# Let's rethink "cruel and unusual" punishment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2011, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561 "2011-08-30T00:28:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/61 "2011-08-30T02:31:13Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Luckily for us all, the Founding Fathers made this nifty way to amend the Constitution if we want to change it (and, no, it’s not through reinterpreting the language on the paper). If I could, there are some things I would change. Does that correlate to hating the Constitution? Only in your mind, I suppose. > > But really. That’s neither here nor there. Well, seems to me the point of being a conservative is to conserve, y’know ? Keep things as they are, were, and have always been, amen. If you want to change something as fundamental as the Constitution, you’re not a conservative. You’re just a progressive going in another direction. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/62 "2011-08-30T02:37:18Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I’m not talking about objectivity. I’m talking about a simple reason for stating that it’s immoral to torture someone to death. **Any** reason at all. “Because it is” really isn’t a reason. That’s more of an intellectual cop-out. You sure seem to be talking about objectivity to me, otherwise your question doesn’t make any sense. Any moral decision is ultimately rendered down to, “Because I said so.” You want an answer for why torture is immoral? Why don’t you provide one yourself, and we can go from there? You seem to be taking the position that torturing that ten year old boy to death was immoral. Why? What makes that act immoral, other than, “Because I say it is?” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/63 "2011-08-30T02:50:35Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > As you see in my quote you quoted, I clearly stated that sometimes torturing someone to death _is_ immoral. It’s the opposite side who’s stated that it’s allows immoral (or, more specifically, never moral). Speaking as a representative of that opposite side, I’d say our position is more consistent. We believe torturing somebody to death is always immoral - doesn’t matter if it’s Michael James and Tina Alberson torturing their child to death or somebody else torturing James and Albertson to death. Both are wrong. You say your position is that sometimes torturing somebody to death is immoral and sometimes it isn’t. What standard do you use to decide whether it is or isn’t? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/64 "2011-08-30T02:53:16Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You sure seem to be talking about objectivity to me, otherwise your question doesn’t make any sense. Any moral decision is ultimately rendered down to, “Because I said so.” You want an answer for why torture is immoral? Why don’t you provide one yourself, and we can go from there? You seem to be taking the position that torturing that ten year old boy to death was immoral. Why? What makes that act immoral, other than, “Because I say it is?” I suggest the OP read up on David Hume’s famous “[Is-Ought](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem)” problem if he thinks he can come up with an “objective” system of morality that has nothing to do with one’s own personal emotional sentiment. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/65 "2011-08-30T03:00:47Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Yeah. Ain’t none weird 'bout dat. :dubious: Not in the slightest. > [@](#): > > Of course those two still involve someone doing something to them. In the first case, all the people driving them into the desert and leaving them there know damn well what they’re doing. Every hour they’re not turning that bitch around to go and get their prisoners back is one more hour where they can imagine the pain and suffering of their wards slowly dehydrating and going insane with thirst. > In the second, the people who bring them the food can _see_, day after day, of their prisoners turn into Auschwitz-style stick people. IOW, the decision not to do something, is still fundamentally “doing something”. > > If that doesn’t seem like something that’d do something to your psyche, if you don’t think your conscience would hammer away at you for doing that kind of thing, maybe you should ask yourself whether you’re OK, as a person. I’m sorry, but this is a rather weak contention. How is that fundamentally _any_ different to those persons who administer a lethal injection? Actually, leaving someone to die in the desert or feeding someone every couple of days is probably not nearly as bad as administering a lethal injection, as someone is actually being “done to” in the latter instance. > [@](#): > > But I’m going to ask you a different question altogether: what, in your opinion, would be accomplished by us running with your fucked up eye for an eye ? Do you think people would be less inclined to do fucked up things ? Do you think this C&U punishment would deter people more than the death penalty, or life in prison ? If so, why? > It’s a trick question, of course. Do you know why? > > Criminals, by definition, don’t plan on getting caught. If they thought they risked getting