforted with their lies. And one other thing is, you don't know how the police treats them. Sometimes, you report the rape, they'll ask you for the victim and dang! there's another rape in operation. The sole fact that the police itself isn't trustworthy is enough for someone to jump to these conclusions under such circumstances. Any Indian wouldn't be surprised to hear that some rapist turned out to be a police officer or had some ties with the police.

The system is corrupted from the roots up to the leaves. It'll be hard for you to understand.

So basically, the law is meaningless and everyone gets to do what they want?

Because that's what you're saying. Sure, MAYBE if you report a robbery, the cops will flat out murder your wife, and rape you in the butt. So, based on that hypothetical maybe, I'll just avoid the cops the next time my home gets burglarized, and I'll just shoot the first guy who I sort of think did it. And I should face absolutely zero legal repercussions, because "I don't trust the law, and I sort of think I got the right guy" should be a good enough defense.

That's what you're suggesting. You're advocating for total fucking anarchy in India.

What grants that man authority to torture/murder is the person that has raped his daughter and the fact that it is his daughter. A hell of a lot more authority than I see justified into being granted into some mechanism such as the judicial system maintained and dictated by societal/systematic indifference. Truly where miscarriages of justice are left to slip by. By what right does that entity hold any more of a justification or right than the one that has been wronged?

K then, improve Indian Law.

No need, given the choice between how things are and what you're suggesting. For starters, the law (as flawed as it may be) is already a hell of a lot better than total fucking anarchy. You're looking at a flawed legal system, and saying that the way to fix it is to give everyone free reign to do whatever the **** they want to, without ANY legal repercussions.

The problematic thing here is, even though the law definitely is better than total anarchy, but does it serve justice? no. One of the responsibilities of law is to serve justice to the common folks and that's the only thing that makes the people abide by the law. They want justice, if they won't get any, they'll serve themselves justice with their own hands. The tension is real here. In the plight of the moment and in the given context, this is as far as a mind will go in India. I've never called anything you said false or wrong up until now. You're right from your point of view, but you're wrong in the given context.

For starters, we don't know that the man raped his daughter. That's a really fucking big issue here. The first obvious question is if the victim even did commit the rape (or if a rape even happened), which gets a lot harder to determine when the alleged rapist is murdered before he ever gets to go to trial. It's entirely possible that this was just some innocent man minding his own goddamn business when out of the blue he gets tortured and murdered and then everyone celebrates because his killer says "he deserved it, he's a rapist, my daughter told me so."

But aside from that, do you not see how society would completely break down if we all, free from legal repercussions, got to personally decide what punishments are appropriate for every time we're wronged? We don't get to individually decide what "justice" is, because for some people, keying their car means you get shot in the face. And absent a somewhat objective and impartial legal system, how can you objectively hold anyone accountable without resorting to sheer might? There need to be societal standards, and the typical societal standards are that people get to go to trial before being handed out the death penalty, and that we don't individually get to decide the punishment for any given crime.

The problematic thing here is, even though the law definitely is better than total anarchy, but does it serve justice? no. One of the responsibilities of law is to serve justice to the common folks and that's the only thing that makes the people abide by the law. They want justice, if they won't get any, they'll serve themselves justice with their own hands. The tension is real here. In the plight of the moment and in the given context, this is as far as a mind will go in India. I've never called anything you said false or wrong up until now. You're right from your point of view, but you're wrong in the given context.

I think, that people should get trials.

ARTICLE

The case of an Indian man who tortured and killed his daughter's alleged rapist has shocked the country - but many are hailing him as a hero

I say hes certainly not a Hero, could've handed over the rapist to cops as his daughter was not killed.Murdering went too far, then again i'm not a father so do not mind my personal judgement.

What you think OT ? :)

First of all, I'm dubious of your claim that there's no law. For starters, according to this article, that dad is going to be tried for murder, because the law says that you can't just torture and murder a dude because you think he's guilty. Secondly, as far as the rapists in that bus incident, they actually were convicted and sentenced to death, and are currently undergoing appeals. That doesn't sound a lot like "there's no law there."

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that there is no law there. How does it make things BETTER when, in addition to the rapes, there are also people going around murdering and torturing their neighbors? Give this dad a pass, and you're condoning a system in which you can straight up murder and torture a dude and then get let off the hook by retroactively claiming rape. That just makes things MORE lawless there.

And don't talk to me with this "if you lived there, you'd feel different" bullshit. There already seem to be enough problems over there. If I had to live there, I wouldn't want the added problem of my neighbors feeling like they can get away with straight up torturing and murdering my ass by simply throwing out the totally unverified claim that I raped someone. Is that something that YOU are comfortable with? Would you like to live somewhere where anyone who has a beef with you can straight up murder you, and then get away with it by claiming that you are a rapist?

Whether or not he did it is not my issue, my argument lies with the presumption of absolute guilt.

I see how chaotic it would be yes, but I've no trouble with victims being free to commit the same acts against the perpetrator that has been committed against them/ones they care for once that determination has been made. Let an impartial system determine guilt and hand down the sentence of equal standing, and let the victim carry it out. Why is that so wrong? This man (if guilty) should not be tortured, nor murdered, but he should be raped. I see nothing wrong with that, and see a hell of a lot more "balance" in dispensing justice this way than tacking on some arbitrary number of years in a cell for recompense.

He turned himself in, that's how he got a trial. Law there is very different from the west.

Well, he WASN'T raped, he was tortured and murdered. So even by your weird idea of justice, this still doesn't fit the bill.

And also, you can't just sweep away the issue of if he was guilty that easily. That's actually part of the reason why this shit needs to go through the courts, because most people are in a piss-poor position to determine guilt. Does this dad have a rape kit in his closet? Does he know how to do DNA testing to determine if the other guy was actually the father of the unborn child? Even if the law isn't particularly interested in finding the guilty party, don't you see that the dad was INCAPABLE of finding the guilty party, and that he therefore had no goddamn business dispensing justice on his own?

Sure. Still doesn't change my opinion that once guilt has been made, payback should be placed into the hands of the victims in accordance with the crime.

Okayyyyy...and that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Nor does much of what you say.