His crime doesn't sound all that horrendous to me. Now, if he had been married when he pulled this stunt, well that'd be another matter.

Why doesn't it sound horrendous? If he did what he did, but he apologised in court, cried next to the victim's family, etc. then I would say no to torture. But the fact that he did what he did, and showed such defiance in the face of justice, and disregard for the suffering of others, this is a moral abomination of the highest degrees which deserves unimaginably severe punishment.

And raping someone when married does not constitute adultery. Adultery is mutual sex outside of marriage, and rape is rape, whether married or not. Different crimes. Rape is generally much worse than adultery in terms of wrongness.

Just ribbing you about the adultery thing. Obviously, I think such a person should be tortured brutally. Preferably on national television. With Slayer performing live. Xtreme Justice (brought you to by mountain dew.)

Studies have shown that most people, when tortured, just say whatever they think you want to hear. So I'm guessing those people facing torture would say they repent and feel sorry even before you laid a finger on them. Then you let them go and there would be an even greater chance that they would do it again -- especially since they can get off with another "heartfelt repentance" -- and make sure it is a worse crime unless it is too minor and he ends up getting stuck in prison for a long time. It didn't work for the Inquisition, (and you will end up looking just as evil), why do you think it will work now?

For one, I think many of us would feel good to see such a person subjected to the worst kinds of suffering until he begs for mercy. Would you disagree? — Agustino

Absolutely I disagree. And eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

All your reasoning here shows is our insatiable desire for vengeance and a deep belief in blood debts.

Studies have shown that most people — swstephe

Serial Killers, and rapists of the like I mentioned above aren't most people. Most people would also regret killing someone and the like. Serial killers don't. What makes you think they'll act like most people? Scientifically you CANNOT draw this conclusion, there's not enough evidence, nor theory to support such a hypothesis.

o I'm guessing those people facing torture would say they repent and feel sorry even before you laid a finger on them. — swstephe

If they were normal, rational human beings, not cold-blooded, irrational serial killers, rapists, etc. yes.

It didn't work for the Inquisition, (and you will end up looking just as evil), why do you think it will work now? — swstephe

Maybe because they didn't punish serial killers, rapists and the like during the Inquisition but rather many innocent people? :s

Absolutely I disagree. And eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. — darthbarracuda

Yes but you don't understand. These people are beasts, they are worse than beasts. They deserve the harshest of punishments. It's not about an eye for an eye - these are not normal people. If they were normal, I would agree with you.

All your reasoning here shows is our insatiable desire for vengeance and a deep belief in blood debts. — darthbarracuda

This is interesting. Why would many of us, or let me not say many of us and assume, but rather I, why do you reckon I would feel good and joyful seeing such a criminal suffer? Please note that I would not feel joyful to see them suffer if they had felt genuinely sorry for what they had done. But if they felt joyful and happy for having committed such atrocious crimes, I would enjoy to see them suffer, and I would feel very angry to see them get away without suffering. So what is it that motivates this? Schopenhauer (from memory I'm recalling from Book IV of WWR Vol I, someone correct me if I'm not illustrating the thoughts rightly) thought that we seek to do justice (or vengence as you say) because we want to uphold justice itself, and when someone does something like this, and does not show fear of justice or remorse for their crimes, we automatically feel a need, coming from our very being, to set things straight, by ourselves if we have to, and thus uphold justice. If we do not uphold it, then everyone, including ourselves, is placed at risk of being unjustly treated because transcendentally, someone appears to have escaped justice. Thus such a crime is the greatest of crimes because it is transcendental in nature - it is, as per Christian theology, the unforgivable sin, the hardening of the heart that not even God can set straight anymore. And we cannot accept this, so our beings feels the urge to take matters in its own hands and give to such an individual what they deserve, ultimately in an effort of love - I think deep down I think that if they suffer horrendously, they will realise how it feels for others to suffer, and thus they would repent.

Serial Killers, and rapists of the like I mentioned above aren't most people. Most people would also regret killing someone and the like. Serial killers don't. What makes you think they'll act like most people? Scientifically you CANNOT draw this conclusion, there's not enough evidence, nor theory to support such a hypothesis. — Agustino

I want to make sure I'm understanding your line of thought here. Torture won't make most people feel genuine remorse, just an urgent need to stop the pain. But since serial killers aren't like most people, and don't feel remorse for satisfying their heinous desires and easing their torturous pain, then.....maybe, unlike other people, under torture they'll feel genuine remorse instead of merely wanting to stop the pain?

