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

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-21 16:23:05

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.

Do you by chance know anyone who's been raped? Has anyone you knew been murdered? To release the offender, ususally after a relatively short sentence is a profound slap in the face to them. It implies that the criminal rates more concern than the victim, and it takes a toll. When a legal system gets too soft people become much more inclined to bypass it and take matters into their own hands. Trust me, I've seen it. I've condoned it.

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.

Putting a price on human life are we? ???

We have an irreconcilable difference of perspective on this it seems. Once someone commits the sorts of crimes I support the death penalty for, I no longer have any concern for their feelings, whether they regret it or whether they can become functional members of society. What's done is done and there is a price to be paid, preferably of in a manner worse than the victim suffered, or continues to suffer.

DonPanic · 2005-03-21 16:26:04

LO

DonPanic:-
If I've offended you or Cindy, I offer my apologies.

You don't need to apologise.
The fact is that I didn't intend to insult anyone, as I changed my mind about capital punishment.
Younger, I did support it.

DonPanic · 2005-03-21 17:13:16

LO

Do you by chance know anyone who's been raped? Has anyone you knew been murdered?

Yes
"by chance", I wouln't dare say so...
A girl friend which has been knocked down and raped nightly in her own flat of house staircase, and one of my good clients who runned after a burglar he found in his office, and the burglar killed him with a knife wound at the heart in the street.
This client was a friend, letting me spend hollidays in his house in Corsica.

To release the offender, ususally after a relatively short sentence is a profound slap in the face to them. It implies that the criminal rates more concern than the victim, and it takes a toll. When a legal system gets too soft people become much more inclined to bypass it and take matters into their own hands. Trust me, I've seen it. I've condoned it.

Right now, twenty years in a french jail, thirty years for a child rapist or a particularly cruel crime, (France has been condemned by the European Court of Justice for inhuman prison conditions of life) are not relativly short nor soft sentences. These sentences are unshortenable.
We are arguing on capital punishment, and that's about criminals, don't we ?
The total isolation cells without any goods I propose is much tougher in many aspects

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.
Putting a price on human life are we? ???

Not at all, it's just trying to help the living peoples.

We have an irreconcilable difference of perspective on this it seems. Once someone commits the sorts of crimes I support the death penalty for, I no longer have any concern for their feelings, whether they regret it or whether they can become functional members of society. What's done is done and there is a price to be paid, preferably of in a manner worse than the victim suffered, or continues to suffer.

That is a policy of over retaliations.
Be wilder than criminals
This enlights me on the neverending violence of the american society

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-21 19:50:23

Sheesh .. you leave an argument, go get some shut-eye for a few hours, and wake up to find you've been left waaay behind!
By the way, as is not uncommon, I find myself in broad general agreement with CC.

DonPanic:-

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.

This is a noble point of view in many ways and therefore an eminently arguable one. My main point, however, was to highlight the dangers of what I believe is a relatively small group of people imposing their views on an ostensibly democratic system.
One man's ethics can be another man's debauchery; one woman's morality, another woman's immorality. That's why we have democracy - the rule of the greatest number of people.
If you have a group of elitist intellectuals who believe their morality is superior to that of the masses, and if those intellectuals contrive to impose their view over and above the democratic system, you can have one of two outcomes. Either their morality is indeed superior, and its imposition leads to the greater good, or it isn't superior and it can lead to increased misery in society. This has been borne out over the millenia with the results of systems like monarchic imperialism - a benign monarch can do enormous good for his/her subjects, often surpassing the best efforts of democratic systems in a similar time frame, but a bad monarch can do equally enormous damage over the same period.

DonPanic, you believe capital punishment is always unethical and immoral, touting long periods of imprisonment with solitary confinement or other forms of sensory deprivation as an alternative. CC, Trebuchet and I don't agree; believing there are instances where the death penalty is appropriate.
You cannot say that your morality is superior to ours, however much it may look that way from your point of view. Every person likes to imagine that their own point of view is special and it takes intelligence and imagination to see things from another person's perspective.

