Let's rethink "cruel and unusual" punishment

[Kobal2]

@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.

Then why care so much about making it torturous ?

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.

Of course it does. Unless you’re advocating a kind of *Running Man *meets *The Princess and the Tigers *scenario where we drop off prisoners in extremely hazardous situation they have very lows odds of surviving, but if they do good for them, they’re free ?

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 what does that matter ? What’s the point ?

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Miller

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.

This is simply untrue.

Contrary to what you state, and I’m hoping it was just for the sake of argument, the notion that “all life is infinitely valuable” is demonstrably false. If life is infinitely valuable, then how do you determine what the punishment for killing someone is? Whatever punishment you choose to dish out is going to be ascribe some relative worth to the individual killed. It would be akin to stating that some painting has an infinite amount of value, yet charging me some set amount of money for that same painting if I were to destroy it. That value wouldn’t be infinite since it could be defined by some monetary amount.

Anyway, in general, the longer the punishment, the more worth the individual killed had. For example, and I’d like to believe this as true, I bet I’d get a longer jail sentence if I were to kill the POTUS than if I killed a random homeless person on the basis that the POTUS is considered to hold a hell of a lot more value than some random homeless person I picked off the street. But, within your framework, this would be nonsensical as it would either mean that some life is finitely more valuable than others, or that some life is finitely less valuable than others-- both of which contradict the notion that all life is infinitely valuable.

The fact is that all life has some relative, finite value. If, assuming, all people have a value of X and I kill you yet I cannot be ascribed a punishment equaling X or a punishment being in the same vein as what I inflicted upon you, then how can you say that the state is holding us both equal in value? It’s not. The direct implication here is that the victim’s life is worth less than the life of the perpetrator or isn’t, at the very least, equal to the perpetrator as the given punishment is less than the crime committed.

And why do human lives have an inherent value?

Because I said so.

Ignoring the obvious facetiousness, such an ‘argument’ can be rebuffed by a simple question; “Did humans have any inherent value before you could say so?”

…Or, at least, that is what I would have asked if I were to entertain such a response.

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.

Well, if I may say so, that’s incredibly dumb. One does not just get to assume their position is axiomatic in order to not have to elaborate on it or to defend it. That is nothing more than a clear case of trying to avoid having to explain the things one types out. There is nothing which is, as you say, “so fundamental to the human moral system that it does not need elaboration”. Again I state that one of these days I should try arguing like this. Could you imagine how many posters would jump on me if I meandered into a thread and typed out “Because it is. I don’t need to elaborate. It’s axiomatic!”? I’d be willing to bet it would be at least ten.

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.

First of all, I know what subjective means. Second of all, I think you would benefit from re-reading what really happened.

Little Nemo said that torturing someone to death was immoral. I asked who said it was immoral and why it was immoral. (S)he responded by stating that (s)he said it’s immoral. I responded by pointing out that (s)he didn’t explain why it was immoral.

And that is the junction we’re at. I asked a very specific question-- “Why is it immoral to torture someone to death?”-- and I’ve yet to receive any kind of response to this question. I don’t really know what you’re reading, but nowhere did I add any kind of extra stipulations. I asked a simple, straight-forward question and have received no answer. What this means to me is that Little Nemo can provide no justification of any kind for his/her claims.

Because that’s another turn of phrase that is rendered meaningless by internal contradiction.

Which contradiction? You mean the one between what should be and what would be nice to be done?

[Kobal2]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

For example, and I’d like to believe this as true, I bet I’d get a longer jail sentence if I were to kill the POTUS than if I killed a random homeless person on the basis that the POTUS is considered to hold a hell of a lot more value than some random homeless person I picked off the street.

All are equal in the eyes of the law.
That means criminals as well as victims.

