Albert Fish. That fellow was quite a piece of work. In addition to killing and eating children, he tortured and mutilated himself. He looked forward with excitement to his date with the chair.
If we posit a justice system where punishment is part of what the system is supposed to do, how does the system punish a man like this? Beatings, torture, and physical abuse are things he apparently enjoyed receiving.
Please don’t derail this thread by ranting about how punishment shouldn’t be part of a justice system or that Fish was mentally ill and shouldn’t be punished. Also, let’s not turn this into a thread (soon locked) seeing who can come up with the most baroque forms of excruciation. In essence, we should discuss the punishment of one who enjoys pain and abuse.
Life in prison. I mean, what else can you do?
I’m against the death penalty in cases where imprisonment can prevent the prisoner from hurting anyone else, so I feel like this is all you can do in his case.
Sooner or later, our penal system isn’t about justice, or even about vengence. It’s about pest control. Kill him, or lock him up forever and pretend there’s a chance he could ever change. But be done with it.
In a case like this, I’m all for the death penalty. I’d say put a bullet in his head. that would take care of it.
Well, since he liked to torture himself, maybe being strapped to a soft, feather mattress and massaged?
How about burial alive? He has a cell, but it’s underground, and very small, with no mail, no natural light, no exercise yard, nothing but food and water 3x a day from up top, and no sharp objects to fuck himself up with. (Pull out all his teeth if his starts chewing himself.) Twice a year they dig him up for a physical, then shovel the dirt over again.
pPUT HIM IN THE COMFY CHAIR!!!
I know the OP requested that no one question the neccesity of “punishing” a psychopath, but I’ll do it anyway.
What is the purpose of punishment?
Against normal people, the purpose of punishment is twofold. It deters people from commiting the crime in the first place, since they don’t want the punishment. And for people who have already committed the crime, it provides negative reinforcement to not commit the crime again in the future.
How does that work against a psychopath? A psychopath isn’t detered by the threat of punishment.
There is no effective way to punish a psychopath, the only thing we can do against such a person is to protect ourselves from future violent crimes by locking them up for life or euthanizing them. Anything else is futile. Dreaming up elaborate torture scenarios is pointless.
I like the idea of putting him up in a comfortable room decorated with hearts and daises, change the fresh flowers every day, make sure he has plenty of the best possible foods to eat and show only Strawberry Shortcake and the 700 Club on TV. Allow as many evangelists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Wittinesses and Kirby salesmen to visit as possible.
Yes, give him the comfortable chair.
Next to a group of therapists with plenty of psychologists and psychiatrists on staff.
Perhaps a little ECT from time to time, coupled with an assortment of appropriate meds and therapeutic sessions with all of them.
Baby and coddle him, feed and pamper him, take him on expensive cruises from time to time in the Bahamas.
Eventually he will break. Eventually he will come to understand the pain he caused and be overwhelmed with guilt and regret.
Help him work his way through all of that too. Make him see, I mean really and truly see, that all life is a precious gift to be treasured. Make him understand that he does not have to be defined by his past, he has choices every day to live a better life in every way. Get him to acquire the insight to accept his past and then let it go so it does not harm him or anyone else ever again. Make him the happiest, healthiest most well adjusted and insightful human being on earth.
Then jab an ice pick in the base of his skull and stir vigorously.
Why would his apparent thrill at the thought of being put to death change anything? The death penalty is about justice and keeping that particular criminal from committing more crimes, not making him scared or worried or feel pain.
We did it. We had him ride the lightning, put him on a date with Old Sparky (maybe literally*), gave him a real charge.
(A reference to the unfortunately apocryphal tale that all the needles broken off under the skin in his groin caused a short circuit which necessitated that they electrocute him again.)
How about just skipping that last part? It’d be great if we really could cure deeply insane people like Fish – but then murdering the decent person who’s the end result of the process seems a little bit silly.
I’m afraid the OP is a dead end. There’s no point in considering “punishment” in a case like this. Such a case might show how useless the posited “justice” system is, and how it needs to be changed.
Bullet to the head and shallow grave in the woods.
Seriously, if we accept death penalty we should keep it as simple and as mundane as possible. It should be pragmatical act of eliminating beings that voided their certificate of humanity. No torture, no media show, no years upon years of waiting. Or, if we don’t accept death penalty lock him up and seal the doors. No book writing, no visitors, no letters from warped fans. Only steel door and silence.
Or, in other words, what Lumpy said. At this level it should be nothing more than pest control.
Punishment in this case is irrelevant. For the nut job in question, it will do no good, nor will it serve as a deterrent, since obviously people like this are not driven by the usual sticks and carrots. Albert Fish and his ilk are simply mad dogs that need to be put down.
+1 vote for a swift, efficient execution.
I like this subject. For a crime sentence one needs to think about several factors:
Locking up this criminal so they can’t commit crime while in jail.
Detering this criminal from commiting the crime again when back on the street.
Deterring other people from commiting the crime by making the “price” too high.
Expressing societies disapproval for that particular crime.
The sentence needs to be the greater of the above.
Historically, punishment has been part of virtually every justice system. If any of you are aware of one where it was not, please provide cites.
Societies, we must therefore conclude, value punishment. Whatever else happens, the guilty must be made to suffer as it were. Albert Fish was eliminated from society, and a good thing it was too, but was he made to suffer?
Grace Budd and his other victims spent their last moments in fear and agony. Fish? Not so much. The system manifestly demands punishment of the guilty. Fish was not punished. Therefore, the system failed.
Why do you think societies value punishment? What conclusion are you trying to make us reach? By your last sentence you seem to indicate that simply making the guilty suffer is a desired goal in this process. Why does this need to factor in? Justice seems to serve itself just fine when the goal is to protect society as a whole from dangerous elements such as Mr. Fish instead of also wishing sufficient suffering upon him as well. What is to gain from including suffering of the guilty into the equation other than deterrence for future crimes?
A rebuttal if you will. Please provide a cite of a society where punishment to inflict suffering on the guilty has engendered a lasting and effective period of reduction of crimes associated with these punishments. I sincerely (no sarcasm whatsoever intended) look forward to my ignorance being fought.
I never made any claims as to whether the guilty being made to suffer had any effect on crime. I said that it is obvious that societies do value punishment, in and of itself, since it has been a part of virtually every justice system in human history. I don’t need to defend claims I never made. Do you know of a justice system where punishment was not part of the system?
I suppose the main thrust of my post was to solidify my understanding of to what extent and to what end(s) punishment would be necessary for justice to be served per your OP. I personally see no reason to do anything to Mr. Fish other than incarcerate him until the end of his life, however that may come about. Why should we do anything else to him? What purpose would it serve? Doing more seems to enter into the realm of vengeance, and steps beyond mere punishment.
Edit: By vengeance I suppose this could mean either for perceived wrongs to either individuals or to society as a whole for transgressing its laws, but that seems to be perhaps a bit off topic. Just wanted to add that for clarity.