There is little doubt in my mind that the Australian people (and I'm reasonably sure the same applies in other states and countries) would reinstate the death penalty for certain criminals if given the opportunity.
What troubles me deeply is the fact that there are forces at work which are determined to deny us the opportunity to express that desire. These forces are not confined to Australia alone; they are well organized internationally-based forces.
It is the fact that these people have no compunction whatsoever in organizing the imposition of their personal morality on the rest of us, which worries me. And the fact that they actually have the power to implement their personal agenda is even more profoundly disturbing.
Who are these people and whom do they answer to?
It's obvious they don't answer to the majority of ordinary people. And that should worry all of us! ???

srmeaney · 2005-03-21 20:02:22

1. Having been offered a second chance at paradise, you betray it all by ransacking the orchard and calling those who force you out, a tyranny.

2. As an Australian, I am a big supporter of expulsion for crimes against the Commonwealth. Life in exile will offer them the chance to realize how wrong they were.

3. Who needs gods when you have the right to freedom from others?

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-21 21:04:25

Yes
"by chance", I wouln't dare say so...
A girl friend which has been knocked down and raped nightly in her own flat of house staircase, and one of my good clients who runned after a burglar he found in his office, and the burglar killed him with a knife wound at the heart in the street.
This client was a friend, letting me spend hollidays in his house in Corsica.

And yet I presume you want to see the rapist and the murderer repent and be set free? If that's the case I truly don't know what to make of it. It's either remarkably enlightened or grossly, sickeningly naive. based on experience I lean toward the latter, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Right now, twenty years in a french jail, thirty years for a child rapist or a particularly cruel crime, (France has been condemned by the European Court of Justice for inhuman prison conditions of life) are not relativly short nor soft sentences. These sentences are unshortenable.

Unfortunately that isn't how things always work in the States. It's not unheard of for murderers and rapists to get parole on "good behavior" after just a few years, sometimes only one or two.

That is a policy of over retaliations.
Be wilder than criminals
This enlights me on the neverending violence of the american society

Never-ending violence of human society. America is no more violent than France or anywhere else. Your own examples support it.

If the funds are available to support your solitary confinement punishment I can support it, provided the offenders are never released. But killing them is cheaper and satisfies a primal need in those victimized. That's one of the biggest mistakes made by those who oppose capital punishment, it's not about deterence and contrary to currently fashionable thinking vengeance is a fundamental hardwired aspect of the human psyche. Execution brings closure and disposes of a violent and dangerous criminal. Part of it is about punishing the offender, but primarily it's for the living.

DonPanic · 2005-03-22 03:55:42

LO

And yet I presume you want to see the rapist and the murderer repent and be set free? If that's the case I truly don't know what to make of it. It's either remarkably enlightened or grossly, sickeningly naive. based on experience I lean toward the latter, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Line, is the second name for this girl friend (pronounce "lean"), whishes her rapist be castrated if caught, and pay a bill for all the years she nightmared and was psychologically disturbed.
My client's family whishes the killer be locked for long, and doesn't think his death will be satisfying.
I don't feel any right to be wilder than the victims.

Unfortunately that isn't how things always work in the States. It's not unheard of for murderers and rapists to get parole on "good behavior" after just a few years, sometimes only one or two.

In France, the fate of a criminal relies on the "Judge of application of sentences", or "JAP" (Juge d'Application des Peines) which is not allowed to overrule by shortening the prison period of time when a Jury has decided a sentence was unshortenable.

America is no more violent than France

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgv … Statistics

DonPanic · 2005-03-22 04:58:49

Hi Shawn

My main point, however, was to highlight the dangers of what I believe is a relatively small group of people imposing their views on an ostensibly democratic system.

Abolition of capital punishment was in the Mr Mitterand's presidential program , he and the parliament which voted the abolition were democratically elected.
Even if public opinion at the time was rather favourable to it, the polls were showing that abolltionnist opinion was on constant strengthening.
Parliament decision just anticipated the reversal of opinion that happened latter on.

DonPanic, you believe capital punishment is always unethical and immoral,

Worse than that, it is unefficient to deter criminals
I hate unefficient laws, I prefer an efficient police.

You cannot say that your morality is superior to ours,

I don't say that, I think that CC, you and the capital punishment supporters are not fully logically coherent when saying :
A) Deliberately killing someone is a crime
B) Peoples can gather and decide to kill a criminal

Logical incoherence are other words for "absurdity" or "nonsense". My brain refuses nonsenses.
This is stronger an agument to me than moral or ethic ones

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-22 06:28:38

I'll try to find the rate of homicides per capita in each country.
Don't forget we are not allowed to own guns

Just remember that "violence" encompassess more than homicide and statistics are compiled in all sorts of ways. Further, not all crimes are even reported. I don't know how they do it in France but sometimes here police departments have been known to tailor reports to make themselves look more effective.

