Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-19 07:10:43

Srmeaney:-

I abhore physical violence and execution as a method of punishment. There is only one possible penalty that will end very quickly the decay that exists on this planet. Expulsion. Can you imagine the anguish and torment that comes from looking up out of a pit, the only human there, and understanding that you will never again know human contact as you look up at the Earth from a Lunar Colony where you will be left to fend for yourself or die?

You might abhor "physical violence and execution as a method of punishment", but you don't seem to mind extraordinary mental cruelty and psychological torture.
Why not just hang 'em and be done with it ... too barbaric for your delicate sensibilities? :laugh:

Palomar · 2005-03-19 07:30:41

Srmeaney:-
I abhore physical violence and execution as a method of punishment. There is only one possible penalty that will end very quickly the decay that exists on this planet. Expulsion. Can you imagine the anguish and torment that comes from looking up out of a pit, the only human there, and understanding that you will never again know human contact as you look up at the Earth from a Lunar Colony where you will be left to fend for yourself or die?
You might abhor "physical violence and execution as a method of punishment", but you don't seem to mind extraordinary mental cruelty and psychological torture.
Why not just hang 'em and be done with it ... too barbaric for your delicate sensibilities? :laugh:

*Well said, Shaun.

Cruelty is cruelty.

--Cindy

srmeaney · 2005-03-19 08:50:28

Sorry Cindy, But sometimes it is better to kick out the vermin than kill them. You will realize that life is too valuable to destroy. Besides, Object lessons get results that last for years.

Considering this was how it worked for the last two hundred thousand years (up until we got civilized and started to let them stay), There is nothing cruel about setting high standards of Social Conduct and expelling offenders from civilization for non compliance.

Palomar · 2005-03-19 09:14:28

Sorry Cindy, But sometimes it is better to kick out the vermin than kill them. You will realize that life is too valuable to destroy. Besides, Object lessons get results that last for years.
Considering this was how it worked for the last two hundred thousand years (up until we got civilized and started to let them stay), There is nothing cruel about setting high standards of Social Conduct and expelling offenders from civilization for non compliance.

*Interesting, srmeaney, that 2 people responded to your post, yet you reply to only 1.

Again, I think cruelty is cruelty. To deprive a person for a lifetime is the worse fate. I personally would opt for death over a lifetime punishment of ostracization.

And considering how petty the persons in charge of enforcing Social Conduct might be, and how arbitrarily they may apply the standards...

Your scenario isn't my cup of tea.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-03-19 09:44:24

LO
Is there any christian in this forum ? ???
Is there any US citizen seing the contradiction of writting on banknotes ; "In God we trust", and raping His very first law
"Thou shall not kill" ?

Palomar · 2005-03-19 09:57:22

LO
Is there any christian in this forum ? ???
Is there any US citizen seing the contradiction of writting on banknotes ; "In God we trust", and raping His very first law
"Thou shall not kill" ?

*Hi Don Panic: You're referring to capital punishment?

I'm opposed to it as well.

However (speaking only for myself), if given the option I'd rather be put to death than live a life of social ostracization which is, IMO, even more cruel. Social ostracization is the mental/psychological equivalent of chaining a person out in a desert without food or water, and making them die a slow tormenting death.

Frankly I think we can dispense with both forms of punishment. Cruelty in any form is an admission of weakness within an already flawed system, IMO.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-19 10:06:12

LO
Is there any christian in this forum ? ???
Is there any US citizen seing the contradiction of writting on banknotes ; "In God we trust", and raping His very first law
"Thou shall not kill" ?
*Hi Don Panic: You're referring to capital punishment?
I'm opposed to it as well.
* * *
Frankly I think we can dispense with both forms of punishment. Cruelty in any form is an admission of weakness within an already flawed system, IMO.
--Cindy

We three agree.

DonPanic was simply being more, well, eloquent.

DonPanic · 2005-03-19 11:28:04

LO
@ecrasez_l_infame
Sorry I misunderstood you.
You are a social being.

For serial killers, children rapists and particularly dangerous and cynical criminals, I'm not opposed to a limited banishment time letting them away of any kind of human contact. Perhaps they might realize the price of a smile, of a word, of a touch.

I don't know, I may be wrong.

Trebuchet · 2005-03-19 17:04:06

Technically speaking, the commandment is "Thou shalt not MURDER", which is a very important distinction.