Torture won't make most people feel genuine remorse, just an urgent need to stop the pain — csalisbury

Unless they are able to identify what they have done as wrong, agreed. But to identify an action as wrong merely requires the association of pain to someone else - or suffering, combined with the idea of them undergoing the respective action. I identify putting fire on a child's lap as wrong because I associate pain and suffering with the idea of putting fire on their lap, and I associate their pain and suffering with my own. It's a mixture of Hume's theory of ideas and Schopenhauer's compassion (fellow-feeling) as the basis of morality.

But since serial killers aren't like most people, and don't feel remorse for satisfying their heinous desires and easing their torturous pain, then.....maybe, unlike other people, under torture they'll feel genuine remorse instead of merely wanting to stop the pain? — csalisbury

I think many of them do not understand and cannot associate the suffering of others with their own suffering - hence no empathy. Also, many of them have remarkably high pain tolerance. So - if they could be hurt so much, they could begin to understand what others feel and how others suffer, and since they don't like their own suffering, especially to such high intensity, they could begin to form the idea that just like they are suffering in those moments, so too have their victims suffered - and just like they don't like it, neither do their victims like it. Hence they would repent.

From my understanding, a lot of serial killers and sociopath had really awful painful childhoods. They began with torture. It seems like the actual reaction to intense physical or emotional pain isn't increased empathy but a kind of spiritual and emotional disembowelment which makes one even more detached. Have you been in intense pain before, Agustino? In my experience, intense pain is all-consuming. You can't think about anything except the pain, much less other people.

Do you think it would also be just for the perpetrators to be raped, as they themselves raped?

From my understanding, a lot of serial killers and sociopath had really awful painful childhoods. — csalisbury

This is actually not true. Most people who have awful and painful childhoods (in most cases these are intense emotional pains, not physical as well - rejection and the like) do not turn into serial killers or sociopaths. A large percentage of serial killers (close to 50%) have also had normal childhoods by all standards, and seem to be your average Joe. They generally display higher than normal intelligence, high tolerance to pain, lack of empathy, arrogance and pride (even if masked), repeatedly killing or beating animals, and are unwilling to recognise or admit to mistakes or wrong-doing <- this later one is key.

Also, as almost anecdotal evidence - the survivors of Awschwitz don't generally end up as psychopaths, serial killers or the like. Many actually have an acutely developed sense of morality and compassion for their fellow human beings.

Have you been in intense pain before, Agustino? — csalisbury

My worst suffering was a very serious intestinal infection which lasted me about 2 weeks and I had fever every night, the pain was continuous, and I couldn't even sleep because of the pain. I remember falling asleep and waking up with the pain - it was so bad at one point that I could barely keep my eyes open, but I still couldn't fall asleep because of the pain. It was a hellish experience while I was experiencing it. Looking back, it's of course not as bad as it felt while I lived it.

Do you think it would also be just for the perpetrators to be raped, as they themselves raped? — csalisbury

No, because that is just disgusting and inhuman for the one who has to do it - the punishment giver. Tortured, again depending on the gravity of the offence. If he raped someone, but he is very sorry about it, cries, etc. then I would say normal punishment, no torture.

From my understanding, a lot of serial killers and sociopath had really awful painful childhoods. — csalisbury

Also this is a very "Western" view, and recent evidence is actually starting to question this a lot. Also, physical violence generally plays an important role in the growth and development of children. For example, when children fight amongst each other, they learn out of that experience - they learn what it means to suffer, how they can make others suffer, how others can make them suffer, and so forth. Out of this they learn morality. They learn to respect others, not be exceedingly harsh, be courageous, value justice, etc.

Of course this is different than the type of violence coming from an adult towards a child (or for that matter the type of violence coming from a bully to a child) - because in that situation, the child simply is defenceless, and can do nothing but feel his own impotence. Especially if this violence is unjust and the child cannot perceive any reason for it, then he will be profoundly hurt by it, and this would be highly highly immoral. This is again the type of acts that may deserve torture as a punishment.

Should unrelenting torture of the worst kind be a punishment for such a person UNTIL and IF they repent and feel sorry for what they have done? Why or why not? — Agustino

If we're talking about what the law should be, it's not clear to me that whether or not the killer repents should be a factor. That may be good for his immortal soul, but the courts have no jurisdiction over it.