As for guns, perhaps their absence in your country is a factor in why both of the crimes you mentioned previously happened in a home or office. In America that happens frequently in major cities where the citzens are disarmed, much less often in areas with less restrictive laws on defending oneself.

I don't say that, I think that CC, you and the capital punishment supporters are not fully logically coherent when saying :
A) Deliberately killing someone is a crime
B) Peoples can gather and decide to kill a criminal

If you place the same value on the criminal and the victim then the capital punishment position may seem "logically incoherent". I however do not, a criminal makes a decision to commit the sort of crime warranting death and by making that choice ceases to be worth protecting in my assessment. Killing a rapist is much the same as killing a rabid dog.

Again, this is the result of a fundamental difference of philosphy, of which you and I have many it seems. Some people here would hang rapists and murderers. You would lock them in a solitary cell until they repent. I would impale them vertically on a sharp stake in the hot sun. None of us are going to sway the others.

Though if the victims or their families want to prolong the criminal's suffering I have no objection to a few years of solitary confinement prior to execution, provided it doesn't cost the taxpayers much. No luxuries like beds, heat or plumbing, that sort of thing.

Trebuchet · 2005-03-22 06:34:47

I don't say that, I think that CC, you and the capital punishment supporters are not fully logically coherent when saying :
A) Deliberately killing someone is a crime
B) Peoples can gather and decide to kill a criminal
Logical incoherence are other words for "absurdity" or "nonsense". My brain refuses nonsenses.
This is stronger an agument to me than moral or ethic ones

Logical does not mean valid, it merely means that it follows from the premises. I reject premise A, and believe that intentional killing is not always a crime. Therefore, there is not any logical incoherence, therefore, it is not nonsense. I presume that CC and Shaun Barrett have similar thought processes, namely, they do not view killing as a priori illegal, but something that depends on the circumstances in which the death took place.

DonPanic · 2005-03-22 07:05:48

LO

Again, this is the result of a fundamental difference of philosphy,(...)
I would impale them vertically on a sharp stake in the hot sun.

Torture...
If you wanted to demonstrate that you are not representative of the american culture of hyperviolence,
this is a complete failure.

Indeed we have not any real philosophic value in common.

I understand now what happened in Abu Graîb jail if US soldiers share the same values as you.

That will make me burst of laugh when a american representant will give to China or Russia lessons about "rights of man".

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-22 07:18:52

Torture...
If you wanted to demonstrate that you are not representative of the american culture of hyperviolence,
this is a complete failure.

"American culture of hyperviolence" you say? I would suggest that those in other parts of the world take a sobering look at themselves before casting Americans as more violent than they. But digging the skeletons out of our respective cultures' closets for all to see serves no real purpose.

As for torture, doesn't what you describe as a suitable punishment qualify? I would inflict physical pain until the brutal swine dies and it makes me a barbarian, but you can lock them in a bottle-shaped cell for the stated purpose of causing profound discomfort and mental suffering, let them sit until they go mad and somehow think you're being wonderfully merciful?

Indeed we have not any real philosophic value in common.
I understand now what happened in Abu Graîb jail.

It's certainly no Algeria. Oh, that's right. No digging up skeletons, er... yeah.

All humans have the capacity for horrific acts, recognizing that and coming to terms with it is necessary.

That will make me burst of laugh when a american representant will give to China or Russia lessons about "rights of man".

So your disagreement with me determines your assessment of America, a country of some 300 million people? :laugh:

DonPanic · 2005-03-22 08:20:21

LO

But digging the skeletons out of our respective cultures' closets for all to see serves no real purpose.

You're right, I never said that France could be some example,
having given the right of vote to women far after Turquey, and having made much money in slaves traffic.

As for torture, doesn't what you describe as a suitable punishment qualify? I would inflict physical pain until the brutal swine dies and it makes me a barbarian, but you can lock them in a bottle-shaped cell for the stated purpose of causing profound discomfort and mental suffering, let them sit until they go mad and somehow think you're being wonderfully merciful?

I never said that criminals should be tenderly treated, as I could be accused of.
They acted against other humans, they are isolated from other humans.
The aim isn't to torture nor to kill them in the end, but to make them receiptive to other humans, something similar to drug deprivation, also to avoid to let them live in a environment where force balance is the only law that prevails in prisons.
The priciple being that the more they feel isolation as a torture, the fastest they will be ready for the reeducation program.

