Posted on 07/09/2011 5:18:09 PM PDT by AfricanChristian
The last picture that Yash Lakhotia's family have of him was taken at the shopping mall, the most middle-class of Indian destinations. It shows him smiling, with his arm around his big sister, Neha. Both are wearing smart western clothes, looking the epitome of the country's new, upwardly mobile generation.
But it was a look that cost Yash his life. Two days after the photograph was taken, a car drew up outside the seven-year-old's school as he was leaving. Yash must have assumed that the man inside had been sent by his father to collect him. He got in, the door closed, and he was gone.
Neighbours found his body three days later, dumped among bushes near the waterfront in Howrah, Kolkata's twin city. He was just one more victim of India's burgeoning kidnap industry.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Let me be the first to say, WTF?
It's safer for the kidnapper to take the ransom and kill the kid because the kid is a witness. Most of the time they kill the kid even if you pay the ransom, but not before milking you for ransom multiple times.
Go to the police. Do not handle it yourself. They will have you pretend to pay the ransom. If they can catch one of the kidnappers you have a much better chance of getting your kid back alive.
How do execute kidnappers you did not catch?
If you pay the ransom, the kidnappers will probably kill the kid anyway, because the kid is a witness.
GO TO THE POLICE, not matter what the kidnappers say. The police will have you pretend to pay the ransom. Your best bet of getting your kid back alive is if one of the kidnappers is captured picking up the ransom.
I don’t know what that has to do with my explanation that juries would never punish the survivors of kidnappings by executing their parents.
I don’t even know if your claim is true, do you have a source to back it up?
Did you mean to reply to me or the guy I was responding to???
Cause frankly, your post isn’t making much sense....LOL
First the guy suggests that they kill the Parents paying the ransoms and then, if I read it right, he said they should publicly execute the Kidnappers?
Sorry FRiend, I'm not sure who the hell I was responding to.
I must have misunderstood the misunderstanding. LOL
OK....He suggested killing the parents who paid the ramsoms...
Then I suggested that was ridiculous, why don’t we kill the kidnappers with a public execution?
Remember the Freeper rules, only two adult beverages allowed prior to posting....wait, was that a rule or requirement? LOL.
I hope that clears up my misunderstanding of your misunderstanding of the original misunderstanding... Understood?
Your power of deduction is mesmerizing...
Quit responding , it only encourages me....
Besides, I have to put down my drink to type..... and that makes me sad....
OK, I’m not responding, but I am drinking a nice cold Guinness...
India is a third-world country.
It’s Third World police we are talking about here.
I understand that you’re pointing out that paying a ransom makes kidnapping more appealing. But kidnappers know that parents will do anything to get their children back. I agree with you that these kidnappers are no more than animals, so maybe they need a deterrent that even an animal could understand. Catch them, and cage them on the town square. Let the public do them whatever they want to. Ultimately, the only thing that could ever change this situation would be for criminals to have a life changing experience. A relationship with Christ would do it.
The US probably ranks higher than India in kidnappings / abductions, per-capita. Phoenix, AZ, is one of the kidnapping capitals of the planet.
I think you're a troll. But as for your premise, I also think you are extremely brave, tough, and steely-eyed with the lives of other people and their children, in the name of your collectivist kidnap-control theory. Why, if only hundreds, or thousands, of people voluntarily sacrificed the lives of their children to your theory, and if only you had the power to execute the families who paid ransoms for their childrens lives, you might - might - make a dent on the kidnapping problem by blaming the victims.
What a typical collectivist - if only you could kill enough people, everyone wold see your collectivist control theory would work. And if it doesn't - why, more people need to die to prove your point. Because hey, it works on paper, right?
Of course, you're too stupid to analyze the economic environments that lead to profitable kidnapping, or the social decay and the lack of effective police powers, the government corruption and payoffs, and the links to mob muscle. No, that's too sophisticated for your pea brain. Instead, you want to butcher the victims.
Such a tough guy.
Karma's a bitch, tough guy.
And no one escapes it - not even someone as incredibly tough as you.
Frickin' moron.
Do you live in India do you live in the United States? If the latter you must be an idiot.
Bookmark.
That’s why I wouldn’t move to Phoenix and it probably has a lot to do with illegal aliens and/or drug wars...
You mean the third world’s serfs get nasty with their masters? I guess cheap peasant labor is not all it’s cracked up to be.
Maybe Indians need to be sexually molested by government agents and tased, batoned and/or glocked by “law enforcement” to keep them in line for the new world order? The government should keep them safe and secure like the Americans have “progressed” to do.
See Jan the man for training.
What you are saying is 100% true. It is actually based on game theory - whereby the most optimal decision, that would be to everyones' benefit, would be for all citizens to stop paying ransom. No matter what. Sure, there will be some negative costs to some, but the greater good will be achieved (and very quickly achieved for the matter, as the would-be kidnappers decide to dedicate their time and resources towards avenues that bring them a return). However, like most game theory rationales (ranging from the simple prisoner's dilemma, to more obtuse multi-level GT stratagems) what is optimal and totally rational in the 'thought laboratory' breaks down when applied in reality. The reasons for this effect are as follows: a) in a thought experiment one is merely looking at the issue from a purely logical perspective, while in real-life there is the aspect of emotions and feelings; b) in a thought experiment it is assumed that each 'player' (in this case, families of kidnapped victims) will act in a manner that is rational and logical, but in real life each player is in a panic and acts in a manner that is totally self-centered even if it is sub-optimal for the larger group (same issue with even the basic prisoner's dilemma, where each prisoner should refuse to talk, that being the most logical decision that ensures EVERYONE gets the least time on average, but even in that thought experiment no prisoner will make that logical choice for the group because an individual selfish choice is better); and finally c) is the level of cognitive dissonance and the huge cost that would be applied to a player who chose wrongly (e.g. in the case of the prisoner, 'playing fair' when the other prisoner plays unfair means the other dude walks away free, while you spend 10 years in gaol ...in the kidnapping case, it would mean the death of your child).
