George Thorogood??? Look, give credit to Johnny Cash for popularizing it, if you don’t know who wrote it, but Lonesome George is way down the list of cover credits for that one. “Cocaine Blues” was written by TJ Arnall and originally recorded by Roy Hogsed.
Yes, and your excited glee at the prospect is frankly revolting. However disgusting and brutal a particular crime or criminal may be, having presumably sane and responsible members of society acting out this kind of sadistic fantasy on their bodies would be worse.
Imaginatively vicious physical punishments are not the sort of thing that earn a society respect from the civilized world. Everybody’s opposed to the crime of theft, for example, but when we read about the Taliban cutting off the hands of convicted thieves, do we say “Good for them! They’re providing catharsis and using the thieves to make a point”?
Or do we say instead “Ewwww, what disgusting savage barbarity”?
Having previously ensured that they are, to quote your own words, “frenzied and starving”, and expecting them to “panic […] and plug up the pipe” so they can’t get out. Gee, your kindness to animals is equalled only by your compassionate respect for humanity. :rolleyes:
Well, I suppose it could be worse: you might be a veterinarian.
Oh, come on, Musicat, or they’ll have stoned him before we get there!
Uh, in that same post I also said:
You’d be right, if I were. But I’m not, so you’re not.
But why not put their life to some good for society? To serve as a memorable example? I think that the best argument against that is that we lower the bar as far as perception goes, as to what level of crime can be rationalized by society. But their are two sides to the equation. They both have merits and demerits.
Er, you might not want to bring Iran into this—they have a rather “unenlightened” (read: misogynist throwback) view of sex crimes over there. They’d probably execute the 99 year old for having intercourse, but not being able to produce enough witnesses to prove rape.
A few other nations, however, do authorize the death penalty for rape, or other non-murder crimes (the U.S. basically overruled this with with Coker v. Georgia, though apparently a few states are testing this—Louisiana has someone on death row for the aggravated rape of his 8-year old daughter).
Revenge, might not be wise, but it can be useful. If it let’s me sleep better at night knowing that there is one less threat ready to visit horror upon my family, friends and others, that is useful. If it quells the outrage someone feels when a great injusticve is done to him or someone he cares about, it is useful. So revenge can very well be useful.
And choosing to legally take a life—by rules that society has agreed upon—is NOT the same as someone taking a life on his own, in direct opposition to what rules and mores society has.
You make an excellent point. That there is a cost to us not taking a harder line. We might be in the right place, but there is a cost. A few months ago there were a few elderly women (80s) beaten and robbed. And this isn’t the first time an elderly woman has been raped. Or little kids. The fact is that by NOT being more forceful in their prosecution and punishment, we are all a little complicit in the next crime of that type. Like I said, we may have struck the right balance, but maybe not.
Okay. So what we really have are two points of disagreement. The death penalty and the method. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’re okay with the death penalty. The question then is if we are to take this life, is the more moral thing to take it quitely, or to take it with great visibility. To take it behind closed doors whre it may otr may not get a mention in the paper the next day, or to take it with great spectacle? I’ll argue that the taking of life is indeed so extreme a measure, that we should hold it up to be a spectacle, so as the most good can be derived from the act.
Yes, but it could be that the routine—and no doubt unfair—nature of such justice didn’t allow a direct, distinct line to be drawn from the act to the the punishment. The fact that it has not been SOP for centuries would make people stand up and take notice. I think there are some acts so despicable that the needle in the arm or a life sentence do not rise to the level of “justice”.
Just out of curiosity, are you volunteering for the same punishment should the person be innocent?
Great, just what the world needs more of, a psychopathic judge.
What I menat, Revenant, was in regards to the punishment phase. Opening that to more “just” punishments. Those more commensurate with the heinousness of the crime.
Maybe after someone is convicted and sentenced to death it goes to another judge to assess degree of certainty of the verdict. If it’s not of the highest order. no death penalty. Granted, the people doing the assessing need not be against the death penalty across the board.
Why should I? That’s not the way our llegal system works. If you were on a jury and sent someone away for a year, and he later turned out to be innocent, would you go to jail for a year. Of course not. That’s rock stupid. You would never have any jury convict someone of a crime for fear that they might be wrong and would have to serve the time or pay the restitution.
You want to change the way our system works. I’m just suggesting a nice little improvement. Those who want to enact their vicious revenges get the same things enacted on them if they are wrong. How about it? You’ve already decided that he’s guilty guilty guilty, so what’s the risk?
I guessed you missed this, which appears TWICE:
I’ve already addressed your idea: rock stupid. And supplied reasons why.
If you’d like to offer counter arguments, go to it.
[nitpick]As I understand the passage in question, magellan is correct. The person Jesus saved from being stoned was accused of adultery, and what Jesus was getting at was the idea that everyone in the crowd had at some point wanted to fuck someone they weren’t married to. Even if they hadn’t gone through with it, it didn’t mean that they were better than the accused, because they desired the same thing. And most people don’t desire in their heart of hearts to rape and murder 99 year old women.
But I’m no Biblical scholar (or believer, for that matter) so I might be wrong about that.[/nitpick]
Funnily enough, when educators discover high school students writing these sorts of stories, they consider it a warning sign.
Bailiff, remove that man and deliver him to the Uncle Fester to be put on the rack.
And you did know AI was kidding about being a judge, right? I’m really a veterinarian. Unless I’m kidding about that, too…
But one of my friends really is a judge, and I “push him” to being a better judge. 
It’s only because my baseball team is being hammered that I’d even try to explain this to you, but you are trying to change the way our legal system works and then you complain if someone offers a different suggestion that changes the way our legal system works.
You can’t complain that I’m trying to change the way the system works if you, yourself, on your little ole lonesome, are trying to do just that. You see? Of course you don’t, but at least the massacre on this thread is more satisfying that the one on TV.
“Gee, Marge, you’d never believe what that fucking idiot magellan01 tried to tell me today. God, what a doofus. What’s for dinner?”