caught, they wouldn’t do the crime in the first place. Criminals might be morons, but they’re not stupid. Harshing up the punishment doesn’t do jack squat to modify this equation - they’ll still do whatever it is they’re doing, because they’ll still think they can get away with it. So what’s the point of debasing ourselves, exactly ? Well, first of all, you’ll notice that I said nothing about deterrence, so I need not answer that question. Second of all, I’ve answered the first question about four or five times now, so I’ll answer it again. My idea would mean that the victims are given the same relative value as those who act against them, unlike now where those who act against others is given a greater value than those they act again. It’s actually really simple. If I kill you, but my life cannot be ended because of it, then what does that say of my relative value versus yours? > [@Miller](#): > > You sure seem to be talking about objectivity to me, otherwise your question doesn’t make any sense. Any moral decision is ultimately rendered down to, “Because I said so.” You want an answer for why torture is immoral? Why don’t you provide one yourself, and we can go from there? You seem to be taking the position that torturing that ten year old boy to death was immoral. Why? What makes that act immoral, other than, “Because I say it is?” **A** reason needs not be objective. **A** reason can be subjective. **A** reason is some kind of explanation or justification for some position or statement. Whoever I was responding to didn’t give any kind of reason at all. (S)he just stated that “It’s immoral to torture someone to death” and when I asked why, responded with “Because it is”. In an honest debate, that’s not going to fly. Furthermore, it’s generally common courtesy to answer the question posed to oneself before demanding someone answer the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/66 "2011-08-30T03:02:50Z")
> [@Indygrrl](#): > > Hey now, I made that point first!🙂 My appologies. :). It’s hard to keep up sometimes when reading on an iPad. It’s a good point though, regardless. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/67 "2011-08-30T03:05:44Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Speaking as a representative of that opposite side, I’d say our position is more consistent. We believe torturing somebody to death is always immoral - doesn’t matter if it’s Michael James and Tina Alberson torturing their child to death or somebody else torturing James and Albertson to death. Both are wrong. Consistency doesn’t mean you fall into the “always”/“never” categories. That’s usually how you get labeled an ‘extremist’. > [@](#): > > You say your position is that sometimes torturing somebody to death is immoral and sometimes it isn’t. What standard do you use to decide whether it is or isn’t? A simple one. Once you violate someone else’s right to live and to not be acted against in a certain manner, you forfeit your own right to live and to not be acted against in the same manner. I said this earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Amasia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Amasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amasia)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/68 "2011-08-30T03:06:50Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Take [this](http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20110826-boy-who-died-of-dehydration-was-punished-for-wetting-bed.ece) 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. Permitting torture empowers a government to rule based on fear, rather than a democratic ideal of a mandate from the people. Inflicting pain purely for punishment places an incredible amount of power in an organization that is prone to corruption and mistakes. There are fundamental rights that every person possesses. Even if a state is in the position of taking a person’s life (be it for punitive or military measures), our society has developed an understanding that unnecessary pain or torture destroys the understood respect for human life held both at an individual and societal level. To be clearer, a society where people respect the rights of their fellow human beings is not a society in which torture is condoned. This is really quite simple: either you subscribe to the belief that there are basic human rights or you don’t. If you don’t, then your proposed schema presents no problems. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/69 "2011-08-30T03:24:31Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > A simple one. Once you violate someone else’s right to live and to not be acted against in a certain manner, you forfeit your own right to live and to not be acted against in the same manner. I said this earlier. So your principle is that it’s wrong if you do it first? That if I torture you on Monday, then it’s morally okay for you to torture me on Tuesday? But if you had tortured me on Sunday, then my Monday torture was morally correct? Seems kind of strange to argue that both of us tortured the other but one of us was right and one of us was wrong, depending on what order we took. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/70 "2011-08-30T03:24:45Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > My idea would mean that the victims are given the same relative value as those who act against them, unlike now where those who act against others is given a greater value than those they act again. It’s actually really simple. If I kill you, but my life cannot be ended because of it, then what does that say of my relative value versus yours? It says that both lives are equally valuable in the eyes of society. If it was wrong for you to take someone else’s life, then it’s wrong for us to take your life. This one kind of puzzles me, because you seem to be trying to spin it as meaning the opposite: that if you kill someone, and the state refuses to take your life, the state has somehow devalued the life of your victim. But I don’t see any possible way to reason yourself into that position. If you kill someone, you are, implicitly, stating that life has little value for you. If the state then kills you, are they not agreeing with your valuation of life? If the state refuses to kill you, aren’t they suggesting that life has more value that you give it? How do you reason that a refusal to kill someone evinces a lower respect for the value of life? > [@](#): > > **A** reason needs not be objective. **A** reason can be subjective. Sure it can. Except that you’re explicitly rejecting subjective reasons. A subjective reason is, by definition, “Because I said so.” If you want a reason for something other than, “Because I said so,” then you are not asking with a subjective reason. You’re asking for an objective reason. > [@](#): > > Whoever I was responding to didn’t give any kind of reason at all. (S)he just stated that “It’s immoral to torture someone to death” and when I asked why, responded with “Because it is”. In an honest debate, that’s not going to fly. Why not? Why is, “Because I said so” not a perfectly valid answer for this kind of debate? Can you give an example of a better answer? > [@](#): > > Furthermore, it’s generally common courtesy to answer the question posed to oneself before demanding someone answer the opposite. Not really. Some questions can’t be answered without further information from the person posing the question. This appears to be one of those times, because you are presenting your question in such a way that it appears to be impossible to answer it. If you provided an answer to your own question, we could either resolve the communication difficulties that are preventing us from understanding your question, or use your answer to demonstrate to you the flaw in your question. Getting huffy because “you asked first,” and then didn’t get the answer you wanted, isn’t going to do anything to move the debate forward. > [@](#): > > Once you violate someone else’s right to live and to not be acted against in a certain manner, you forfeit your own right to live and to not be acted against in the same manner. Why should this be true? Remember, per your own rules of debate, “Because I said so,” is not an acceptable answer. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/71 "2011-08-30T03:30:16Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Once you violate someone else’s right to live and to not be acted against in a certain manner, you forfeit your own right to live and to not be acted against in the same manner. I said this earlier. “But Mom! He started it!” I don’t care _who_ started it-I want you _both_ to knock it off right now!" Sound familiar? ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/72 "2011-08-30T03:35:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So your principle is that it’s wrong if you do it first? That if I torture you on Monday, then it’s morally okay for you to torture me on Tuesday? But if you had tortured me on Sunday, then my Monday torture was morally correct? > > Seems kind of strange to argue that both of us tortured the other but one of us was right and one of us was wrong, depending on what order we took. I don’t see where I endorsed vigilantism… The principle isn’t that it’s wrong if you do it first; the principle is that if you do to another you lose your right to not be done against in the same manner. I would have figured that most people realize that to be constrained to the law, but apparently not. But moving on… If I, for example, viciously beat you today, I could be jailed for it tomorrow. Is that morally problematic? Few people would say it is. It’s the same principle with my statement. The only difference is that I’m stating that, conceivably, if I viciously beat you today, that instead of being jailed tomorrow, I could be viciously beaten myself. It’s the same thing in effect to being jailed for my actions against you the day prior, just with a different punishment. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/73 "2011-08-30T03:37:46Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Not in the slightest. _blink, blink_ _backs away slowly and without making eye contact_ > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, but this is a rather weak contention. How is that fundamentally _any_ different to those persons who administer a lethal injection? Well, fundamentally, nothing. Which is in part why I, like most of the western world, am against the death penalty. Mechanically however, all countries who do or did use the death penalty made it a point to keep it quick and clean. If you’re going to kill a criminal, kill him. Making him suffer before you do accomplishes what, exactly ? > [@](#): > > Actually, leaving someone to die in the desert or feeding someone every couple of days is probably not nearly as bad as administering a lethal injection, as someone is actually being “done to” in the latter instance. Yeah ? By what standard ? > [@](#): > > Well, first of all, you’ll notice that I said nothing about deterrence, so I need not answer that question. Second of all, I’ve answered the first question about four or five times now, so I’ll answer it again. > > My idea would mean that the victims are given the same relative value as those who act against them, unlike now where those who act against others is given a greater value than those they act again. Which accomplishes… what ? What objective purpose is served ? ---
**Author:** ![Amasia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Amasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amasia)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/74 "2011-08-30T03:40:52Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Actually, leaving someone to die in the desert or feeding someone every couple of days is probably not nearly as bad as administering a lethal injection, as someone is actually being “done to” in the latter instance. You realize you just contradicted your entire argument that slowly dying of starvation/lack of food is an especially horrible way to die? Nice work! ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/75 "2011-08-30T03:44:44Z")
Notice that OMG isn’t proposing that we torture criminals because it will deter crime, or that it will reform criminals, or that it will make our society a better place. He proposes that we torture criminals because they deserve it, and since people should get what they deserve, we’re morally obligated to torture those who deserve to be tortured, regardless of any bad effects this will have on the rest of us. Of course, this is contrary to everyone else’s idea of penology. We have a goal, to protect ourselves from bad actions. We try to accomplish this goal in several ways, but the main way we do it is by isolating people who we deem to be dangerous. We put serial killers in jail because if they’re in jail they aren’t out murdering prostitutes. It wouldn’t make sense to rape a serial killer and stuff his body in a refrigerator, because it wouldn’t make us any safer than if we locked him up. Or, if locking him up won’t work, we can give him the Ol Yeller treatment. He’s sick, his sickness is dangerous to the rest of us, he won’t get well, so we put a bullet in his brain. Not because he deserves a bullet in his brain, or even deserves to be locked up, but because we don’t want to have to live with a serial killer for a neighbor. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/76 "2011-08-30T04:09:03Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Read the link in the OP. That’s what started the discussion. You’ll notice that said individuals are without a doubt guilty and they’re not insane or suffering from any kind of mental illness. But you want to inflict this same sort of thing on others as well; you stated in the OP: > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > 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. So allow me ask you to answer your own questions: > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > 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? I count three questions there; let’s see your answers to them, please. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/77 "2011-08-30T04:17:38Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > It says that both lives are equally valuable in the eyes of society. If it was wrong for you to take someone else’s life, then it’s wrong for us to take your life. This one kind of puzzles me, because you seem to be trying to spin it as meaning the opposite: that if you kill someone, and the state refuses to take your life, the state has somehow devalued the life of your victim. But I don’t see any possible way to reason yourself into that position. If you kill someone, you are, implicitly, stating that life has little value for you. If the state then kills you, are they not agreeing with your valuation of life? If the state refuses to kill you, aren’t they suggesting that life has more value that you give it? How do you reason that a refusal to kill someone evinces a lower respect for the value of life? How valuable can someone’s life be if the punishment for taking their life is less than the cost to the person killed for taking their life? The idea that society cares about both of them equally by refusing to inflict a punishment on the perpetrator equal to that of what the other suffered simply cannot be true. One is being valued more than the other in the given situation. Now, I have to say that your contention that if the state kills me that it agrees with my valuation of life to not make much sense. If I, for example, kill someone, we can assume that their life had little value to me or, more specifically, less value than my own. If the state kills me, it does not hold that the state agrees with my valuation of life. That is quite a leap in logic. If the state kills me, it more than likely does so because it _disagrees_ with my valuation of life. If the other individual was worth less than me in actuality, then it wouldn’t make sense for the state to kill me. Fine me and/or jail me, maybe. But outright kill me? No. Furthermore, I would presumably value my life more than the state, meaning that the state would be attributing a lesser value to myself than I place on myself. And quite probably, that value would be equal to the value of the individual I killed. In effect, what this means is that I value myself too high or I value someone else too low. Either way, the state would disagree my assessment of value.