Should unrelenting torture of the worst kind be a punishment for such a person UNTIL and IF they repent and feel sorry for what they have done? — Agustino

Sure, and if they repent immediately, set them loose immediately. It's just the stubborn ones we need to beat.

Sure, and if they repent immediately, set them loose immediately. It's just the stubborn ones we need to beat. — Hanover

I didn't say set them loose - just regular punishment if they repent. If they repent after the torture, you end the torture, and send them to prison.

So whether the criminal feels sorry or not for the actions he has done, and apologises or doesn't for them - you think that plays no role?

"When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations VII, 65.

No doubt he would say the same about acting towards them. Sound advice from The Man.

"When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations VII, 65.

No doubt he would say the same about acting towards them. Sound advice from The Man. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Why would you think so? Also what do you think about the argument I have put forth?

For me it's a matter of logical consistency, of hypocrisy. Treating the inhumane as they treat others makes one inhumane also. That much is clear to me. Second, I would feel no satisfaction seeing a broken human being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. I'm not sure that constitutes justice. Civilised nations have long given up on barbarism in pursuit of better ideals, and I don't find your arguments convincing enough to regress.

I think it's not past a criminals capacity to lie to save their own skin (perhaps literally in your justice system), or for the kind of psychopaths we are talking about to feign sorrow and regret convincingly.

I think it's not past a criminals capacity to lie to save their own skin (perhaps literally in your justice system), or for the kind of psychopaths we are talking about to feign sorrow and regret convincingly. — WhiskeyWhiskers

If they feign it, they will still get the normal punishment not the torture. The torture still fulfills its role, even if they feign remorse to escape it. The thing is the mockery of justice that they make otherwise, and the mockery of the victim's family, and humiliation they subject them to - that is all prevent, and the law is uphold!

These people are beasts, they are worse than beasts. — Agustino

Do you suppose people pop out of the womb with identical clean slates, and that somehow some mystical metaphysical soul has the capability of choosing without constraint from causality?

We should be angry that these people made bad choices and caused harm to others. These people after all felt like they had a free choice to do these things.

And yet the capital punishment of death or torture for acting in one's nature is also wrong. If Schopenhauer argues that we want punishment in order to maintain justice, I would argue that by doing so we are simply reassuring ourselves that we live in a rational, just world when we in reality do not. A psychopath laughing about killing people for fun threatens the very foundation of our society. It shakes us to the core, and is therefore a prime target for the media. We feel inexplicably drawn to this menace in order to try to figure out why the psychopath is laughing and how this can fit in our view about a rational, coherent world.

So by saying "I want justice!", it seems like you are really saying "I want order!, I want safety, I want things to go the way I want them to!" By punishing someone you are trying to get them to repent and assimilate back into society, back into the submerged group-think.

More pragmatically, though, I am against torture and death penalties because we might be wrong in our judgement. Every single death penalty carried out was carried out with full reassurance from the law, and yet there are cases in which the prisoner was actually innocent and thus a victim of our over-zealous desire for justice. There's no point in killing them or torturing them. It's irrational, risky, and pointless.

For me it's a matter of logical consistency, of hypocrisy. Treating the inhumane as they treat others makes one inhumane also. That much is clear to me. Second, I would feel no satisfaction seeing a broken human being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. I'm not sure that constitutes justice. Civilised nations have long given up on barbarism in pursuit of better ideals, and I don't find your arguments convincing enough to regress. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Why? You treat others humanely because they are human. If they give up their humanity by committing such atrocities, why treat them humanly?

Do you suppose people pop out of the womb with identical clean slates, and that somehow some mystical metaphysical soul has the capability of choosing without constraint from causality? — darthbarracuda

I'm unsure what exactly you are asking by this, but I will tentatively answer no.

I would argue that by doing so we are simply reassuring ourselves that we live in a rational, just world when we in reality do not. — darthbarracuda

Yes but we must do this in order to uphold our social standards and the integrity/legitimacy of our societies. Some values are sacred - like justice - they cannot be mocked.

A psychopath laughing about killing people for fun threatens the very foundation of our society. It shakes us to the core, and is therefore a prime target for the media. We feel inexplicably drawn to this menace in order to try to figure out why the psychopath is laughing and how this can fit in our view about a rational, coherent world. — darthbarracuda

Exactly! This is exactly why we must step down on it in the harshest way imaginable.

By punishing someone you are trying to get them to repent and assimilate back into society, back into the submerged group-think. — darthbarracuda

No I don't want to assimilate them back necessarily. I want to ensure that society as a whole survives - and to survive it must either crush them or assimilate them back.

