[QUOTE=XaMcQ]
It won’t lower the murder rate, because you’ll be conditioning your whole audience to think that torture and killing is exciting and fun.
[/QUOTE]
Heck, it might up the murder rate when sickos realize they can get their 15 minutes of fame that way.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
If the meaning of those words were etched in stone and didn’t change over time or from person to person, you might a point.
[/quote]
How the fuck would you interpret ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ to exclude what you described in your OP?
And this has fuckall to do with anything. Argumentum ad populum, as you falsely (and moronically) accused jsgoddess of employing earlier.
I agree with Maddox that abortions should be allowed up to the 75th trimester.
I kid, I kid.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
You may safely disregard any orders given you by neighborhood dogs, you know, even if they do claim to be Satan.
[/QUOTE]
That’s actually a good one. Credit where credit is due.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
This is idiotic. Yes, there’s room for disagreement on what precisely constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment,” just like there’s room for disagreement on what precisely constitutes chocolate. If you try to tell me that a rampaging elephant is chocolate, I’ll call you an idiot, and if you try to tell me that forcing someone to be eaten alive from the inside by rats is neither cruel nor unusual, I’ll do likewise. Strangely enough, in this case citing the constitution does end the argument, except when the argument is with someone who shits on the constitution.
[/QUOTE]
It certainly is idiotic. I have not argued that the rats scenario does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. It’s certainly unusual. And cruel, which was the point of bringing it up. Do I advocate actually making it part of the law, no. If you wouldn’t read solely to put my words in their worst possible light you would have realized that. But then you wouldn’t be you.
[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
Oh, magellan. While I’m sure your adolescent revenge fantasies salve the strains of maintaining such an unrivalled level of stupidity, surely even you must experience mild pangs of embarrassment when you find yourself trying, in all apparent seriousness, to argue that rats up the bum might not be cruel and unusual. Perhaps this might be one of those times when you want to take a step back, and take a look at quite what a ridiculous cul-de-sac you appear to have ridden your high horse into.
[/QUOTE]
See my post to LHoD. Is that all you take away from all my posts? The admitted super-extreme cathartic rant to make a point in the OP? Do none of the actual issues raised interest you? If not, thanks for stopping by on the bandwagon. If so, please comment on the issues put forth on this page.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
What percentage of people, if you polled them, do you think would be ok with the methods you advocate?
[/QUOTE]
Which methods? The stoning? The rats? Very few. But as far as the larger issue, the one I’ve been trying to discuss, I’d say a boat load. I’m sure that many people think that the death penalty is too good for some people. That people shouldn’t spend 20+ years gaming the system before they receive what they deserve. That executions more public may be a good thing, or at least, might have benefits.
[QUOTE=XaMcQ]
IMO, more harm would come of this than good. Much more. Making a spectacle out of the death penalty does nothing but raise the blood lust of the general population. We’ll return to the days of lynchings. Hell, maybe we can build new colosseums and make condemned criminals fight to the death for our amusement. There will be plenty of them, because the populace will clamour for more and more crimes to be punished by death if they get to be cheering spectators. Not enough murderers? We’ll do rapists too. And pedophiles, and the ‘three-strike’ felons. It won’t lower the murder rate, because you’ll be conditioning your whole audience to think that torture and killing is exciting and fun.
[/QUOTE]
I think you’re right. And have made this point more than once. As has Miller (I think) and others.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Get your rocks ready. Stoning at the highschool at noon.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t 'ave time to go to no stoning! 'E’s not well again!
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
That wasn’t in The Haj, but there was a scene where a guy was tied up in a sack with a bunch of wild desert cats, and then the guards beat the sack and he was clawed to death.
[/QUOTE]
I was really pretty sure it was The Haj. But you seem certain, so I’ll go with your recollection. Anyone recall the book with the rat scenario?
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Heck, it might up the murder rate when sickos realize they can get their 15 minutes of fame that way.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Particulalry if we moved to the gladiator model. They were rock stars.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I was really pretty sure it was The Haj. But you seem certain, so I’ll go with your recollection. Anyone recall the book with the rat scenario?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I clearly recall the live-rats-up-the-colon punishment being very graphically described as the obsessive fantasy of one of Sigmund Freud’s patients (an Austro-Hungarian military officer), in Freud for Beginners.