\* > [@](#): > > Sure it can. Except that you’re explicitly rejecting subjective reasons. A subjective reason is, by definition, “Because I said so.” If you want a reason for something other than, “Because I said so,” then you are not asking with a subjective reason. You’re asking for an objective reason. “Because it is!” isn’t a subjective reason-- or a reason at all-- because there is no reason given. A subjective reason would be, for example, “It’s wrong to torture someone to death because all humans have an inherent value which is to be respected”. That’s a subjective reason. The answer I was given was far removed from anything of the sort. Considering the fact that (s)he scoffed at the notion of even explaining why torturing someone to death was immoral in the first place, I think it’s pretty fair to assume that the “Because it is!” was given solely as a way to avoid answering the question. > [@](#): > > Why not? Why is, “Because I said so” not a perfectly valid answer for this kind of debate? Can you give an example of a better answer? (1) Because it’s not 😉 (2) I did above. > [@](#): > > Not really. Some questions can’t be answered without further information from the person posing the question. This appears to be one of those times, because you are presenting your question in such a way that it appears to be impossible to answer it. If you provided an answer to your own question, we could either resolve the communication difficulties that are preventing us from understanding your question, or use your answer to demonstrate to you the flaw in your question. Getting huffy because “you asked first,” and then didn’t get the answer you wanted, isn’t going to do anything to move the debate forward. There was nothing impossible about my question. It wasn’t a trick question and it most certainly wasn’t hard, either. I merely asked someone who made a statement _why_ that statement was true, and they refused-- and still have refused-- to explain why it’s true. It has little to do with receiving the answer I want and everything to do with not receiving an answer at all. I should try that way of arguing. I wonder how well that would go over? 😛 > [@](#): > > Why should this be true? Remember, per your own rules of debate, “Because I said so,” is not an acceptable answer. It shouldn’t be true. But it would be nice if it were true. \*This could also work in the case that society values the perpetrator to be worth less than the one acted against. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/78 "2011-08-30T04:25:11Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Mechanically however, all countries who do or did use the death penalty made it a point to keep it quick and clean. If you’re going to kill a criminal, kill him. Making him suffer before you do accomplishes what, exactly? A humane killing is a bit of an oxymoron. Death is death. Slow or painful, the end result is the same. > [@](#): > > Yeah ? By what standard? The standard by which actively injecting someone with a dose of lethal injection actively kills them, while dropping them off in the middle of the desert does not. > [@](#): > > Which accomplishes… what ? What objective purpose is served? Accomplishes in what terms? As a manner of fewer crimes? Probably little. As a manner of providing a manner of equity between the perpetrator and the victim? A lot. > [@Amasia](#): > > You realize you just contradicted your entire argument that slowly dying of starvation/lack of food is an especially horrible way to die? Nice work! I think you’re a bit confused on one of my responses to what someone else wrote out. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I count three questions there; let’s see your answers to them, please. Yes, it shouldn’t be impermissible and they don’t. Not hard questions. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/79 "2011-08-30T04:37:26Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > A humane killing is a bit of an oxymoron. Death is death. Slow or painful, the end result is the same. Agreed. Therefore, if we decide that someone needs killing, then why not do it the quick way? Once they’re dead, they no longer exist, and the pain and suffering we inflicted on them before their death is meaningless. To them. It only matters to us, the living. > [@](#): > > The standard by which actively injecting someone with a dose of lethal injection actively kills them, while dropping them off in the middle of the desert does not. Huh? How is that different? If I push you out of an airplane with a parachute, have I actively killed you or not? If I point a gun