So your disagreement with me determines your assessment of America, a country of some 300 million people?

In fact, not. You forgot the "if" in lead of my message.
There is still about half of USA or less, it doesn't matter, I could live in good neighbourship, I guess,
in spite of the fact that the actual administration is rather hawkish and fully supports capital punishment

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-22 08:32:16

The aim isn't to torture nor to kill them in the end, but to make them receiptive to other humans, something similar to drug deprivation, also to avoid to let them live in a environment where force balance is the only law that prevails in prisons.
The priciple being that the more they feel isolation as a torture, the fastest they will be ready for the reeducation program.

So... torture for its own sake is wrong, but torture for other ends is permissable? You would use one form of torture to break them, I'd use another while killing them. We're not so different after all, I merely don't see the need to pretend we're going to make them good people in the end.

DonPanic · 2005-03-22 08:44:50

LO
You are mixing objective torture with the feeling of torture, which is quite different.

after all, I merely don't see the need to pretend we're going to make them good people in the end.

Because they might have been good children, and should be allowed to end their lives as good adults whatever they did, if it's possible to change them at 100%

I say this because I have sometimes in charge rebel children which cannot bear traditionnal school methods, and some of them have turned to become charming children with the handycraft based methods I teach them.
I have quite a good rate of success to eradicate their violence by giving them self confidence.
If what their school teachers tell me about these children is true, and I have no reasons to distruth the reachers;

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-22 08:54:27

You are mixing objective torture with the feeling of torture, which is quite different.

The difference is one of perception. It's an artificial distinction for the sake of convenience.

Because they might have been good children, and should be allowed to end their lives as good adults whatever they did, if it's possible to change them at 100%

And if that's important to you, well and good. For me, I'm not interesting in redeeming them, just punishing for the crime and protecting the populace.

DonPanic · 2005-03-22 08:59:31

LO
I never disdain peoples calling them "populace".
This is also a deep philosophic gap between us.

The difference is one of perception. It's an artificial distinction for the sake of convenience.

I think that a doctor's medical report would disagree with you.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-22 09:10:16

I never disdain people calling them "populace".
This is also a deep philosophic gap between us.

It was not meant as an expression of disdain. Were that the case I would have said "the masses".

I think that a doctor's report would disagree with you

That depends largely on what kind of doctor you consult. Whether purely mental or crudely physical, we're both talking about inflicting misery on the criminal to the point where it becomes unbearable.

DonPanic · 2005-03-22 09:19:15

So
If the children I have in charge in my handicraft activity classes fear more to be deprived of the workshop than to be mistreated,
will you accuse me of sadism ?

I think you desesparetely use any argument to comfort your retaliation policy at any price

It was not meant as an expression of disdain. Were that the case I would have said "the masses".

Why not call a cat, a cat, and the population, population ?

Palomar · 2005-03-22 09:31:08

*What about the families of murder victims who are opposed to capital punishment? I mean even parents and siblings of the victim?

I hope my own opposition to CP is never tested in that manner. There are some people who do want their loved one's murderer put to death. But others who -- surprisingly -- don't.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-22 09:32:00

So
If the children I have in charge in my handicraft activity classes fear more to be deprived of the workshop than to be mistreated,
will you accuse me of sadism ?
I think you desesparetely use any argument to comfort your retaliation policy at any price

Meanwhile you're using unruly children as a model for how to deal with rapists and murderers, twisting your argument in the process to the point of incoherence. I'm sorry if you take offense at the implications that your preferred penalties could constitute "torture" but getting past one's self-imposed illusions is rather important in these issues. You seem to see black and white where there is only grey.

Why not call a cat, a cat, and the population, population ?

Population, populace, citizenry, the people; none are meant in a disparaging manner. Could it be that you want to believe I hold the population in contempt? Makes it easier to dismiss an argument, that's for certain. :;):

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1111505745

DonPanic · 2005-03-22 15:28:35

LO

I'm sorry if you take offense at the implications that your preferred penalties could constitute "torture"

Do you really think that everybody will admit that impalation under a burning sun until death follows is so more comfortable than an isolation cell ? ???
You just went mad in your arguments, admiitting you would approve torture, if not torture by your own hands, and as usual in case of such a undefendable coming out I would call uncontroled skidding , you have only attack left.
But the damage is done, I'm not the one who showed a middle ages mentality.