More pragmatically, though, I am against torture and death penalties because we might be wrong in our judgement. — darthbarracuda

So if the guy mocks the family and laughs about his actions we can be wrong? -_-

"When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations VII, 65. — WhiskeyWhiskers

And by the way - I doubt that MA was referring to this kind of inhumanity. This is almost beyond inhuman. It's inhuman to slaughter undefended children in war. That's an inhuman action. It's inhuman to slaughter them while making a game out of it in war, yes. But to do so in society and not even admit that it is a wrong?? That is - no words for it...

So if the guy mocks the family and laughs about his actions we can be wrong? -_- — Agustino

You don't usually kill someone for mocking your family.

Exactly! This is exactly why we must step down on it in the harshest way imaginable. — Agustino

We certainly can't allow this behavior to continue. But we shouldn't stoop to their level and execute or torture them. This doesn't do anything but provide a catharsis. The psychopath isn't going to learn by torture, and she can't repent after she's dead.

Interestingly enough, it is easy to condemn someone to death, but far more difficult to actually do it. You either have to be a psychopath yourself to enjoy torturing or killing the guilty, or you end up with a lot of guilt, remorse, and suicidal thoughts.

Just knowing that a person "got away" pisses us off. It's not fair. It's not how we want things to be. But I wonder if you would be willing to kill someone yourself to restore order. You might walk away from the kill wondering if you just made things worse.

You don't usually kill someone for mocking your family. — darthbarracuda

If somebody mocks your family by raping and brutally murdering someone from your family after having subjected them to the worst kinds of suffering imaginable, and then feeling proud of it, then you sure as hell kill them, even if the law were absurdly to refuse to punish them. This question is of a transcendental nature now, regardless of the earthly law. Why do you think that many people, when done grave injustices, resort to taking matters into their own hands, and some of them are even willing to go to the end of the earth and to sacrifice their own lives to ensure that justice is done? There is something in the human spirit which pushes them to do this - it's apparent in much of our literature, where such cases are best exemplified.

We certainly can't allow this behavior to continue. But we shouldn't stoop to their level and execute or torture them. This doesn't do anything but provide a catharsis. The psychopath isn't going to learn by torture, and she can't repent after she's dead. — darthbarracuda

I provided a mechanism via which they could learn from the torture. Do you disagree, and if so why? Second of all, in the case that they just refuse to repent, killing them in a brutal way will provide, as you say, the catharsis necessary for our social institutions, for our justice, for our safety, etc. to maintain their value and sacredness in our eyes - a thing which is required for us to have a society at all.

Interestingly enough, it is easy to condemn someone to death, but far more difficult to actually do it. You either have to be a psychopath yourself to enjoy torturing or killing the guilty, or you end up with a lot of guilt, remorse, and suicidal thoughts. — darthbarracuda

This is false. I think many people would enjoy torturing such a person. I for one would. Do you think I'm a psychopath? I think there is ample evidence that human beings have a sense of justice, which they are willing to go to their own death to ensure that it is not violated. I wouldn't enjoy harming or torturing or anything even close to that a normal, regular criminal. In fact, punishment for such criminals should not really be or be called punishment, it should be rehabilitation. But when it is one of those extreme and hideous crimes, that's an entirely different story.

Just knowing that a person "got away" pisses us off. It's not fair. It's not how we want things to be. But I wonder if you would be willing to kill someone yourself to restore order. You might walk away from the kill wondering if you just made things worse. — darthbarracuda

I would do it... I would feel glad and proud for helping maintain the order and stability of my society, and doing justice to the poor victims who have unlawfully suffered such a tragic fate. I could at least ensure them that the person who did this to them has received what they deserved, even though I cannot bring back their loved one, or undo what they've had to go through.

whether the criminal feels sorry or not for the actions he has done, and apologises or doesn't for them - you think that plays no role? — Agustino

You used the word "repent" which I associated with acknowledgement of sin and commitment to "sin no more." But if you're speaking of feeling sorry for what was done, or remorse, courts will sometimes take that into account in sentencing by my understanding. It's unclear how we go about determining remorse is genuine, though, and I don't know whether the consideration of remorse in sentencing has had any beneficial effect, i.e. whether those claiming they're remorseful haven't engaged in subsequent criminal conduct.

