[Maladiq]

I am talking here about the sanctions which are found in penal law, from fines, to jail, to whipping, to death penalty etc. What is your take on them? Do you agree to corporal punishment? Do you agree to death penalty?

What about the rights the prisoners have while detained? (TV, physical exercise, visits etc.)

[foobar]

Do you agree to corporal punishment?

Depends. It might be a suitable form of punishment if it does no permanent damage. So no chopping off the hands of thieves. But perhaps a few lashes with a cane or so as an option for the offender.

In most "civilised" countries, there are only two ways to pay for a crime: with money (to a point) or with freedom. We like to think that these two are civilised and "dignified" forms of punishment while physically hurting someone is not. I am not quite sure about that.

Example: Let us assume we have a simple farmer. He has a family that economically depends on him. His working power is what keeps the farm running which in turn feeds his family. Now he commits a crime. What can we do to punish him? It was his crime – so naturally, we want to punish him and no one else. His family should not have to suffer from the punishment because they did nothing wrong.

• Assuming that his crime was small enough: If he has to pay a fine, it will also hit the family. The farmer can only spend money once and he lives in an economic union with his family. It's not just his money. It's the family's money as well. In one way or the other, they'll all end up paying that fine.
• Assuming he does not have the money or his crime allows only incarceration: If we lock him up in jail, his working power will be missing on the farm and his family will fall on hard times¹.

In both cases, the "civilised" forms of punishment result in hurting those which economically depend on the offender. The usual response to this accusation is: “The farmer should have thought about that before!” While it is true that the farmer should indeed have considered that, it does not change the fact that innocent people will get hurt by his punishment. Not his crime. His punishment. Which is our responsibility. Just because the farmer did not think about that, does it mean we should also not think about it? That we should drag in innocents to punish the guilty?

Now what if instead we simply gave him a painful but basically harmless experience? Nothing that would cripple him, just something that is unpleasant. If one session does not seem enough to make up for his crime, we'll repeat it a few times (after giving him some time to recuperate). Ok, maybe he won't be able to sit for a day. But basically, he would still be able to work on the farm and provide for his family. It would also not notably diminish the family's financial reserves. It would be a form of punishment that really only hurts (literally) the one who committed the crime. No innocents would be dragged in by what we think of as "justice".

Sometimes, people can choose between paying money or going to jail. Why not also allow them to choose between jail time and corporal punishment²? It should be voluntary and of course, cause no permanent damage. But other than that, I do not see why it would be worse or less "dignified" than jail time. If I had to choose between spending some time in jail or taking a some strokes with a cane on my ass and at least be done with it – I think I'd choose the latter.


¹ There might be social services in this country which prevent them from starving. But in some countries, they would only help if the family has no other assets. They would have to sell the farm (thus sacrificing their future) to have food. Only when that does not suffice, they would get help. And even then it would still be others (the tax payers) who pay the price for the farmer's crime.
² Again, to a certain point. There might be crimes which can only be paid for by incarceration. Especially if it is necessary to prevent the offender from doing it again.

Do you agree to death penalty?

I think it shows a lack of civilisation to have it. Only stupid people believe that any justice system is perfect. Everyone else knows that no matter how much you know, there's always room for error. Hence, you should not use any punishment that you cannot make up for if it turns out to be unjustified later on.

[Dino]

1. Do you agree to corporal punishment?
2. Do you agree to death penalty?

3. What about the rights the prisoners have while detained? (TV, physical exercise, visits etc.)

1. I don't even know, nor want to know what that is
2. Yes, definetely. Most of the times(if not always) only violence and death can solve the problems. People are too damn stupid to reason with.

3. They should be limited: the people who commited more severe crime should have close to no rights. It should depents on the weight of the crime.

[foobar]

2. Yes, definetely. Most of the times(if not always) only violence and death can solve the problems.

Then why do countries with death penalty have the same amount of capital crime (if not more) as countries without death penalty? Shouldn't there be significantly less capital crime if the death penalty is indeed a solution (or even, as you claim, the only one)?

[Dino]

Then why do countries with death penalty have the same amount of capital crime (if not more) as countries without death penalty? Shouldn't there be significantly less capital crime if the death penalty is indeed a solution (or even, as you claim, the only one)?

Exactly because it doesn't even matter - people NEVER learn. That is why we still have wars and that is why there have to be riots everywhere. Our evolution has not yet reached a level where we could reason with eachother without violence and power: it is impossible.