However, as applies to the death penalty, I'd say I have a 'richly deserving few' policy on it (on Earth, in normal circumstances - early colonization of Mars is another issue). Basically speaking, you have some crimes which are so horrible that only death is an appropriate punishment, and you also have some criminals who would probably generate additional deaths even if left alive in prison.

The latter category, in case you're wondering, is the Osama types, generally terrorists, whose imprisonment carries a high risk of followers/whatever staging a hostage situation to try to win release or something. The former category is for people like the serial child rapist/murderer in Iran who was recently hung.

DonPanic's solitary confinement exists in the US, actually, for really nasty criminals.

DonPanic · 2005-03-19 17:52:37

LO
Trebuchet, as too many people, your concept of justice is no more than retaliation. Eye for eye. Some prophet told to Peter to lower his sword, and told people to love their ennemy too.
Pretty hard attitude to follow.

So you let no room for justice mistake.

Technically speaking, a sentence to death is the worst kind of assassination, i'ts a perfect cold blood decision to kill.

I think you would be the one who throws the first stone.

Trebuchet · 2005-03-19 18:14:24

Sometimes, retaliation is appropriate and neccessary, DonPanic. That would be why I called my stance "the richly deserving few" approach.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-19 19:05:18

DonPanic:-

@ecrasez_l_infame
Sorry I misunderstood you.
You are a social being.

If opposition to the death penalty makes you a 'social being', then I guess you'll have to throw me into the 'anti-social beings' category with the likes of Trebuchet.
I have a "richly deserving few" list of my own and I suspect that, if Treb and I sat down over a quiet drink, we could come up with a mutually satisfactory selection of crimes attracting that penalty.
It's your round, Treb.

[Incidentally, I still believe that a referendum in Australia would show a strong majority of the population in favour of capital punishment for certain crimes. I further believe you'd find the same thing in America, Britain, France, Germany and most other countries.
The fact that the subject is taboo in Australian politics and, I believe, in most other countries' parliaments, is an indication we're being railroaded by a group of elites who imagine their moral and/or intellectual judgment is superior to that of the rest of us.
My impression is that these elites have come to wield influence out of proportion to their numbers and that their opinion has come to count more than the opinion of the majority. This kind of elitism is gravely dangerous to democracy and, at least in Australia, has led to a judiciary out of touch with mainstream opinion about crime and punishment.
I object very strongly to this and I wonder if anyone else here feels the same? ??? ]

Trebuchet · 2005-03-19 19:50:09

My impression is that these elites have come to wield influence out of proportion to their numbers and that their opinion has come to count more than the opinion of the majority. This kind of elitism is gravely dangerous to democracy and, at least in Australia, has led to a judiciary out of touch with mainstream opinion about crime and punishment.
I object very strongly to this and I wonder if anyone else here feels the same? ???

I've heard this song before, and sang a few verses as well. ^_^

I have a "richly deserving few" list of my own and I suspect that, if Treb and I sat down over a quiet drink, we could come up with a mutually satisfactory selection of crimes attracting that penalty.

It would probably be something like 'multiple premeditated murders seperated in time' for starters, with a hard look at additional factors such as brutality/sadisticness of the murder, whether sexual abuse occurred in commission of the crime, etc. The guy who kills five people in a shootout at the bank is not in this category, even if he's robbed banks before (he should be locked up for a really long time, possibly life, depending on what happened, but he's not in this 'richly deserving few' category). Examples of people meeting the criteria, for whatever reasons, would be Jeffery Dahmer, Ted Bundy, that BTK serial killer, and the like. I'm uncertain if Shaun Barrett, being in Australia, knows who I'm talking about, but they were unusually brutal serial killers. I'm certain Australia has had one or two over the years.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-19 20:09:08

It would probably be something like 'multiple premeditated murders seperated in time' for starters, with a hard look at additional factors such as brutality/sadisticness of the murder, whether sexual abuse occurred in commission of the crime, etc. The guy who kills five people in a shootout at the bank is not in this category, even if he's robbed banks before (he should be locked up for a really long time, possibly life, depending on what happened, but he's not in this 'richly deserving few' category).

I agree with this in general. I would not consider one murder an automatic death-penalty crime, all sorts of factors apply and each case should be looked at on its own merits. However if it were my call rape would always be punishable by death. There's all sorts of reasons a person might kill somebody and some are justifiable to varying degress, but rape is always a brutal and totally indefensible act. You can't rape in self defense, for example and i've never once heard of a case in which it's accidental. I'd have no reservations about disposing of each and every offender who commits such a crime, preferably in a less than humane manner.

