Even if we disregard our own moral imperative to be humane, what criteria would we use to determine whether a particular crime is “heinous” or “outlandish” enough? There are some people who would consider homosexuality to be on that scale, or interracial sex, or neglecting or mistreating animals. Who gets to decide what kind of behavior falls under these special rules?
If we behave as criminals, we are criminals, and that is not the kind of society most of us want to live in.
Take a look at places that do not ban this kind of thing, either now or in the past. There was a reason those awesome wonderful God-like Founding Fathers you conservatives so revere put it in The Constitution. Read about what things used to be like, and what they still are like in places like China. Is that the kind of place you want to live?
What does that accomplish, except to lower you to the level of a brutal sociopath?
Punishment for violent murders like this should protect society. Eye for an eye retribution accomplishes nothing that incarceration for life doesn’t, without the violence.
Society, obviously. If not then the government certainly could torture people at will, and would do all the cruel things you are advocating.
Except that society CAN take someones life for certain crimes in the US. Also, they lose their right to freedom by committing such crimes. Why would torture be necessary? How would it make us a better society?
Why does the punishment have to equal or exceed the crime?
-XT
Oh…we have prefect knowledge of all of the circumstances and are able to (magically) judge not only the current mental state of the accused, but the state that existed during the committing of the crime, as well as all extenuating circumstances? That should make it easy to sentence then. So, I ask you, again, why do we, as a society, need to stoop to the level of the criminal who committed a given crime? Why is locking such a person away forever not punishment enough? Hell, why isn’t it MORE cruel to lock someone away for years or for life than to simply kill them? Don’t they suffer more locked up, assuming suffering is what you are after here?
-XT
Why? You are talking (presumably) about really wanting to change the law here; why should we not discuss the real world implications of that? And if this is all some sort of weird hypothetical, then lay it out better.
Suppose they call you up, like jury duty.
“Good morning, citizen! I am calling on behalf of your local Penitence and Redemption Board. Thing is, the guy who does the fingernail tearing out stuff is out sick, and we were wondering if you could fill in for the day? Light schedule, one rapist, couple drug dealers, couple thought crimes. On the job training, some free videos…”
It does not matter what the perpetrator did. We are not supposed to use cruel and unusual punishment.
It is like saying “this is what I believe, when i am not pissed off”. If I am offended all my principals are gone and I want revenge.
Do they have dental??
-XT
Well, they have all the equipment…
For the purpose of this thread, you seem to looking for an excuse for society to satisfy your thirst for blood, and you seem to be openly advocating against being more moral than criminals. Any government that falls down this rabbit hole should be openly opposed.
How do you know that this isn’t the best way to run a society? Let’s say that, tomorrow, it becomes perfectly legal to torture criminals. Do you think society would get better, get worse or stay the same?
I’m pretty sure the reason I wouldn’t want to live in China has little to do with the way they treat their criminals.
But I’m not talking about torturing people at will. But rather, allowing people to be subjected to the same amount of pain they inflict on another.
Firstly, cruel and unusual punishment need not result in death. Secondly, a loss of freedom doesn’t seem like that big of a punishment when your crime is taking away someone’s life. That seems more of like a slap on the wrist. One individual is dead and you get to live out the rest of your life given the bare minimum (and sometimes even more). Three, I’ve heard it said that a society can be judged on the way it treats its prisoners, or something to that effect. But I propose something differently. A society is judged based on the relative value it grants to those trespassed against. If I can act against you, yet my punishment will be less relative to the pain or suffering I’ve caused you, then what does that say about your value relative to mine?
It doesn’t have to, and I’d have no qualms if it didn’t. It’s generally the other side which seems to argue that the punishment cannot be equal to or exceed the crime.
I say it. I’m going to go out on a limb here and boldly declare that torturing people to death is immoral. This, on top of my brave stand earlier this week in which I declared I believe racism to be wrong.
I know, I’m challenging conventional wisdom by taking such a strong stand. But never let it be said that Little Nemo shies away from controversy.
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.
As it is, I’ve answered your question about “stooping to the criminals” level three times now. And, as you say, if it’s more cruel to simply lock someone away for years than it is to kill them, then you shouldn’t have any problem pursuing the less cruel way 
Gee, let’s look at other societies that have operated the way you propose we operate.
Do you have any concern whatsoever about the morals of the society you live in, or is it just a case of “if the law says it’s o.k., no matter what, then that’s all right by me.”
“It’s immoral because it is” really isn’t an answer. If it’s immoral-- and it sometimes is-- there has to be a reason why it’s immoral. Just stating that it is isn’t much of an argument.
This looks to argue that the societies you can look at didn’t work because of their stance on how they treat criminals. This is nonsensical because you have to look at the policies of that society as a whole, and not just one singular policy.
Indeed, I do. How about you read the rest of my comment and what I was responding to?
You. Not her, not him, not some theoretical person, you.
What torments are you willing to personally inflict on another human in order to demonstrate your moral superiority? Be specific, tough guy.
I’d let people park for a day in my driveway if it would get me out of parking tickets.
How the hell does one respond to an adult that needs an explanation as to why torturing someone to death is wrong? This mindset is totally foreign to me-it would be like trying to explain “Twin Peaks” to a totally isolated tribe-there isn’t a common frame of reference to work with.