Population, populace, citizenry, the people; none are meant in a disparaging manner.

No, sir. Each word has its own meaning. All is not equal, and populace means a messy group of low social rank peoples.
It's up to you to take care of what you want to say.
Don't try to learn me the meaning of this french origin word.

Trebuchet · 2005-03-22 17:46:47

Don't try to learn me the meaning of this french origin word.

It might have one meaning in French and the English one might derive from it, but the French meaning isn't the English meaning. Words change when they get moved from one language to another; 'populace' is a straight across synonym for 'population' in English.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-22 18:40:34

Do you really think that everybody will admit that impalation under a burning sun until death follows is so more comfortable than an isolation cell ? ???

It's not supposed to be comfortable nor did I mean to imply that your approach to punishment is somehow worse. merely that both could be construed as torture in their own way. Attacking me for allowing torture in this context is akin to throwing feces in a sewer.

You just went mad in your arguments, admiitting you would approve torture, if not torture by your own hands, and as usual in case of such a undefendable coming out I would call uncontroled skidding , you have only attack left.
But the damage is done, I'm not the one who showed a middle ages mentality.

To be nitpicky, what I would approve here is not so much "torture" as "excruciatingly painful execution" but that's a rather fine point. What's really interesting here is that you perceive my arguments "mad" and "uncontrolled skidding" when I have been consistent and honest throughout. While accusations of a "middle ages mentality" might mortify the sensibilities of some, I am well aware of the darkness and potential for horror that lurks in each and every one of us and I'm comfortable with its presence. No need to delude myself into thinking that such things are behind us or that I'm somehow more "civilized" than the . . . populace, French sense. :;):

It wouldn't take much to turn either of us into monsters. The difference is I acknowledge it and don't try to convince myself otherwise.

It might have one meaning in French and the English one might derive from it, but the French meaning isn't the English meaning. Words change when they get moved from one language to another; 'populace' is a straight across synonym for 'population' in English.

Thank you, Trebuchet, quite right.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-22 19:38:34

Just for the record, I see little ethical difference between DonPanic's mental torture and CC's physical torture and I don't personally condone either.

If you are going to imprison someone, either for rehabilitation purposes or to keep them isolated from the general populace (population, people, citizenry .. whatever word you prefer), I believe they should have basic amenities and reasonably civilized treatment. In other words, prison should be hard but not unduly cruel.

For those "deserving few" who are sentenced to execution, I still don't advocate inflicting a painful and/or drawn-out death. Lethal injection appears to be the most humane way to do the job.

[P.S. As an aside, I still find it peculiar that so many of the group we loosely define as 'the Left' can cheerfully approve the torturous dismemberment and death of a 20- or 24-week old innocent fetus, while fighting tooth and nail to preserve the life of a vicious multiple murderer.
The fetus has done nothing wrong and cannot speak for itself - only a few weeks separate it from birth and the assumption of full human rights under the law - yet its death is 'O.K.'.
The multiple murderer, fully in control of his/her own destiny, has deliberately, purposefully, and mercilessly taken the lives of several innocent humans and is very likely to do it again. Yet that creature's life must be defended out of some kind of contrived moral ascendancy on the part of the Left.
I've never understood that, myself, despite all the lectures about how a fetus isn't a human being etc. (And the vicious multiple murderer is??! ) ???

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2005-03-21 16:23:05

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

#127 2005-03-21 16:26:04

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

#128 2005-03-21 17:13:16

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

#129 2005-03-21 19:50:23

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

#130 2005-03-21 20:02:22

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

#131 2005-03-21 21:04:25

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

#132 2005-03-22 03:55:42

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

#133 2005-03-22 04:58:49

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

#134 2005-03-22 06:28:38

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

#135 2005-03-22 06:34:47

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

#136 2005-03-22 07:05:48

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

#137 2005-03-22 07:18:52

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

#138 2005-03-22 08:20:21

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

#139 2005-03-22 08:32:16

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

#140 2005-03-22 08:44:50

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

#141 2005-03-22 08:54:27

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

#142 2005-03-22 08:59:31

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

#143 2005-03-22 09:10:16

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

#144 2005-03-22 09:19:15

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

#145 2005-03-22 09:31:08

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

#146 2005-03-22 09:32:00

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

#147 2005-03-22 15:28:35

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

#148 2005-03-22 17:46:47

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

#149 2005-03-22 18:40:34

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

#150 2005-03-22 19:38:34

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

Board footer