While I can't be certain, this might make my list of the "richly deserving few" a bit longer than Treb's and Shaun's.

I like to think I'd balance it out by reducing penalties on many lesser crimes, prison is such an overused form of punishment/correction and is currently applied to many crimes for which it is completely innapropriate.

Oops, It seems a stone slipped from my hand.

Trebuchet · 2005-03-19 20:23:24

I like to think I'd balance it out by reducing penalties on many lesser crimes, prison is such an overused form of punishment/correction and is currently applied to many crimes for which it is completely innapropriate.

Correct, there's a lot of crimes where IMHO the punishment should be something along the lines of "pick trash up for four hours a day for the next few years" or something instead of "Let's throw you in a big cage with a bunch of hardened felons for a few years and see if that improves you any".

Palomar · 2005-03-19 20:37:58

Trebuchet: Examples of people meeting the criteria, for whatever reasons, would be Jeffery Dahmer

*Unfortunately for medical science. Jeffrey Dahmer was willing to cooperate with scientists, psychologists and physicians in the study of his mind, behaviors, brain structure, etc. [I know a fellow inmate (seeking fame) killed him; he didn't die via capital punishment].

I sometimes wonder what forensic pathologists, criminologists and etc. might have learned from Dahmer. He was willing to work with them.

Cobra: but rape is always a brutal and totally indefensible act. You can't rape in self defense, for example and i've never once heard of a case in which it's accidental.

I've heard the excuse that rape occurred because the offender was "drunk and didn't know what he was doing." Yeah...right. Not.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-03-20 02:21:55

LO

@ecrasez_l_infame
Sorry I misunderstood you.
You are a social being.
If opposition to the death penalty makes you a 'social being', then I guess you'll have to throw me into the 'anti-social beings' category with the likes of Trebuchet.

Hi Shaun, this was an answer to ecrasez_l_infame when I understood she meant that she'd rather be dead than be deprived of any contact with mankind. So, you are not allowed to take a grab on this quote and distort it at your own.

I further believe you'd find the same thing in America, Britain, France, Germany and most other countries.

When penalty of death was abolished in France, the public opinion was in favour of penalty of death. Now, the french public opinion, and I guess the german one would vote for the abolition 7 versus 3, having seen that the homicides level had not increased since. Anyways, I know that vote cannot be a proof on what is good or bad, as Adolf Hitler has been brought to power by vote.

The public Authority cannot learn to people that killing is a crime if the Authority itself practices killing. That's pure hypocrisy.
Just as a father telling to his son "do what I say, don't do what I do"

The fact that a murderer knows that there is no sentence to death helps police, a surrounded murderer will rather surrender than fight for its life up to the end.
The blood crimes level in abolitionnist countries is not higher than in non abolitionnist countries, rate of murders per inhabitants in USA compared with the french one is an obvious evidence of this, (and to live in a gunless country).

When a Chicago Police Chief visited the city of Lyon (fra) police headquarters, he asked how many homocides per week were commited is the city, the chief of Lyon police kept an amazed silence for a while, as there is not enough homicides in the Lyon district (one million and a half inhabitants) to have other than yearly statistics...

Now, as there are too many triggers on Mars and it is too crowded, ???
I'll rather settle up on some http://mapage.noos.fr/patpanic/FEmeteor … ]meteorite as a member of the Asteroïds Free Communities Federation
...with no corporal punishments and no penalty of death

Anyways, this is just my own opinion. Maybe in some US areas, things have gone too far on a path of violence and people can think only in terms of violence. Violent justice against ordinary violence...

Palomar · 2005-03-20 11:08:50

LO
@ecrasez_l_infame
Sorry I misunderstood you.
You are a social being.
If opposition to the death penalty makes you a 'social being', then I guess you'll have to throw me into the 'anti-social beings' category with the likes of Trebuchet.
Hi Shaun, this was an answer to ecrasez_l_infame when I understood she meant that she'd rather be dead than be deprived of any contact with mankind.

*Yes, DonPanic, that is what I meant.

DonPanic: For serial killers, children rapists and particularly dangerous and cynical criminals, I'm not opposed to a limited banishment time letting them away of any kind of human contact. Perhaps they might realize the price of a smile, of a word, of a touch.