With or without death penalties it's all the same, people just don't want to learn. I cannot comprehand why, and in fact, I no longer wish to know why. All I know is that for the time beign death penalty is a solution to bigger crimes. Actually, it doesn't even matter, you just get rid of one person and afterwords 1 000 more will appear. Well at least it's gonna be one less.

[foobar]

So what you're saying is that it is a "solution" that in fact does not solve anything? In that case, I fail to say why we should use it.

[Dino]

So what you're saying is that it is a "solution" that in fact does not solve anything? In that case, I fail to say why we should use it.

Or why not use it, but either case I don't see any difference. However I prefer if people like that guy in Norway were killed rather than lying arround in a cell. He killed teens, for F's sake! Why?

When you threaten a man's life with a death punishment, they might have second thoughts if they want to commit a certain crime. Fear has been used to control and this is no exception. Well if the person is insane anyway, they'd still do it despite the fact that they'll be executed. But for the most part, I think it does strike some fear into people if their life was on the line.

I for one don't know what's worse: to have your freedom taken away, aka life-sentence in a jail, or to be killed immediately. Both cases are bad, the world would be better off if we didn't have the need to come this far.

[Maladiq]

I shall address the corporal punishment subject later this evening, I lack the time right now.

About the death penalty: I used to be for it, since it seemed irrational to keep someone who proved himself a permanent and irrecoverable danger to society in prison, where the state would cover his expenses and provide everything to him. I gave this problem a good thought.

Though it may seem barbaric at first to execute someone, in the end it remains a rather... humane solution. People who did atrocious things shouldn't get off that easy. Keeping a man detained for life is much worse. Yet the conditions should be changed. The person shouldn't be allowed any contact with the outside world, and he shouldn't be allowed to exercise. Spend 23 hours a day in the cell and one hour with a therapist in a "guilt class" (somewhat similar to what americans did to germans after ww2, I hope I don't offend anyone). Also, 2 small meals a day should be enough. Not to starve him to death or give him ulcer, but to be insufficient for his happiness. Maybe even an interdiction on reading and information.

Another form of punishment which is IMO needed would be the interdiction to physically exercise when it comes to violent crimes. It is well known that exercising raises the testosterone level in the body, which in the end results in tension and violence. This could be compensated with mandatory cartoon watching group sessions. This technique is sometimes used in man-only workplaces which imply they leave civilization for some time, such as open sea oil platforms.

[Dino]

@Maladiq: Yes, also restriction from any form of physical excercise:
[Bild: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1z_9ebiurXErmlaJjvXUjEgN9RAMeHEDM8OU3iPnJTmEO_Efc9DxRKNam]
Or a cage like the one they used to transport Hannibal in "the silence of the lambs"

[Nisarg]

There's this chap who infiltrated India by boat with a handful of other men and immediately went on a killing spree to appease some badly distorted version of religion. He killed lots of people. Defenceless people and defenceless cops (come on, a country made revolver and a staff ain't good enough against the AK-47) and would have killed a lot more if he hadn't been disarmed and captured (somehow). Instead of interrogating this terrorist and then killing him, they decided to give him a fair trial (all those countless witnesses are not enough, nor are all those cops or security camera images!) and the trial has dragged on for several months, at the cost of a several million euros per month. And by all accounts they give him a good diet, a clean bed, etc, while he is shut in with the tightest security.

And this is a man who should have been shot on sight. They don't even hang him, even if he is clearly an enemy of the nation. And a self-proclaimed one at that.

Tell me, should he really not be executed? It would even relieve the tax payer's burden a bit.

[Maladiq]

I cannot agree with the "shot on sight" bit. A fair trial is the base for any decent law system. Yet what good would have brought his execution? None, I would say. On the other hand, solitary confinement for the rest of his days without any human contact would have been a much worse penalty, slowly driving him into insanity.

@ Dino: not really, but a 2x2cell would suffice.

[Dino]

@ Dino: not really, but a 2x2cell would suffice.

Push-ups, wall push-ups, crunches, squads, etc. Loads of ways to train in a small room.

[Maladiq]

Push-ups, wall push-ups, crunches, squads, etc. Loads of ways to train in a small room.

Not if you are under 24 h surveillance.


Yet a good idea would be to just friggin remove the body building equipment from the prisons for starters.

[Nisarg]

On the other hand, solitary confinement for the rest of his days without any human contact would have been a much worse penalty, slowly driving him into insanity.

