Get your rocks ready. Stoning at the highschool at noon.

The BBQ Pit
81

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of this. As far as the deterrence aspect of the current state of the death penalty in the US, it has very little effect. Not surprising when the time between conviction and death is often more than 20 years.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I expect no sympathy on these boards. And they do not disappoint. I addressed what she offered, then explained why I thought her reason dumb. She served up more dumb, refusing to support her own position or counter my points. I’m happy to discuss most anything. But when someone shucks logic, well, that’s got to be pointed out. YMMV.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Because these people have removed themselves from the set of people I give a shit about. I don’t care what they want. After they’re convicted of a horrific crime the important side of the equation to me is what will most benefit society. That’s one of the reasons I’m for fewer death penalty cases, but for MUCH faster sentences being carried out in those that do get so sentenced.

It’s also why I’m exploring the idea of using them as an example. I don’t give a shit about them. As I said, I think a life sentence is worse—for them. But if we can have an iota of good come out some scumbags existence, shouldn’t we do it? I don’t know what I’d do if it were left up to me. I’m aware of all the counter arguments and see their merits. Though I would pull the lever on this scum. I’d also throw rocks at people who rape and murder the elderly, children, or otherwise defenseless among us.

82

[QUOTE=magellan01]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, the original juries were composed of witnesses, not of impartial judges-of-fact, and they were held to precisely this standard – if they brought home a verdict which proved later to be false accusation of an innocent person, they suffered the punishment they had laid down for the innocent convicted person.

83

[QUOTE=Miller]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. I made this very point a little earlier. It is, I think, the best argument against what I proposed.

[QUOTE=Miller]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think this is right. Our justice system endeavors to to work on two prongs: making victims whole (or as whole as possible) and punishing the criminal. Both can be deterrents. Take huge jury awards, for instance, that go beyond making the victim whole. Now, when it comes to murder, it is impossible to make the victim, or their family, whole. But there is “justice” in seeing the criminal pay for his crime. How many times do people feel the justice system failed them because a criminal got two years instead of ten?

You say the only relevant question is “What is the best way to prevent this person from committing the crime again?” Shouldn’t we also take into consideration what might make others less apt to commit similar crimes? If no, why not? It seems to me that that is the ultimate function of our justice system.

84

[QUOTE=magellan01]
It’s also why I’m exploring the idea of using them as an example. I don’t give a shit about them. As I said, I think a life sentence is worse—for them. But if we can have an iota of good come out some scumbags existence, shouldn’t we do it? I don’t know what I’d do if it were left up to me. I’m aware of all the counter arguments and see their merits. Though I would pull the lever on this scum. I’d also throw rocks at people who rape and murder the elderly, children, or otherwise defenseless among us.
[/QUOTE]

Hang on a second. You think we should torture certain criminals to death, because the horrendous fate would be a stronger deterrent than the normal death penalty. But you also think that life in prison would be an even worse fate. So… why not get rid of the death penalty altogether, in all it’s forms, and give all murderers the worst punishment possible? Should that be the best deterrent of all?

Anyway, if the ultimate goal is putting these people to good public use, tearing them to pieces in a public festival of gore for the very dubious “deterrent” effect is pretty wrongheaded. Far better to kill them in a way that leaves as much of their carcass intact as possible, so that we can use it for organ donations, or cadavers for medical students, both of which are important needs for which supply is chronically short. Cramming rats up some sick fuck’s anus is a waste of a perfectly good colon, which some cancer patient somewhere could no doubt put to a better use.

85

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Actually, the original juries were composed of witnesses, not of impartial judges-of-fact, and they were held to precisely this standard – if they brought home a verdict which proved later to be false accusation of an innocent person, they suffered the punishment they had laid down for the innocent convicted person.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting. I didn’t know that. When was this the case?

86

[QUOTE=SnakesCatLady]
I simply cannot imagine the mindset of a person who can cold-bloodedly kill another person.
[/QUOTE]
Hmph. If everybody thought like that, there would be nobody to inject the condemned. Then where would we be?