at you and pull the trigger, I haven’t actively killed you, I’ve just put you in the path of a bullet, and the bullet kills you, not me. > [@](#): > > Accomplishes in what terms? As a manner of fewer crimes? Probably little. As a manner of providing a manner of equity between the perpetrator and the victim? A lot. And here’s the nub. WHY is it important to create equity between the perpetrator and the victim? If there is a case where the victim can be made whole, then it makes sense. If I steal a candy bar, it makes sense for me to have to give back the candy bar, and one extra. But if I chop off someone’s foot, chopping off my foot doesn’t give the victim back his foot. And so what’s the point of chopping off my foot? Yes, I’ll get the same thing that happened to my victim. And so what? Then you let me go? Or, do you put me in jail, since I’ve beens shown to be the soft of person it isn’t safe to have feet around. And when I’m isolated in jail, I can’t chop anyone’s feet off. Since I can’t chop off anyone’s foot, because I’m in jail, what is accomplished by chopping of my foot? Don’t say, “equity”, because that just puts a name on it. Why is creating this state of so-called equity important? What’s the purpose? Will it lead to a better society? Will we be happier? Will we be safer? Will fewer people cut off feet in the future? If you say it doesn’t matter if we’re safer or happier after you cut off my foot, then why would you do it? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561/80 "2011-08-30T04:42:17Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > How valuable can someone’s life be if the punishment for taking their life is less than the cost to the person killed for taking their life? The idea that society cares about both of them equally by refusing to inflict a punishment on the perpetrator equal to that of what the other suffered simply cannot be true. One is being valued more than the other in the given situation. Nonsense. You’re using one actor’s valuation for one half of the equation, and a different actor’s valuation for the other half. That’s neither a fair not accurate way to address the problem. Suppose, for the purposes of illustration, that I say, “All life is infinitely valuable,” and you say, “I’d kill someone for a plugged nickel.” If you kill someone and I refuse to take your life in retaliation, I’m not validating your estimation of human worth. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite - if I kill you, I’m admitting that my initial valuation was incorrect, and needed to be adjusted to be closer to your evaluation. I’m certainly not making any statement about the worth of your victim, because no matter what I do to you, the status of the victim remains unchanged. There is no direct equation between how I treat the murderer, and how the murderer treated his victim. Whatever price I put on the victim’s life, high or low, my treatment of his killer cannot pay it. > [@](#): > > “Because it is!” isn’t a subjective reason-- or a reason at all-- because there is no reason given. A subjective reason would be, for example, “It’s wrong to torture someone to death because all humans have an inherent value which is to be respected”. And why do human lives have an inherent value? Because I said so. > [@](#): > > That’s a subjective reason. The answer I was given was far removed from anything of the sort. Considering the fact that (s)he scoffed at the notion of even explaining why torturing someone to death was immoral in the first place, I think it’s pretty fair to assume that the “Because it is!” was given solely as a way to avoid answering the question. Or that poster treats the concept of not torturing people to death as so fundamental to a human moral system that it is axiomatic, and does not need elaboration. The only difference between the “non-answer” you got, and the “subjective answer” you provided as a counterexample, is where one chooses to define their axioms. > [@](#): > > There was nothing impossible about my question. It wasn’t a trick question and it most certainly wasn’t hard, either. I merely asked someone who made a statement _why_ that statement was true, and they refused-- and still have refused-- to explain why it’s true. It has little to do with receiving the answer I want and everything to do with not receiving an answer at all. I should try that way of arguing. I wonder how well that would go over? 😛 When I said your question was impossible, I did not intend to imply that it was a trick question, or particularly difficult. What I was saying was that it was based on incorrect premises. Namely, you do not appear to understand what “subjective” means. You were asking for subjective answers on one hand, while adding a stipulation that specifically barred subjective answers. It would be like asking for a list of the five most influential US presidents of the 20th century, but asking that people not name any Americans. Or, for that matter, if you’d said something like: > [@](#): > > It shouldn’t be true. But it would be nice if it were true. Because that’s another turn of phrase that is rendered meaningless by internal contradiction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-rethink-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/594561.md?page=5)