Might not always play out that way, but it’s what we strive for at least. You want to have multiple choice justice systems relying on the victim’s “social worth”, go back to the Middle Ages. Not sure you’ll like it there. 'specially with the whole being black thing

And that is the junction we’re at. I asked a very specific question-- “Why is it immoral to torture someone to death?”-- and I’ve yet to receive any kind of response to this question. I don’t really know what you’re reading, but nowhere did I add any kind of extra stipulations. I asked a simple, straight-forward question and have received no answer. What this means to me is that Little Nemo can provide no justification of any kind for his/her claims.

Neither have you answered why you considered the crime in the OP particularly abhorrent or, dare I say, immoral. Because if you don’t think it’s morally wrong to torture folks to death, then it follows the couple did nothing morally wrong torturing their own kid.
Unless of course you set out arbitrary rules under which it is or is not morally wrong to torture people to death in this or that circumstance - but then we’re back in “because I say so” territory, aren’t we ?

ETA: oh, and as for your question: it is immoral to torture someone to death because I don’t want it done to me. The golden rule is simple as that.

[The_Second_Stone]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

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?

It’s not about giving off an air of any kind. It is about not turning ourselves into despicable monsters because we actually find these kind of monsters loathsome and criminal.

You don’t find refusing to be a monster in reaction to monsters to be a compelling reason. Um, okay, we get that. You do not object to becoming a monster. The rest of us do.

There are a number of purposes served by prosecuting criminals. Making us feel better about ourselves isn’t counted among the purposes by the people who think about these things. Punishment is such a reason. So is rehabilitation. Deterrence and setting an example too. Keeping dangerous people away from the population at large. Justice for the victims in that society takes revenge for them. I suppose there are others.

[Mangetout]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

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?

It’ll be worse, because it will contain criminals and torturers, instead of just criminals.

If the underlying motive of all this is to reduce the number of inhuman monsters that society will tolerably contain, then training up a bunch of people to be inhuman monsters (i.e. to perform the torture) is sharply at odds with that motive.

If the underlying motive of all this is NOT to reduce the number of inhuman monsters that society will tolerably contain, then the torture is simply superfluous violence.

Either way, we don’t need it.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I can just picture a Judicial Department of Creative Sentencing, to carefully and unemotionally decide on retributive sentences upon conviction. We can’t have judges making these decisions individually, of course - too much potential for judicial activism, like a judge who decides the penalty for bringing a flamethrower to a gay wedding and lighting up the couple and their guests is a stern talking-to, or a judge who decides that mistreating a pet dog is worth being chained to a tree for a week without food or water.

After all, we must be aware of the potential for abuse.

[Annie-Xmas]

@sh1bu1

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.

It doesn’t him the kid if we lock up his parents forever. So just let them go free, since nothing will help the kid or bring him back. :rolleyes:

ANYONE who tortures a child to death deserves death in my book. Or to live locked up in total darkness, with only enough nasty tasting liquid to keep them alive and a pot to piss in.

[Fear_Itself]

@Annie-Xmas

ANYONE who tortures a child to death deserves death in my book.

And the child deserves life; can you give it to him?

[Der_Trihs]

@Annie-Xmas

It doesn’t him the kid if we lock up his parents forever. So just let them go free, since nothing will help the kid or bring him back. :rolleyes:

ANYONE who tortures a child to death deserves death in my book. Or to live locked up in total darkness, with only enough nasty tasting liquid to keep them alive and a pot to piss in.

And when it turns out they are innocent, and they are either dead or insane, what then? And it will happen; both because of the natural tendency of humans to err, and because the kind of people who lock other people in lightless cells don’t actually care about little things like innocence. If you want monstrous things to be done, then either you have to be a monster yourself or hire one; and it’s virtually guaranteed that such monsters won’t restrain themselves to the approved victims.

[newcomer]

@elucidator

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.

Well, according to this fascinating article on Justice Thomas, US and UK did not lack sense for “unusual and cruel” either:

@New Yorker

There was burning at the stake, “ ‘gibbeting,’ or hanging the condemned in an iron cage so that his body would decompose in public view, and ‘public dissection.’ ” Thomas went on, “But none of these was the worst fate a criminal could meet. That was reserved for the most dangerous and reprobate offenders—traitors.” Their punishments involved “emboweling alive, beheading, and quartering.” One death sentence in England called for the condemned to be “drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, where you shall be hanged by the necks, not till you are dead; that you be severally taken down, while yet alive, and your bowels be taken out and burnt before your faces—that your heads be then cut off, and your bodies cut in four quarters.”