I suspect that those facing the alternative of being tortured in some hideous fashion would declare themselves to be very, very sorry; as sorry as anyone would wish them to be. If they didn't, they would arguably be lunatics. So, I think it's likely the threat of torture would merely compel the convicted to "repent" whether they were remorseful or not, and I doubt that is something you'd find satisfactory.

Of course torture would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, so absent a constitutional amendment I doubt we'd see it in practice. But I think torture debases the torturer as well as cause terrible pain in the tortured. I don't think requiring the convicted to recite mea culpas in order to avoid torture is an outcome worth becoming torturers.

If somebody mocks your family by raping and brutally murdering someone from your family after having subjected them to the worst kinds of suffering imaginable, and then feeling proud of it, then you sure as hell kill them, even if the law were absurdly to refuse to punish them. — Agustino

Well I think this is an equivocation of the word mock. Making fun of someone's family is mocking, throwing eggs on their windows is mocking. Killing someone's daughter is not mocking, it's murder.

The murderer wouldn't go unpunished. But they wouldn't be killed or tortured, either. Sooner or later you are going to end up torturing or killing an innocent person. It's happened before and it will happen again if we continue to allow it to.

Why do you think that many people, when done grave injustices, resort to taking matters into their own hands, and some of them are even willing to go to the end of the earth and to sacrifice their own lives to ensure that justice is done? There is something in the human spirit which pushes them to do this - it's apparent in much of our literature, where such cases are best exemplified. — Agustino

It's also often seen as a tragic aspect of human nature. Our inability to make peace with others and swallow our desire for justice and vengeance creates even more conflict. We end up fighting conflict with more conflict. And in the end, all we feel is a sense of relief.

This is false. I think many people would enjoy torturing such a person. I for one would. Do you think I'm a psychopath? I think there is ample evidence that human beings have a sense of justice, which they are willing to go to their own death to ensure that it is not violated. I wouldn't enjoy harming or torturing or anything even close to that a normal, regular criminal. In fact, punishment for such criminals should not really be or be called punishment, it should be rehabilitation. But when it is one of those extreme and hideous crimes, that's an entirely different story. — Agustino

How do you determine when someone is able to be rehabilitated vs when they ought to be slaughtered like the dogs they are? Your gut feeling? Your (biased) desire for justice?

I will say plainly that I highly doubt your ability to kill someone else out of a sense of justice. There are ample stories of functionally normal people in guard positions in prison who executed those on death row and later live lives of severe depression and guilt, or guards who just couldn't do it and were replaced by those who apparently could.

So, I think it's likely the threat of torture would merely compel the convicted to "repent" whether they were remorseful or not, and I doubt that is something you'd find satisfactory. — Ciceronianus the White

I do find that satisfactory, at least they won't mock the family, and humiliate them even more, and mock the entirety of the justice system as well - that alone, in that is preserves the sacredness of justice, and the dignity of the victim's family is enough. Even if they fake their repentance - that's still much better than the abomination of defying the justice, and maintaining in words that there's nothing wrong with what they've done. Also, if they avoid torture, it doesn't mean that they will avoid the prison sentence that happens anyway.

The murderer wouldn't go unpunished. But they wouldn't be killed or tortured, either. Sooner or later you are going to end up torturing or killing an innocent person. It's happened before and it will happen again if we continue to allow it to. — darthbarracuda

Again - if they admit to the crime, and laugh at the justice, and mock the family... how can we possibly be wrong?

Our inability to make peace with others and swallow our desire for justice and vengeance creates even more conflict. — darthbarracuda

In some cases - in other cases, not fighting for justice is seen as weakly and cowardly, or even worse, immoral.

How do you determine when someone is able to be rehabilitated vs when they ought to be slaughtered like the dogs they are? Your gut feeling? Your (biased) desire for justice? — darthbarracuda

Simple. If they show remorse during the torture, then they will be put in prison and will undergo the usual punishment. If they don't, then they will be killed.

There are ample stories of functionally normal people in guard positions in prison who executed those on death row and later live lives of severe depression and guilt, or guards who just couldn't do it and were replaced by those who apparently could. — darthbarracuda

Yes - many times because the guards were not aware who they killed, or because they were forced to kill innocent people, and such reasons. But there are also many stories from war, with people who have killed hundreds of other people, who feel little or no remorse, especially when they knew they were fighting for a just cause.

In fact, @darthbarracuda, why would you, or anyone else, feel remorse and guilt for killing such a criminal? Do you think he somehow doesn't deserve that kind of punishment?