That sounds like a better idea. If only they wouldn't have to spend so much. Not to mention that he can gain his liberty from the next plane that's hijacked by his countrymen.

[Bastardo]

Depends. It might be a suitable form of punishment if it does no permanent damage. So no chopping off the hands of thieves. But perhaps a few lashes with a cane or so as an option for the offender.

In most "civilised" countries, there are only two ways to pay for a crime: with money (to a point) or with freedom. We like to think that these two are civilised and "dignified" forms of punishment while physically hurting someone is not. I am not quite sure about that.

Except penalties in "civilized" countries shouldn't be about punishing or dignifying at all. They should be about rehabilitation and reparation. And wherever they are, statistics pretty much prove such pursuits to be worthwhile.

Example: Let us assume we have a simple farmer. He has a family that economically depends on him. His working power is what keeps the farm running which in turn feeds his family. Now he commits a crime. What can we do to punish him? It was his crime – so naturally, we want to punish him and no one else. His family should not have to suffer from the punishment because they did nothing wrong.

Naturally, but not logically. Logically whatever he did wrong we want to make right, and there are various options for that depending on the crime.

No innocents would be dragged in by what we think of as "justice".

Which, if reduced to a beating, is a pointless endeavour. If the prospect of the death penalty doesn't lower crime, do you think simple beatings will? And if it doesn't lower crime, what the fuck is the point of a state-sanctioned farmer-beating? Is it for its own sake? In that case it's called revenge, not justice. The farmer could be made to work for whoever he wronged for X time distributed throughout X time span in a way that he could still provide for his family by working his ass off. Working your ass off is a constructive punishment.

[Maladiq]

Actually, no. Not even Beccaria went as far as denying the retributive finality of the penal punishment. Why not? Example:


I am not a sociopat, but my girlfriend keeps cheating on me and pretend it never happens. So one day she does something even worst and I decide to kill her. So I do it. I killed her not to gain pleasure, and it is certain I won't be tempted to kill anyone else. In this is case it is clear that there is nothing to be fixed with me, I cannot be rehabilitated since I am not a social danger. The crime I committed was not a chronic social deviance, it was a crime strictly related to HER, therefore I am not a danger to society in general.

In this case a punishment is strictly retributive.

EDIT:

About corporal punishment: it has more chances to reduce criminality than death penalty if it is painful enough, but without doing any real damage: for example you tie him to a chair and file one of his teeth with an electric file without anesthetic.

[Aetherian]

I cannot agree with the "shot on sight" bit. A fair trial is the base for any decent law system. Yet what good would have brought his execution? None, I would say. On the other hand, solitary confinement for the rest of his days without any human contact would have been a much worse penalty, slowly driving him into insanity.

What about those people whose guilt is not in doubt, like the guy who recently went on a shooting rampage and shot 8 people in cold blood at a beauty salon, his ex-wife and 7 innocent bystanders? I say to eliminate his genes from this planet as soon as possible. Those whose guilt is not as concrete should, yes, be given a fair trial, but the heinous beasts like in my example should not be given that option, instead they should be shown the same mercy as they gave their victims.

[Dino]

I say to eliminate his genes from this planet as soon as possible. .

I agree. If somebody starts killing people take him down.

[Nisarg]

What about those people whose guilt is not in doubt

Which is exactly what the terrorist was like. He went on a killing spree in full view in broad daylight. He should have been crippled (at least) on sight.

[Maladiq]

You are fundamentally wrong. The only person who can decide if a person is guilty "beyond any doubt" is a judge. If you let that to the cops to decides, you open the way for horrible abuse. You cannot give a fair trial to someone without finding out why did he do it. Maybe someone threatened to kill his family if he does it. Maybe he was drugged as a prank by someone and he went berserk, without any fault of his own.

Maybe the police hear screams and and gun fire, and when they finally reach the place they find someone standing with a gun near a pile of bodies. The man who just disarmed and killed the real killer.

Another example: mass shootings mean adrenaline, confusion, panic. It is always possible that you can mistake him for someone dressed similarly or who looks like him.

Yeah, great idea shooting him on sight. The only, and here I mean ONLY moment in which a police officer should be allowed to shoot someone in order to kill is the moment that someone points a gun at them and starts shooting with the intention to kill. It is called self defense, and it is regulated by the penal law. Because otherwise it would be just chaos. Every single psycho would join to police just for the sake of having the liberty to shoot people.

A cop's job is to protect the innocent and to enforce the law. To punish is a judge's duty. Otherwise the separation of powers in a state would be just a myth.