A repeal of the eighth amendment would be necessary–again, unless we’re presupposing an Orwellian takeover of our system such that words may not be interpreted in any reasonable sense. The fact that something is subjective does not mean that it is meaningless. Again, reasonable people may disagree on what, for example, are the criteria for a pudding. Some would include mousse where others wouldn’t; some would include tofu-based monstrosities where others wouldn’t; some would include a self-propelled acidic D&D creature where others wouldn’t.
But that doesn’t mean that you may safely consider your telephone to be a pudding without being mocked for it.
Similarly, the fact that reasonable people may disagree on the exact boundaries of cruel & unusual punishment doesn’t mean that deliberate, bizarre torture is fair game.
You’re playing a very silly game here, in my opinion. Yes, there are interesting questions regarding public executions and the deterrent value of capital punishment, but you’ve raised them with a tremendously ill-conceived OP.
Mark the day and time: we are in complete agreement!!!
I opened the thread in the pit because I wanted to vent and enjoy some catharsis. During that process, the more serious issues crossed my mind and I tried to quickly jam them in. In hindsight, and as I’ve said, I should have opened two different threads. Absolutely. One here, one in GD. Too late for that now. We’re here, and I think those who are interested in some of the issues can participate with minor (now) confusion from my catharsis.
Care to comment on any of the issues you find interesting?
I think you would be better served by opening a new thread in GD, since there’s too many people who wouldn’t be able to get past thinking that you are a sick fuck, which were my first thoughts.
I think you need some factual basis for the assumption -more than just a feeling for the way the world works. In my experience, that can sometimes be way off base from how people actually act.
Because I doubt the deterrence value, I must come out in favour of the out-of-sight, painless and quick option.
If what you say about the value of life is true (and I take it you are referring to specifically upper-middle class America), I can see some merit in your point - although I’m assuming you left out a “not” in the part I bolded. I don’t agree that being used to death by disease necessarily immures you to death by gruesome execution. And I agree with your two caveats.
I don’t think humans always act in what we’d, as observers, perceive as their own best interest, or as pure animals. People are unpredictable, and hard to model.
Not even for this would I advocate the death penalty. The legal system is not infallible. I would, however, not object to something like the Oubliette.
I’ve never understood this either. Maybe it’s because an elderly person is frail and unable to defend themself? But so is anyone faced with a deadly weapon, or we’re saying a young woman should be able to get away. Or it’s the sexual aspect of rape and no one should be thinking anything sexual about an older person??
I’ve never understood this either. Maybe it’s because an elderly person is frail and unable to defend themself? But so is anyone faced with a deadly weapon, or we’re saying a young woman should be able to get away. Or it’s the sexual aspect of rape and no one should be thinking anything sexual about an older person??
It could be off. But it makes perfect sense, The oppposite doesn’t. I did, though, try to look at crime rates, and recidivism rates, for theft comparing countries with a more western philosophy with those which practice(d) the chopping off of fingers or hands. I couldn’t find one clean site or find two that could reasonably be compared to each other.
But isn’t that begging the question? You’re favoring a mode that would absolutley minimize any deterrent value that might possibly be extracted from the act because you believe there is—and therefore can’t be—any deterrence value. Right?
I did inadvertently omit a “not”. Thanks for reading for content. (An all too rare feat around here, if you ask me.) Just to clarify, I didn’t mean that illness alone would inure poeple to such an extent, but the combination of illness and accidents and wounds from battle in time of warfare. Come to think of it, I would bet that people would be more inured during times of warfare than during long eras of peace. Just a thought.
You’re absolutely correct. But I think that the most successful justice system would recognize certain animalistic truths as a starting point. I think this is the main reason we’ll continue to be so frustrated with our efforts againist terrorism. The unspoken agreement in a western war is: “I want to destroy you while I survive.” Since both sides feel that, negotiating a solution is a strong possibility. When one side sees dying in the cause as the best of all possible worlds, the equation is thrown out of whack.