You are thinking of solitary confinement? Within certain humane bounds, I could agree. Limited banishment time with necessary food, water, sleep. And a full day of work.

I sure don't want anyone mistaking me for a saint in this, though; nor that I am "holier than thou." When I think of what Scott Peterson did, I'm sorely tempted to entertain certain vindictive fantasies...same for a gal in the 1980s named Diane Downs.

But to kill a killer...seems ironic, at best, to me. Capital punishment hasn't deterred crime. Most states still carry out CP and yet America is still incredibly violent.

I'm not thrilled, either, that scum like Diane Downs or Scott Peterson are being supported on taxpayer's dollars nor do I believe they deserve "perks." Give them adequate, clean water, food, decent place to sleep ... and make them work. They don't need cable TV nor access to computers, etc. Access to a prison library and perhaps a chance to take some educational classes are enough.

Maybe in time they'll regret what they did. Maybe not. But putting them to death doesn't change anything either. Basically I think of it as being "the bigger person"...but again, I'm no saint in this regard either because sometimes -- depending on the circumstances -- I feel that inner rage which would like to go the "eye for an eye" route. But violence begets violence. :-\

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-03-20 14:04:29

LO

You are thinking of solitary confinement? Within certain humane bounds, I could agree. Limited banishment time with necessary food, water, sleep. And a full day of work.

Yes, absolute solitary confinement with food, water, hygiena convenencies automatically dispended, no book, no radio, no TV nor any mean of corresponding with any human being or animal, not even the noise of human or animal activity,
to see the sky, just a hole at the roof of a bottle shape cell. all designed to avoid any kind of self violence or suicide attempt wounds
no work, just time to get bored till they desperately scream for a return to the society of human beings.
Then, they might be ready to some reeducation.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-20 19:39:57

DonPanic:-

Hi Shaun, this was an answer to ecrasez_l_infame when I understood she meant that she'd rather be dead than be deprived of any contact with mankind. So, you are not allowed to take a grab on this quote and distort it at your own.

Yes, I hesitated to post at the time, realizing you were answering a specific point for Cindy, but I decided the debate was an open one and felt like throwing in my two cents worth anyway. If I've offended you or Cindy, I offer my apologies.
My interpretation of the 'social being' comment was only loosely defined, as the emoticons I used were meant to indicate. I admit it may have been sloppy literary technique, but it was intended as a jovial and self-deprecating way to lead into a declaration of my own barbarism in supporting the death penalty.
Again, if I offended you by 'distorting' your words for my own nefarious purposes, DonPanic, then I apologise.

By the way, I don't advocate the very selective use of the death penalty as a deterrent, since there's little evidence to suggest it has much 'deterrent value'. I advocate it as a means for society to get rid of certain nasty and incorrigible individuals in a way which is quick and economical, and which ensures they never get the chance to attack anyone again - either in prison or out of it.
Simple.

And DonPanic, you may be right about the ratio of people against or for the selective use of the death penalty, though I have my doubts, but what I want to know is why many of our governments refuse to allow us even the chance to express our desires on this important subject.
Here in Australia, where the death penalty was abandoned in 1967, it's an accepted fact that you could raise a petition with a million signatures or more, advocating the return of capital punishment, and still the subject would not be raised for debate in parliament. Candidates of the major parties are not permitted to raise the issue in election campaigns - it's against the rules.
This is a scandalous abuse of the democratic process.
If the same process applied in reverse; i.e. if capital punishment were still in use and the debate against it were suppressed, people like DonPanic would quite rightly see that as an outrageous curtailing of their rights.
As it is, they say nothing because their viewpoint happens to be unfairly upheld in the status quo. Convenient for them, for now, but potentially very precarious for all of us in the long run. ???

DonPanic · 2005-03-21 08:48:27

LO
Hi Shawn
This is a problem of ethic, and if ethic or moral laws such as respect of human life can be or not overpassed by democratic votes.
I think that not killing humans should be an universal law and that organizing by any mean an institutionnal killing of any human being is lowering the society of humans to the murderers level, as the institutions should give the example of what is allowed or not.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-21 09:09:06

think that not killing humans should be an universal law and that organizing by any mean an institutionnal killing of any human being is lowering the society of humans to the murderers level, as the institutions should give the example of what is allowed or not.