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
How the fuck would you interpret ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ to exclude what you described in your OP?
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t. See a few posts above. If were not cruel and unusual do you think it would have made the point I was trying to make? No. I had to choose something that was cruel and unusual.
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
And this has fuckall to do with anything. Argumentum ad populum, as you falsely (and moronically) accused jsgoddess of employing earlier.
[/QUOTE]
Huh? I was not using the idea that a large group of people would agree with me as a proof for the valididty of the proposition. I was merely responding to LHoD, pointing out that the words in his cite or open to interpretation and would vary from person to person and era to era.
Now as far as jsgoddess goes, I went back and looked at the exchange. Here is what she said that sparked my comment:
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Of course you don’t, but at least the massacre on this thread is more satisfying that the one on TV.
[/QUOTE]
Reading it again I must retract my accusation of Appeal to The Masses and apologize for it. She was merely making an observation that I was getting slaughtered by the masses and enjoying it, not using it as proof as to a point she was trying to make. So, my apologies. I was incorrect. I do however stand by the rest of that post (#61).
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Actually, I clearly recall the live-rats-up-the-colon punishment being very graphically described as the obsessive fantasy of one of Sigmund Freud’s patients (an Austro-Hungarian military officer), in Freud for Beginners.
[/QUOTE]
He he he. No, I’m sure it was in a novel. I would have bet it was The Haj. Oh well…
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Both of your comments here are due to you misreading. You seem to assume that what might be “a” reason is “the” reason" or the totality of my reasoning. Yes, the visciousness of his crime would qualify him for a more brutal punishment than if he didn’t commit it or committed a lesser one. This is not news. We do this all the time in our criminal justice system. For instance, not everyone qualifies for the death penalty. One has to have committed a certain type of crime, usually (always?) involving the intentional taking of another’s life. So, a person who rapes and murders the elderly or a young child would qualify for the maximum penalty we have to offer. Whatever it is. I was simply exploring offer something more severe. There will always be a range, and one punishment will always be the most severe. The only question is what will it be.
[/QUOTE]
And that’s all that was laid out in the OP. The rest of it arose from subsequent discussion, which wasn’t what I referenced in my comment. But OK, say I misread and you only committed the fallacy in part of your argument. I’m afraid that still invalidates the whole. But let’s leave that aside and deal with the rest of your argument…
[QUOTE=magellan01]
So, that’s one of my stated reasons for exploring this, another—and this is what you seem to have missed—is the question of whether we can/should change the maximum punishment we offer to act as a deterrent.
[/QUOTE]
This of course assumes the deterrent argument is valid
[QUOTE=magellan01]
And if we do decide we are going to take someone’s life, is it more moral to see that some good comes from that drastic act? Or is it more moral to allow that life to be taken almost unnoticed, like throwing out the trash? I think there is a serioous question here.
[/QUOTE]
I agree it’s a serious, good question.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Now that does not automatically mean that we should make the extreme more severe and/or turn it into a spectacle. If doing so would have a greater negative effect on society, we should not. And that is where I basically come out. But I do not think that means we just throw up our hands. For instance, moral arguments to the death penalty aside,
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think you can so casually toss them aside, but it’s your hypothetical - we’ll play your way
[QUOTE=magellan01]
if there were a way to make putting someone to death act as a more meaningful deterrent—without adding to whatever cruelty you might associate with it—wouldn’t that be a good thing?
[/QUOTE]
Again, this is begging the question that it already acts as a deterrent - something that isn’t historically true.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
In the real world, I think, as I’ve stated, in some cases we should try to close the gap between a conviction worthy of the death penalty and the sentence being carried out. Please note “in some cases”. I am strongly in favor of putting many fewer people to death. But for those clear-cut cases (and you can raise the bar as high as you wish here for the sake of argument) we should fast-track it. Ideally, inside a year. I believe that if this is done, the death penalty will, in fact, start to act as a deterrent. Why? Basic psychology.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree - in various historic periods, the gap between crime and execution was often a lot less, but there’s no evidence that it acted as a deterrent at all - Medieval Europe wasn’t any safer than today, in fact, a lot less so.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
The more immediate a punishment is tied to a specific act, the better able people (animals) are to understand the relationship. If everyone who stepped on a particular sidewalk died immediately, we’d very quickly understand that doing X = Y and would avoid the sidewalk. If, on the other hand, people who stepped on this deadly sidewalk didn’t die for ten years, it would be difficult to see that we should avoid stepping on the sidewalk.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think the analogy holds for something as complicated as crime and the motivations therefore.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
The more examples we can have of the committing of a heinous crime being immediatlely associated with death, the more those death sentences would act as a deterrent.