Thus, from a logical rational perspective you are not 90% right ...you are 100% correct. A whole 100%. However, that will never happen in real life because there will always be families who will panic, and rather than be the ones to shoulder a dead child (in the name of the greater good) decide to pay the ransom and leave the 'greater good choice' to another family.
Now, while it is possible to legislate capital punishment for people who pay ransoms, the fact remains that such a measure would be met with a lot of resistance (I would love to see the politician who would pass such a rule), but more importantly, the payment of ransoms would simply go underground. The kid would be 'napped, a surreptitious email/note/message/smokesignal sent to the family, and an equally furtive payment made. If the legal system/authorities cannot stop the trade of crystal meth and weed, I highly doubt they would be able to stop this. Kidnappings would continue, families would continue to pay, and all that would change is some families that were unfortunate enough to be caught paying the ransom would also end up getting shot. Infact, in many countries where bribes are a problem, the police would also get in on the racket, asking for bribes from families trying to pay a ransom to avoid arrest and execution. There would be two payments (to the cop and the kidnapper) as opposed to one (the kidnapper).
Anyways, I totally agree with what you are saying. The most optimal decision is for everyone to stop paying the kidnapper, and in LESS than ONE MONTH all kidnapping would cease since it would not be a viable business avenue. However, just as is the case of a person with a 6-shot revolver holding a crowd of 30 hostage, no one wants to be the first/second/third to pay the ultimate price in the name of the greater good. Everyone always wants to 'other person' to be the 'hero,' and when the piper comes to collect they simply whistle to the wind and look the other way.
This is why kidnapping has always worked, and will always work. This is also why social security will always be with us (the baby boomers will not give it up, nor the generations coming after them ....they want to 'get theirs' and then they can talk). This is also why the drug lords in Mexico have so much power ...if people rose up against them and started talking and naming the drug lords, the corrupt cops, the compromised politicians, etc etc ...sure, many people would be killed, but the whole problem would be excised in a couple of months. Totally taken care of. But then again, no one wants to be the one to pay that cost. This can be applied to a whole range of issues, such as why tyrants keep control over a nation and no one rises up (even when the people could easily take over). Simply because no one wants to be the first to walk into a hail of kalashnikov bullets. Ironically, when someone DOES stand up (be it a Lech Walessa in Poland and made the Soviets pause, a kid who immolated himself in Tunisia and sparked a revolution that has every country in MENA either changing or trembling, and another skinny chap in China made the tanks stop at Tiananmen in 1989). There are many examples that can be used, and several in the US itself (e.g. a lady refusing to leave her seat). There is a lot of credence thus given to what you are saying.
The only problem is that, in most cases, people will not do that. They would rather let the 'other guy' pay the cost. In many cases the people who do that are those who have i) either lost everything ii) have nothing to lose in the first place or iii) are of a moral fibre that is a paragon of fortitude. For example, Mohamed Bouazizi, the mid-twenties man who burned himself in Tunisia and sparked the protests that swept over several countries, falls smack into number (i). He had his illegal cart and vegetables/fruits confiscated, and when he went to pay a fine since he needed it to support his extended family, he got slapped and spat on. Big mistake by the Tunisian authorities.
Anyways - what you say is 100% correct. However, in most cases, it will not work in the real world because no one wants to be the one who will lose a family member by refusing to pay. No one wants to be the one who has a 14 year old daughter in the company of evil men who are demanding a ransom 'or else,' and they say 'make my day.' No one will receive the severed finger (or, in Mexico's case, ear) of a family member and grit their teeth in determination as they say 'for the greater good I will not pay.' Very few will listen to the sobs of a 7 year old and firmly tell the kidnapper over the phone to 'fuhggetaboutit' when it comes to $5,000. There are those who would do such a thing, but they are not many. It is one thing to talk about optimal game theory, but let us all pray fervently that we never ever get an opportunity to test our reaction when it comes to such matters. For most people, they will not even be able to have a coherent thought as their minds turn to mush and they start doing all they can to pay the kidnapper (in some cases, where they can, even offering more than is asked) for the safe and quick return of their child. Most of us go into a blind panic when we misplace our wallet or credit card. Imagine when one knows their teenage daughter is with 5 men of dubious intention? I believe all higher cognitive thought evaporates. Even when there is little likelihood of getting the kid back, the parent will still pay. The cognitive dissonance of not paying and something bad happening is so high that most people would not even be able to think straight.
What you are saying is 100% correct. However, it will never happen unless humans evolve (or devolve?) into a hive-mind where every decision is for the greater good. Otherwise, even when the punishment for paying a ransom is death, the vast majority of parents will most definitely pay it even if it means the kidnappers will do the deed again, and even if there is a chance the child may not be released alive.
Outside game-theory thought experiments, people are only human.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.