So, while our normal human-ness can be overwritten by other considerations, it seems that the still lie at the foundation of who we are. Isamic extremism, as well as some gang activity, is proof of this, which goes to your point. But it is, I think, a small factor here in the U.S. right now. And even in Islamic states that might practice Sharia law, I wouldn’t be surprised if those that chopped off hands had a lower theft rate than those which didn’t. Would you grant that that is a safe assumption to make?
Perhaps so. But some things are more important, IMHO, then breeding absolute obedience to the law. I don’t want to live in a society where getting my hand cut off is official policy. I prefer compassion, whenever possible, towards my fellow human beings, even if those fellow human beings are thieving scumbags. I’d rather people refrain from stealing because they feel empathy towards others, rather than because they are terrified of the consequences. If we tilt too far towards keeping order via fear based methods, our society may be kept in order, but it will be kept in order for the wrong reasons.
A few things. One, I generally agree with what you say here. But the bad news is that some people will not refrain from stealini simply due to empathy or any sense of morel righteousness. I want those people to not steal, as well. Those are the ones that will feel the weight of our, or any, justice system. Not the others. Second, I hope you realize I was not advocating the chopping off of hands. I was merely using it to explore a point being discussed with Mr. Dibble. I do not believe that the loss of an item justifies maiming someone. Now if we’re talking about violent rape, repeatedly, and against a child, the elderly, ot someone mentally deficient, I DO say take the hatchet.
I absolutely agree that that goal is not simply to structure a system that breeds complete compliance with lawfulness. There is obvioulsy a trade-off. I do feel, from being around these boards, that I would draw the ideal line in a differetn place than others. But probably no two people would draw it precisely in the same spot.
Also, I’d like to apologize to you directly for my hasty and incorrect accusation earlier. Emotions can short-circuit the thoght process. Please accept my sincere apology.
Your use of quotation marks around the word justice leaves a lot of questions. Do you want real justice or not? Do you want that justice to be according to the laws of our justice system? Do you want the laws of our justice system to be in accord with the Constitution of the United States?
Quotation marks change the implication of the word or words they surround. My favorite example is the sentence from the newspaper that said:
Just a suggestion, magellan, but ease up on labelling people as garbage and trash. Such labelling is one of the things that is really bad for our society. We had better learn to give a shit about those people. Reality tells us that they are going to be out and among us again. We need to do everything possible to decrease their violent impulses and increase their abilities to function normally in society if they are released.
Now you’re thinking like the murderer you want to kill. I’ll bet he experienced a catharsis too. But violence just leads to more violence. After the catharsis, the tension builds up again.
Not everyone looks for release in revenge. When Robert Kennedy’s assassin was brought to trial, the Kennedy family made it known that they were against the death penalty. Their wishes had no legal standing, but it served as a reminder that their are other ways of dealing with feelings of despair and anger.
This would only be the case if I was arguing from first principles - but I’m not, I’m also arguing that the historic evidence supports the “no/negligible deterrence” premise. While you have argued against this, I don’t think you’ve sufficiently proved your case enough for this to count as me begging the question.
You’re arguing that any deterrence value is better than none, seems to me, but I’m weighing the possible deterrence against the likely increased brutalisation and desensitisation to violence of Society that public executions would cause. IMO, of course.
Perhaps we’re missing a contemporary “Western” example of a culture that has swift, severe punishment for a person who breaks the laws of the culture. How about the Mafia?
Can we say (I’m guessing we can, but I don’t know much about the Mafia) that Mafia members are more likely to abide by the rules of their subcultures than average Joes?
I don’t think we can from what I know of them. Unless you posit that all of the talk about loyalty to your boss and tradition is not actually part of their subculture.
Not saying they are less likely to abide by it: there are plenty of loyal underlings, and plenty of backstabbers, but the same goes in the non-mafia world.
ETA: which is not to say that there isn’t swift “justice” for transgressors, real or imagined, just that contrary to one’s expectations it doesn’t seem to cut down on transgressions a whole lot (a little, maybe.)
If he’s guilty, lock him away in a cell for the rest of his natural life. Let him never see another human face. Let him never hear another human voice. When he dies, bury him in an unmarked grave and forget his name.
No: that would be the death penalty, which I oppose. In an oubliette you get food and drink. But you only leave on dying or being pardoned or vindicated or having served your sentence.