Take this story involving the death of a 10-year old who was denied water for five days, left in a room without air-conditioning in the sun and had his mouth stuffed with peanut butter as punishment for wetting his bed.
Now obviously, these parents are fucked in the head and deserve the full weight of the law reaped on them. But beyond that, here’s a question for you. Given the manner in which the 10-year old died, couldn’t it be argued that these people don’t deserve any better treatment than what they gave the 10-year old? Why would it not be permissible to let these people rot in the desert as punishment for their crimes? Why do people deserve to be treated with-- for lack of a better word-- respect regardless of the situation and circumstance?
Edit: This doesn’t just pertain to the couple in the link. This also relates to individuals who commit rather heinous or simply outlandish crimes.
We don’t treat criminals in a civilized manner because we want to coddle them, we do it because we want to want to live in a civilized society. The kid’s dead so it doesn’t help him to torture the parents and it’s not the sort of thing other people will do because we went easy on them.
Because we aspire to be better than the criminals we prosecute. If we adopt their violence, we lower ourselves to their level. As a civilized nation, we are better than that.
So it’s all about giving off an air of moral superiority? I don’t find that to be a rather compelling reason. What purpose does aspiring to be better than the criminals we prosecute serve except to make some feel better about themselves?
Perhaps we could train up a bunch of professional tormentors, for purposes of enhanced penitence. The Chinese have a vast collection of literature on the subject and display a droll oriental gift for euphemism, as you might imagine. The Spanish, as well, though you might not expect that.
How would treating them as bad as they treated this child make balance the equation? Because people act monstrous isn’t license to act monstrous in return.
‘Permissible’ to who? The government can do just about anything it wants, including torturing people to death. The only check on government is the people’s willingness to sanction or tacitly allow certain behaviors…or not tolerate them. In our society we tolerate a certain behavior towards prisoners. This differs from what other societies throughout the world will tolerate, but it generally seems a good balance to the majority of Americans.
What they ‘deserve’ is beside the point. What they GET is justice, within the constraints of our society and what it will and won’t tolerate, and to the best of our collective ability. Also, before sanctioning torture, you should consider that this could (almost certainly would) lead to a very steep and very slippery slope, and would inevitably lead to people being tortured even though they are innocent. There have been a lot of cases lately that have been overturned because when looked at again the evidence for conviction was pretty thin…or even obviously fabricated. You might think that it’s ok to torture 99 guilty people and have one innocent one tortured by accident, and that this is acceptable…but as a society, we would rather curtail such behavior.
I’m all for locking such people away for the rest of their lives. I think that’s punishment enough. Why would we, as a society, want to stoop to the level of individuals who commit such crimes? How would that make us a better society?
It’s not an air of moral superiority. It’s the genuine article.
For most us, the reason we don’t torture people to death isn’t because it’s illegal. It’s because it’s immoral. If the law was changed and made it legal to torture somebody to death, it would still be immoral.
Or, as I said, giving the air of moral superiority. But, for argument’s sake, let’s say it’s actually about being morally superior to the criminals. What purpose does that solve? Again, that seems to serve no purpose except to make some individual feel better about themselves.
Who says it’s immoral? What’s immoral about it? If, for example, an individual willingly violates someone else’s right to live, why should their right to live be respected? Is this some kind of relativist game in which you don’t want to be perceived as doing the same or even doing worse than those you’re punishing, and as such argue that the punishment cannot equal or exceed the crime committed?
Assuming this is what you’re arguing, why does that matter?
It hands out a punishment equal to the crime committed. If one wants to act like an animal or wants to act like they are uncivilized, then they should be treated as such. It has little to do with primitive blood lust.
What purpose does torturing such people solve? How does it make us a better society to treat people in such a way? And what would it mean if we buried some criminals in the desert in some ant hill and covered them with honey, only to discover that they were in fact innocent? Or that the evidence that got them convicted was fabricated, or the trial skewed? Should we then put the jurors into the ant hill? The judge? The attorneys? (well, scratch that last one :p) The police? What if the person or persons who committed such crimes were insane?
For the purpose of this thread, we’re operating under the assumption that the guilty did, indeed, commit the crime and that they were in a sane state of mind when they did so.
It has everything to do with primitive blood lust. Your wanting to torture other people is about you feeling good, not about what is the best way to run a society.