Read more Partners | The New Yorker

Compared to this, what OP calls for is somewhat tame :o

[Blaster_Master]

I am a proponent of the death penalty, but the ideas related in the OP don’t seem to relate to the concept of justice but with the concept of revenge. Yes, plenty of people do some messed up things and while it may feel good to return exactly in kind, it is not strictly necessary from a perspective of justice nor does any reasonable form of morality allow for it. That is, we punish people for infringing upon the rights of others as defined by the laws of society, and while the punishment should be appropriate in scale to the infringement, it does not need to be identical in form. If society were to return crime in form, we would be endorsing the concept that certain types of behavior are excusable in some circumstances short of life or death situations when they simply are not. This is why corporal punishment isn’t something that we use anymore because we can provide a punishment of appropriate scale that doesn’t carry that.

It’s also important not to let our emotions weigh into our decisions to any signficant degree. Our outrage at seeing this sort of situation and wanting something cruel done to them seems justified, but if we weigh the same crimes in an alternate scenario, even if we don’t have the same emotional response, we have to realize that they deserve identical punishments.

And so, if we return to these people in kind, we’re not really any better than them and we’re doing nothing to show that society has a fundamental rejection to that sort of behavior.

[UltraVires]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

And that is the junction we’re at. I asked a very specific question-- “Why is it immoral to torture someone to death?”-- and I’ve yet to receive any kind of response to this question.

Why is anything moral/immoral? Are you trying to raise a natural law debate? Everyone has their own internal code of morality. Whether that comes from God/nature/Allah/whatever, we all have an innate sense that these things over here are right and that thing over there is wrong.

I could ask you the same question: Why would it be immoral for me to break into an 87 year old woman’s house, sodomize her, and steal all of her stuff? You might say, “Because you are violating her rights.”

Well, so what, maybe my moral code doesn’t care a whit about her rights. Your question is deeper than just a debate on torture or the death penalty. A moral code is something that we all have.

[El_Kabong]

@Annie-Xmas

It doesn’t him the kid if we lock up his parents forever. So just let them go free, since nothing will help the kid or bring him back. :rolleyes:

Straw man argument. No one here has argued in favor of any such thing.

ANYONE who tortures a child to death deserves death in my book. Or to live locked up in total darkness, with only enough nasty tasting liquid to keep them alive and a pot to piss in.

Why? Please state your reasoning as to how this, and only this, provides equity. Since the OP seems to be resolutely avoiding answering this question, maybe someone else is willing to.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

The prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment is as much for the benefit of society as for the protection of prisoners. If we begin allow torture as an ordained, regular punishment for horror, I believe we diminish ourselves.

[Czarcasm]

@Der_Trihs

And when it turns out they are innocent, and they are either dead or insane, what then? And it will happen; both because of the natural tendency of humans to err, and because the kind of people who lock other people in lightless cells don’t actually care about little things like innocence. If you want monstrous things to be done, then either you have to be a monster yourself or hire one; and it’s virtually guaranteed that such monsters won’t restrain themselves to the approved victims.

And the person hiring the monster is nothing but a cowardly monster, in my opinion.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Kobal2

Neither have you answered why you considered the crime in the OP particularly abhorrent or, dare I say, immoral.

Why should I answer a question to which there is no disagreement? Unless you disagree with the status of the crime in the OP, then the question serves no purpose, as you could provide an answer yourself. You’re doing nothing more than trying to deflect away from answering a question to which there is disagreement.

Because if you don’t think it’s morally wrong to torture folks to death, then it follows the couple did nothing morally wrong torturing their own kid.

That would be true if this was indeed what I said. But it was not.