87

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Hmph. If everybody thought like that, there would be nobody to inject the condemned. Then where would we be?
[/QUOTE]
Well even if nobody wanted to kill cold-bloodedly, I’m sure there’d still be people lining up to volunteer because they get their rocks off on that sort of thing. It makes a big difference when you’re passionate about your work.

88

[QUOTE=Miller]
Hang on a second. You think we should torture certain criminals to death, because the horrendous fate would be a stronger deterrent than the normal death penalty. But you also think that life in prison would be an even worse fate. So… why not get rid of the death penalty altogether, in all it’s forms, and give all murderers the worst punishment possible? Should that be the best deterrent of all?
[/QUOTE]

Because I don’t care what is bad or worse for them. The question is: here we have this piece of garbage, what should we do with it? We should give as much consideration to what the human trash wants as we would give actual garbage. Now a life sentence might be the greates deterrent for me, but not for someone else. Short of bringing them into Orwell’s room 101 to assess their ultimate fear, disregard what it is. Judge their fate solely on what would best benefit society, without inadvertently causing the victim’s family further pain by having them sent to some “work farm”.

[QUOTE=Miller]
Anyway, if the ultimate goal is putting these people to good public use, tearing them to pieces in a public festival of gore for the very dubious “deterrent” effect is pretty wrongheaded. Far better to kill them in a way that leaves as much of their carcass intact as possible, so that we can use it for organ donations, or cadavers for medical students, both of which are important needs for which supply is chronically short. Cramming rats up some sick fuck’s anus is a waste of a perfectly good colon, which some cancer patient somewhere could no doubt put to a better use.
[/QUOTE]

You make a good point. As long as we don’t lose the punishment factor for this human trash I’m with you. Let’s remove the organs while he’s alive. Sedated but alive. Film it, televise it. I’d bet fewer young children and the elderly will be raped in the future. Granted, there’s still the point we both brought up earlier—that this might actually work to desensitize siociety to horrific violence and increse it’s likelihood. Still, I think the idea, in some form, is worth exploring.

89

[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Well even if nobody wanted to kill cold-bloodedly, I’m sure there’d still be people lining up to volunteer because they get their rocks off on that sort of thing. It makes a big difference when you’re passionate about your work.
[/QUOTE]

No one need get their rocks off on killing someone to see the value in doing it and carrying it out.

90

[QUOTE=magellan01]
No one need get their rocks off on killing someone to see the value in doing it and carrying it out.
[/QUOTE]
No, but it helps.

91

[QUOTE=magellan01]
No one need get their rocks off on killing someone to see the value in doing it and carrying it out.
[/QUOTE]
With that philosophy, one can justify practically anything.

92

[QUOTE=magellan01]
You make a good point. As long as we don’t lose the punishment factor for this human trash I’m with you. Let’s remove the organs while he’s alive. Sedated but alive. Film it, televise it. I’d bet fewer young children and the elderly will be raped in the future. Granted, there’s still the point we both brought up earlier—that this might actually work to desensitize siociety to horrific violence and increse it’s likelihood. Still, I think the idea, in some form, is worth exploring.
[/QUOTE]

The problem with that idea is going to be finding doctors willing to vivisect a human being. As I understand it, they already have enough trouble finding doctors willing to preform lethal injections. When they’ve got a living patient lying there staring back at them, I think you’re going to have a pretty rough time finding a doctor willing to wield the knife.

93

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
With that philosophy, one can justify practically anything.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but we’re talking about things that are legal.

94

[QUOTE=Miller]
The problem with that idea is going to be finding doctors willing to vivisect a human being. As I understand it, they already have enough trouble finding doctors willing to preform lethal injections. When they’ve got a living patient lying there staring back at them, I think you’re going to have a pretty rough time finding a doctor willing to wield the knife.
[/QUOTE]

How about teaching colleges? They’re alwayslooking for cadavers. This is even better. Yeah, only kidding. Another good point.