[/QUOTE]
I think you have failed to provide any evidence that this would in fact be the case.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Leaving my cathartic stoning idea aside, agree? Disagree? Where? Why?
[/QUOTE]
I disagree, as I’ve said. Firstly, of course, I’m absolutely against the death penalty for any reason anyway, but leaving that aside, as you asked, I still think that you are claiming deterrence without any evidence to back you up - I think the evidence of History is actually against you. Cruel, immediate punishments have not, historically, been seen to act as a deterrent at all. You need to back that up with evidence, rather than your assumptions about how human psychology should work, if we were pure Pavlovian entities.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Do I advocate actually making it part of the law, no.
[/QUOTE]
To push a little deeper with Left Hand of Dorkness’s cul-de-sac argument, perhaps not, but at best you’re advocating a backdoor solution for circumventing the law. Avoiding the ratification process for changing the constitution doesn’t really buttress your arguments or show deep analysis of the issues.
This whole gangsters being deterred by fear of state punishment doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. These guys clearly aren’t deterred by the punishment meted out by ‘business’ rivals - ranging from ‘execution style slayings’ to horrendous torture/murders, so why would they be deterred by anything the state has to offer ?
For ‘sex-crimes’ the situation’s a little different, but for deterrence to work the criminal would need to be
a) thinking rationally
b) in control of his/her actions
c) have an expectation of being caught
Nobody expects deterrence or revenge to prevent shark attacks - why would it stop sex-crimes ?
ETA - I believe the whole rats in the basement thing was featured in the aptly named ‘American Psycho’.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
And that’s all that was laid out in the OP. The rest of it arose from subsequent discussion, which wasn’t what I referenced in my comment. But OK, say I misread and you only committed the fallacy in part of your argument. I’m afraid that still invalidates the whole. But let’s leave that aside and deal with the rest of your argument…
[/QUOTE]
And yes, let’s leave the fallcy discussion aside, as we don’t agree on the fallacy or whether what I’ve offered falls under it. I appreciate your willingness to suspend the morality of the death penalty issue, in order to discuss points that presuppose it.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
This of course assumes the deterrent argument is valid.
[/QUOTE]
I do not claim that it is a deterrent. I do claim it can be a deterrent. If wielded strongly enough, almost anything can become a deterrent. I admit that that is an assumption, but it seems quite reasonable to me.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I agree it’s a serious, good question.
[/QUOTE]
Where would you come out on it?
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Again, this is begging the question that it already acts as a deterent - something that isn’t historically true.
[/QUOTE]
By “more meaningful” I meant moving froma deterrence factor that is insignificant (I do doubt it is zero) to one that would create change. We agree that it is currently not a meaningful deterrent. But that doesn’t surprise me in the least. With the 20 years or so for the sentence to be carried out, the link between crime-punishment is withered. And then when the day of payment finally does come, if there are articles about it, it’s usually about the appeals process or something else other than the story of the crimes themselves.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I disagree - in various historic periods, the gap between crime and execution was often a lot less, but there’s no evidence that it acted as a deterrent at all - Medieval Europe wasn’t any safer than today, in fact, a lot less so.
[/QUOTE]
This is an interesting point. But it copares apples and oranges. I would say that death back them was more routine. People dying from simple illness, wounds, etc. was more prevalent than it is today. I think this is true even if you go back to the 1800s. Many, many more families would have suffered the loss of a family member, so it did not have as much as of smack as it does today. Not to say that it has ever been easy losing a loved one, but with the life expectancy so much lower, death seemed more inevitable. So, it would not surprise me that in Medieval Europe the death penalty, as immediate and as public as it might have been, would act as a strong deterrent. Two other factors also come into play. The likelihood that committing a crime would result in getting caught, and the populace becoming inured to the violent display over time. That last point, I think, would happen again, and would argue against any notion I’ve proposed, save the speeding up up the death sentence in those rare cases.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I don’t think the analogy holds for something as complicated as crime and the motivations therefore.