While I don't entirely agree with this, it's a valid viewpoint and I can respect it.

I suppose my support of capital punishment stems from two main points. First, that killing isn't always wrong. It's easy to condemn that idea outright, but doing so in a consistent manner without being a party to hypocrisy is much more difficult. Second, everyone dies. The punishment in execution is not the death itself but the manner of death. The message isn't "obey the law or die" but "obey the law or the time and manner of your death will be determined by the law" Lock someone up in prison until they expire or hang them, the end result is the same, only the timing changes. That, and in the former case those handing down the sentence can pretend that they are more civilized and noble while those handing out the latter sentence are barbarians. Self-delusion to salve the conscience, noble lies to keep the demons of the mind at bay.

DonPanic · 2005-03-21 14:51:42

Hi, Cobra
You are a brilliant rethorician, but I think that we should go deeper than rethorics on the rights to kill because everybody dies one day or another.
I agree with you that killing isn't always wrong, if somebody's life or integrity is in an immediate danger, depending on the agressor's life or death.
That's not the case when a criminal is caught and at mercy.

The point is that condamnation to death lets no room for any repentance from the convicted.
For a self proclaimed God trusting nation, this is a fault : how dare a christian one pray for God's pardon, and unpardon others ?
As tiny as can be, if there is a chance for a criminal to change hid mind, I think it worth to give him a chance, even if he didn't let any to his victims.

Unless you think that a child can be born bad, we must admit that either some educationnal fault in its life turned him into a criminal, or he turned mad, that's why I think that executing criminals should be avoided and trying to reeducate them a duty.
Jails' microsocieties aren't good places for erasing criminal minds, that's why I think it's better to keep criminals in total isolation.
The ultimate goal being to get a change, by all means.

By the way, does Martian Republic trust in God ? ???

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-21 15:02:51

The point is that condamnation to death lets no room for any repentance from the convicted.
For a self proclaimed God trusting nation, this is a fault : how dare a christian one pray for God's pardon, and unpardon others ?

If one accepts your assumptions then your position is not only defensible but internally consistent. I however am not burdened by a belief in God nor do I much care whether a rapist or murderer repents.

This is certainly one of those issues in which no one is really wrong, just in disagreement over fundamental philosophy.

On a more practical level, suppose a murderer or rapist is re-educated and repentent, what then? Surely we can't just release them back into the population, what sort of message does that send? At best it's merely a vicious insult to the victim, at worst a legal loophole to literally get away with murder.

DonPanic · 2005-03-21 16:09:01

LO

I however am not burdened by a belief in God nor do I much care whether a rapist or murderer repents.(...)
On a more practical level, suppose a murderer or rapist is re-educated and repentent, what then? Surely we can't just release them back into the population, what sort of message does that send? At best it's merely a vicious insult to the victim, at worst a legal loophole to literally get away with murder.

Who are you to speak in the name of the victims ?

Before releasing a criminal, I think that the victims of rape have their word to say, (if they are alive...), or the victims' families in case of homicides.
In much cases, they really take care of the agressors' regrets and apologies.
Among the conditions of release the former criminal has to understand he must work hard and pay for the damages done to the victims or victims' families.
If you kill him, you have to pay part of the compensation the judge or the jury give to the victims, as a taxpayer...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-03-19 07:10:43

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#102 2005-03-19 07:30:41

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#103 2005-03-19 08:50:28

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#104 2005-03-19 09:14:28

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#105 2005-03-19 09:44:24

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#106 2005-03-19 09:57:22

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#107 2005-03-19 10:06:12

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#108 2005-03-19 11:28:04

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#109 2005-03-19 17:04:06

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#110 2005-03-19 17:52:37

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#111 2005-03-19 18:14:24

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#112 2005-03-19 19:05:18

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#113 2005-03-19 19:50:09

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#114 2005-03-19 20:09:08

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#115 2005-03-19 20:23:24

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#116 2005-03-19 20:37:58

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#117 2005-03-20 02:21:55

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#118 2005-03-20 11:08:50

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#119 2005-03-20 14:04:29

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#120 2005-03-20 19:39:57

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#121 2005-03-21 08:48:27

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#122 2005-03-21 09:09:06

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#123 2005-03-21 14:51:42

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#124 2005-03-21 15:02:51

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

#125 2005-03-21 16:09:01

Re: Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not?

Board footer