HEAVENS! Yiou usually do much better than this. The best oyu offer now is an Appeal to the Masses. Tsk, tsk. Try to pay attention now. I offered a change and have been explaining specifically why I think it might be worth considering. You simply offer a change, and attempt to equate the two. I told you that I thought your idea is dumb and why. I asked you to offer the reasons supporting your change, and you offer none. Instead you simply wish to equate them by placing them both under the umbrella set of “changes to our legal system”. Talk about DUMB. According to your line of thinkiing ANY proposed change to our legal system wouldn’t be worth considering because it, too, falls under the umbrella of “change to our legal system”.
Now, I won’t say your dumb as a rock, becausealthough we often disagree, you’ve presented your side well. I will say, though, that what you’ve posted here makes you dumb as a rock for the time it took you to post it.
Really? Gosh, I appealed to the masses and didn’t even know it? I’m special.
Yes, an explanation that boils down to "I am a horrific monster and this would be HIGHlarious.
Whatcha scared of? After all, it’s only if you torture and kill someone innocent that my proposed change would go into effect. The torture and killing of innocent people, well, that’s murder. And we’d all know you did it, torturing and killing someone innocent, so why shouldn’t you be on the hook for it in all your sadistic glory? Hayuck hayuck.
No, that would be Sally. That’s the wife of the judge who lives in my building. The one who never let’s me in on all the good stuff. My friend, though, that’s another story. He shares all the good stuff with me. Of course I can’t share his wife’s name, lest I give a clue to his indentity.
Glad to see more of what I expect from Frank The Lightweight Mod. Keep up the good work.
You know, I’ve taken peolpe to task around here for not admitting their mistakes, so it is only fitting that I fess up to mine. It appears that I was in error in concluding that you are not actually dumb as a rock. I’m sorry I was so willing to confine you dumbness to a post or two. But your posts, combined with your inability to comprehend basic logic, forces me to offer a mea culpa. I’ll try not to make the same mistake again.
So, again, you said your plan simply can’t result in anyone innocent getting eviscerated by rats, yet you aren’t willing to put your own life on the line. Other people’s lives, yes. You’ll risk those. You’ll chortle and giggle and drool as they die screaming. But your own? No. You want to hide your sick fetish behind a law, a law that you invented.
“I want it to be a law that other people get mutilated and die horribly! That’d be SO COOOOOOOL! And I get to watch, oh yes. Excuse me, I’ll be in my bunk.”
Excellent point. I should have worded it better. What I meant, whcih I think is evident by now, was should we have the ability to step outside of what is normal (usual) procedure. Specifically in the punishment phase. To be clear, all of what I’m proposing would be state-sponsored. Otherwise, it would indeed be vigilantism, which I do not condone. I’ll aslo offer this. I think that if people feel that their justice system does not deliver Justice, the desire and incidence of vigilantism will go up.
Fair enough then, in and of itself. I have no problem with giving fair punishments to criminals, and certainly some crimes deserve death, horrible or otherwise.
Should there be a “to” between “need” and “not”, there? Since the people would need to not be against the death penalty.
I do like this idea, but I think it works against your interests and for mine. Under the current system (as I understand it, and I may well not) a judge gets to decide whether to sentence someone to death. Under your system, two judges need to say yes. You’ve just added another check in; for a system that already has a death penalty, all you’ve actually done is make it less likely that someone will get it. If you’re saying that a double-check system like this should be introduced in non-death-penalty states, i’d prefer it to a one-judge system, for obvious reasons. But for me just adding the opinion of one other person doesn’t make it good enough for me to put the lives of people in their hands. I’m not willing to take the risk of killing someone who shouldn’t be in order to kill someone who should.
I think the problem here is you’re not being imaginative enough. I have problems with the death penalty because it’s permanent. But torture? Hey, feel free. As long as it’s nothing unfixable, please, be my guest. Stringent precautions, of course, but as long as the government in concern is willing to pay a vast fee to anyone wrongly convicted, go right ahead with that. I’ve never really got why death is held up to be the biggest punishment; sure, it’s final, but there are plenty of things worse than death.
I have no problem reducing the number of deaths by the state, especially considering the problems with the current system in gaining incorrect or shakey convictions. I think you also have to take into consideration the benefits of a sentence that would indeed act as a deterrent to prospective future scumbags.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. I’d rather be put to death than serve forty years in a cell. Which is one reason why I’m exploring making the death something I would definitely NOT want.
Hahahaha. What you please stop. Enough with the gilding already, your killing me. Take some of this time you have on your hands and go take a course in logic. Granted, you’ll be embarrassed as hell at first, but they’ll be benefits down the road.
I don’t believe in the death penalty as a deterrent. I mean, i’m sure it does deter some… but generally the type of people who commit the type of crimes to warrant it seem to be either batshit insane or certain they won’t get caught. I think a gruesome method of death would deter for a while, when it’s first brought in, but after a while, things would go back to roughly similar levels. Deterrence I would say is less a matter of providing horrible punishment but more in raising the belief that you’re going to get caught.
Speaking of deterrents, acting like an jerk is possibly deterring people from seeing your point of view. Pointing out someone’s an idiot, even if they are being an idiot, doesn’t generally engender sympathy.
I don’t get that. If you think the harsher punishment would be serving those years, surely your position would be trying to make that worse than making death worse? Less distance to travel.
jsgoddess has a good point. What you’re suggesting is one of the most gruesome and irrevocable punishments I’ve ever heard of. The people who would advocate and mete out that punishment are taking a huge risk with other people’s lives. What stake are you willing to put up on the belief that this system will always be right?
Drawing and quartering; barbarism, or they had it coming to them, you decide.
“Fairness” wasn’t a huge concern for most of that period. Hanging day at Tyburn was a public festival, in England. And the mobs around the guillotines in France didn’t much care if the person under the blade actually “deserved” his sentence or not.
As for it being routine, I think you have a good point there. But how long can we practice this form of execution ourselves before routine robs it of it’s effectiveness as a deterrent? Worse, if the public does come to see this sort of punishment as routine, and sanctioned by the government, is there not a chance that they will be more likely to commit similar barbarities of their own? Your proposal would lead, I think, to a general coarsening of our culture, until acts like the one you describe in your OP no longer shock, because our government has shown that it holds similar acts to be acceptable.
Justice, to me, implies that things have been put right. There is no justice for murder, because murder is a loss that cannot be repaired. The only relevant question, when it comes to capital crimes, is, “What is the best way to prevent this person from committing the crime again?” Public torture does not offer a better answer to that specific question than a needle in the arm. Either one removes the problem from society, but neither is more just than the other.
I doubt it. According to every study I’ve heard of, the most physical pain will generally get you -whether it’s spanking or torture - is short term obedience, with long term increased hostility and aggression. And you are clearly demonstrating the principle that the strong have a right to brutalize the weak; that may not be what you intend to teach, but that’s the lesson that will probably be learned.
And how many more are you creating, by making a show of how such extreme brutality is now acceptable, in your version of society ?
Except that I don’t think that will produce good, but bad. Especially when we are not talking about killing, but sadistic brutality.
Yes, by making us look like barbarians. We have exactly the reputation you want in Iraq, and it hasn’t made the Iraqis one bit less willing to kill us. Quite the opposite. I expect that one effect of the behavior you promote would be a widespread approval of the murder and worse of anyone associated with the law.