I think you have failed to provide any evidence that this would in fact be the case.
I disagree, as I’ve said. Firstly, of course, I’m absolutely against the death penalty for any reason anyway, but leaving that aside, as you asked, I still think that you are claiming deterrence without any evidence to back you up - I think the evidence of History is actually against you. Cruel, immediate punishments have not, historically, been seen to act as a deterrent at all. You need to back that up with evidence, rather than your assumptions about how human psychology should work, if we were pure Pavlovian entities.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll disagree here. In the end we are humans, animals. We tend to seek pleasure and avoid pain and continue living. We tend to want to stay with loved ones and watch our children grow up.
I think I’ve covered the rest in my previous answer.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
Magellan has hinted that things may one day change (in his direction), but has the “cruel and unusual” standard ever evolved in the direction of being more cruel instead of less?
[/QUOTE]
At one point, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty violated that standard, and then a few years later, decided that it didn’t after all. I’m sure there were some more subtle legalities involved, but it does seem close to the mark.
[QUOTE=Themenin]
To push a little deeper with Left Hand of Dorkness’s cul-de-sac argument, perhaps not, but at best you’re advocating a backdoor solution for circumventing the law. Avoiding the ratification process for changing the constitution doesn’t really buttress your arguments or show deep analysis of the issues.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see how the ratification process would help anything. The term “cruel and unusual punishment” is subjective. What change, specifically, do you think needs to be ratified?
[QUOTE=Themenin]
This whole gangsters being deterred by fear of state punishment doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. These guys clearly aren’t deterred by the punishment meted out by ‘business’ rivals - ranging from ‘execution style slayings’ to horrendous torture/murders, so why would they be deterred by anything the state has to offer ?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think the situation with rivals comes into play much. I think the mindset when death is a possibility and BOTH sides are armed is quite different. Add to that that being shot on the street is usually, or often, survivable. And when it is, the shooting is viewed as a benefit, as it gains the victim street cred.
[QUOTE=Themenin]
TFor ‘sex-crimes’ the situation’s a little different, but for deterrence to work the criminal would need to be
a) thinking rationally
b) in control of his/her actions
c) have an expectation of being caught
Nobody expects deterrence or revenge to prevent shark attacks - why would it stop sex-crimes ?
[/QUOTE]
Are you claiming that sex criminals are no more rational than fish? That they are guided like a shark, purely by instinct. This analogy goes way too far.
But regarding your litmus test, I would say that a sex criminal passes all—A, B, and C. If they did not, they would simpy feel the urge and rape, whether they were in a dark alley or in the supermarket on Saturday afternoon. The fact that they attempt to commit the crime, with some degree of planning in hopes of not being caught seems to prove that point, no?
I would bet that the threat of having your dick chopped off if you committed a violent/multiple rapes would act as a pretty strong deterrent. I don’t know the numbers, but my guess is that theft is considerably less prevalent in places where the offense could result in the loss of a finger or hand. Certainly the incidence of repeat offenders would go down considerably. Especially after two.
ETA - I believe the whole rats in the basement thing was featured in the aptly named ‘American Psycho’.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Miller]
At one point, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty violated that standard, and then a few years later, decided that it didn’t after all. I’m sure there were some more subtle legalities involved, but it does seem close to the mark.
[/QUOTE]
They didn’t explicitly rule that the death penalty was cruel and unusual. They simply vacated every single death penalty conviction then on the books. They didn’t come up with a unified coherent rationale for their decision, every justice wrote a seperate concurring or dissenting opinion. The legislatures made some adjustments to their death penalty laws, and a few years later the court accepted those as being constitutional.
Even from a purely practical standpoint, magellans strategy would be counterproductive I think.
If I were a murderer, and the magellans of this world had their way, I would never let the cops take me in alive. I think we’d have a lot more cop killings since dying in a gunfight is preferable to being tortured to death.