Unless of course you set out arbitrary rules under which it is or is not morally wrong to torture people to death in this or that circumstance - but then we’re back in “because I say so” territory, aren’t we?

Do you think punishment for a crime is arbitrary? Do you consider the line between committing a crime and being punished for that crime to be blurred? Do you, for example, consider the difference between sticking someone in jail for twenty years just because and sticking someone in jail for twenty years because they raped and murdered someone to be arbitrary?

ETA: oh, and as for your question: it is immoral to torture someone to death because I don’t want it done to me. The golden rule is simple as that.

The Golden Rule doesn’t much of mean anything here. There are many things which, presumably, you wouldn’t want done to you that you that are not necessarily immoral or wrong to do. For example, I don’t think you would want to be jailed for a substantial portion of your life. Yet many people here, probably including yourself, would agree with such a punishment if it were to be handed down by court/jury.

@jtgain

Why is anything moral/immoral? Are you trying to raise a natural law debate? Everyone has their own internal code of morality. Whether that comes from God/nature/Allah/whatever, we all have an innate sense that these things over here are right and that thing over there is wrong.

I could ask you the same question: Why would it be immoral for me to break into an 87 year old woman’s house, sodomize her, and steal all of her stuff? You might say, “Because you are violating her rights.”

Well, so what, maybe my moral code doesn’t care a whit about her rights. Your question is deeper than just a debate on torture or the death penalty. A moral code is something that we all have.

I wasn’t the one who initially mentioned the morality of torturing someone to death. That was Little Nemo, who said that it was immoral. I’m trying to get him/her to answer her question and explain to me why it’s immoral to torture someone to death, as (s)he said it was.

[Annie-Xmas]

@El_Kabong

Why? Please state your reasoning as to how this, and only this, provides equity. Since the OP seems to be resolutely avoiding answering this question, maybe someone else is willing to.

Because anyone who tortures a child to death has shown to me that morally they don’t deserve to live and the world would be better off without them.

Barring that, make them live a life without any enjoyment, like I stated in my post. Give them existance, not life.

[DianaG]

Sigh.

Apparently the only people who can agree that this is a good idea agree based on the nearly diametrically opposed worldviews of sociopathy and empathy run amok.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I’m curious about the possible “retribution inflation”. Picture the following campaign ad from 2024:

“My opponent agrees that rapists should have their eyes gouged out in public and force-fed to them, but he says also feeding them their fingers and testicles is going too far. Can we really trust a leader who is soft on crime? Paid for by the Committee to Elect McGurk.”

The OP is proposing doing away with the “cruel and unusual” barrier. I’m curious what barrier, if any, he’d like to put in its place and what will keep that barrier from being casually broken. I mean, if it’s liberal pussies who are keeping the child-killers from getting a just punishment, won’t he be a liberal pussy in 2024 if he feels cutting off the hand of a shoplifter is excessive? Won’t this become a justice system where the sadistic have no checks on them at all, and any punishment for any crime can be rationalized, with politicians competing for who can be “toughest” ?

[CurtC]

I’ve kind of skimmed this thread so far, but I haven’t seen this brought up. The possible justifications for punishment of criminals, it seems to me, to fall into four main categories:

[ul]
[li]Separation - Keep the people who are prone to harming others, away from society, making them incapable to harm us, for the protection of all of us.[/li][li]Rehabilitation - Teach the criminals how to function in a way that once they get out, they can be functional members of the society.[/li][li]Deterrence - The fact that there is an unpleasant punishment should serve as a deterrent to others who may be considering a crime.[/li][li]Retribution - Make the criminal suffer, because he made innocent people suffer.[/li][/ul]

Now it seems to me that the first item on the list is the primary reason a civilized society punishes criminals. I’d like to see more of the second. Whether punishment acts as a deterrent is questionable.

But when it comes to retribution, I don’t see any place for that in a civilized society.

Now maybe OMG is presuming that a crueler punishment would be a better deterrent, but I don’t see that being true.