95

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but we’re talking about things that are legal.
[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t make it right.

96

Make up your mind. Do you really want the sentences meted out to violent criminals to be decided “solely on what would best benefit society”? Or is that goal secondary to keeping “the punishment factor”?

Your position seems to boil down to this: “I’m ignoring the evidence that execution does not actually provide a significant deterrent effect to violent crime; I’m ignoring the evidence that brutal public execution and torture methods have a negative effect for society as a whole; I’m ignoring the ethical and procedural difficulties involved in getting qualified personnel to carry out execution and torture in the ways I suggest; I just want to talk about watching bad people die in agony!”

You can “explore that idea” back in your bunk, “Judge”. There was no need to bring your sadistic fantasies out here in public.

97

A pretty horrendous crime, indeed.

I feel concerned with the sentiment of revenge that seems to guide the death penalty. I was under the impression that the law was supposed to be dispassionate and impartial, to help maintain structure and order in society. I fail to see how killing people will help to establish this, as it’s probably been rehashed over and over on these boards how punishment, from a strict behavioral perspective, is a really lousy way of deterring behavior.
I don’t see how it has any benefit to society whatsoever.

I think it somebody raped and murdered my loved one, I would want the killer to die a miserable, slow, and grueling death… but there is no way I would want the law to allow me to act on those feelings. The law is not for feelings, the law is for order and structure and the welfare of society. The law should protect other people against my desire for revenge, however understandable. My feelings should not dictate the law and nor should anyone else’s.

98

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Make up your mind. Do you really want the sentences meted out to violent criminals to be decided “solely on what would best benefit society”? Or is that goal secondary to keeping “the punishment factor”?
[/QUOTE]

I’d say you need to take them both into account. But that the punishment factor is secondary.

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Your position seems to boil down to this: “I’m ignoring the evidence that execution does not actually provide a significant deterrent effect to violent crime; I’m ignoring the evidence that brutal public execution and torture methods have a negative effect for society as a whole; I’m ignoring the ethical and procedural difficulties involved in getting qualified personnel to carry out execution and torture in the ways I suggest; I just want to talk about watching bad people die in agony!”
[/QUOTE]

No. I agree and have acknowledged that that the current way we execute people does NOT act as a deterrent. I’m offering an alternative that would have a greater deterrent effect. I’ve aknowledged, more than once that the state committing its own violence has negative effects, more than once. I’ve been exploring the rest. I know this is an emotional issue, but try to pay attention please.

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
You can “explore that idea” back in your bunk, “Judge”. There was no need to bring your sadistic fantasies out here in public.
[/QUOTE]

Yet, you’ve come back more than once to read and discuss. Interesting.

99

[QUOTE=magellan01]

I’d bet fewer young children and the elderly will be raped in the future. Granted, there’s still the point we both brought up earlier—that this might actually work to desensitize siociety to horrific violence and increse it’s likelihood. Still, I think the idea, in some form, is worth exploring.
[/QUOTE]

Surely the death penalty (and often the gruesome variety) has been around since the first caveman decided to bash someone on the head in revenge. If killing killers EVER worked as a deterrent then by 2007 we would be a completely murder free world. The death penalty clearly does not work as a deterrent.

Society will continue to throw up sadists, losers, miscreants and just plain evil people, it is up to the rest of us to be better. The way we punish our worst is how a society should be judged, if we act like rabid dogs in retaliation, then we should not be suprised at the animal behaviour those sickest/lowest in our society will show us.

It is amazing when you look at the list of countries with the death penalty, that the US is one of them. Talk about hanging around with the bad crowd…

100

[QUOTE=magellan01]
No. I agree and have acknowledged that that the current way we execute people does NOT act as a deterrent. I’m offering an alternative that would have a greater deterrent effect.
[/QUOTE]

What happens when society becomes desensitized to this new “alternative”? You’re going to run out of creative ways of torturing people sooner or later, right? What then?
LilSheste