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

The "original intent" of the eye-for-an-eye rule was to keep vengeance proportionate. If, for instance, somebody stepped on your sore toe, you didn't get to gouge out their eyeball as punishment. If somebody accidentally shot your cow during deer hunting season, you don't get to slaughter their family. "Proportionate vengeance" said Hammurabi.

If somebody was being tortured for information, what you said would make sense. IF, however, they were being tortured as punishment, it shouldn't make any difference what they say.

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

It's not really about how we can possibly be wrong in these kinds of situation. It's that the law is not written in a case-by-case basis. We don't get to say that one person is obviously guilty while someone else is obviously innocent. Executing an innocent person cannot be excused. The desire for vengeance does not excuse an innocent's execution. We may be confident that x is guilty of death, and in fact x is indeed guilty, but executing x leads to the slippery slope of executing y, who is innocent. No executions, period.

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

We wouldn't let these people go free. But you can release an innocent person from prison. You can't un-do an execution. You can't apologize to an innocent person for being tortured. Prison itself is a necessary evil, but we can accommodate everyone else in prison without killing or torturing them.

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. — Agustino

What if you're actually innocent? Wouldn't you be coerced to admit to a crime you didn't commit?

Do you think he somehow doesn't deserve that kind of punishment? — Agustino

By killing someone you extinguish all potential for redemption. By executing someone, you are giving up on them. "It's time to die, because we hate you and can't/don't want to see you redeemed."

The "original intent" of the eye-for-an-eye rule was to keep vengeance proportionate. If, for instance, somebody stepped on your sore toe, you didn't get to gouge out their eyeball as punishment. If somebody accidentally shot your cow during deer hunting season, you don't get to slaughter their family. "Proportionate vengeance" said Hammurabi. — Bitter Crank

But the eye-for-an-eye making the whole world blind analogy is arguing for forgiveness.

It's not really about how we can possibly be wrong in these kinds of situation. It's that the law is not written in a case-by-case basis. We don't get to say that one person is obviously guilty while someone else is obviously innocent. Executing an innocent person cannot be excused. The desire for vengeance does not excuse an innocent's execution. We may be confident that x is guilty of death, and in fact x is indeed guilty, but executing x leads to the slippery slope of executing y, who is innocent. No executions, period. — darthbarracuda

I disagree that this is necessarily the case. Torture should be kept for those cases which are crystal clear only.

What if you're actually innocent? Wouldn't you be coerced to admit to a crime you didn't commit? — darthbarracuda

Impossible given the descriptions I have given because if I am actually innocent I would not be mocking the victim's family, defying justice, etc. I would simply state that I feel very sorry and concerned for the family, but I really am not the criminal.

By killing someone you extinguish all potential for redemption. By executing someone, you are giving up on them. "It's time to die, because we hate you and can't/don't want to see you redeemed." — darthbarracuda

What makes you think everyone can be redeemed based only on external forces?

Torture should be kept for those cases which are crystal clear only. — Agustino

I'm assuming you believe that there ever can be a crystal-clear case? Presumably all those who have been executed were thought to be crystal-clear guilty. And yet there were some who were innocent.

I would simply state that I feel very sorry and concerned for the family, but I really am not the criminal. — Agustino

Psychopaths can lie.

What makes you think everyone can be redeemed based only on external forces? — Agustino

I don't believe everyone can be redeemed. But I believe they ought to be given a chance.

I argue that yes, torture of the worst imaginable kind should be a punishment for such a person. Why? 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. — Agustino

Yes, I think it can safely be said that [some] of us would feel good to see such a person subjected to the worst kinds of suffering... In the blesséd land of America, large crowds gathered to watch persons convicted by mob jury of status offenses hung from trees, castrated, and then maybe burned alive, the audience sometimes collecting bits and pieces of charred flesh as souvenirs. Further back in time, our European ancestors hanged and burnt live victims in public executions which were very well attended. Hard hearted executioners would use damp wood for the burning so that the flames would be smaller and death would take longer to ensue.

More recently, like 1933 to 1945, some of our present German friends and allies enjoyed watching (or joining in) Jews being beaten to death on the street. In the prisons, far more ghastly tortures were conducted. In Stalin's regime, ended in 1953, torture of the prisoner was pretty much an all-out romp of every sadistic practice that could be performed on a prisoner. There was also Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. etc. etc.

You have now publicly stated your desire to see such practices resumed.

Bible quoting does no good for the non-believer, but since you have made it clear elsewhere that you do believe in God, and believe most earnestly, Bible-quoting by this apostate Methodist may help you.

Deuteronomy 32:35... Vengeance belongs to Me; I will repay.
Romans 12:19... Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Matthew 5:38-39... “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Ezekiel 25:17... I will execute great vengeance on them with wrathful rebukes. (That is, God will -- not you.)
Leviticus19:18... You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
Revelations 21:8... But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” [You said this you especially liked this book; do you suppose you will be put in charge of the burning sulfurous pits?]
1 Thessalonians 5:15... See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. And so on.

There are people who are prepared to commit heinous crimes against persons who will feel no guilt. They are called psychopaths -- diseased minds. They were born that way, most likely. Maybe they got that way because of very bad events in their early lives. Whichever it was, they are responsible for their actions (because we hold people responsible). They must be secluded from society whether they feel remorse or not. Maybe someday we will be able to heal psychopathy, but that time is not now.

There is a moral objection to torturing the guilty; there is the repugnant historical precedence of torture; and there is another: Someone must carry out the torture. In a civilized society of healthy individuals, no one would be asked, or would volunteer to do this job, or accept it if it were offered. Conducting torture is a criminal activity: criminal in that it is against society, and criminal in that it makes a conspirator in a morally forbidden act.

For your own psychological good, extirpate from your mind this desire to torture.

Psychopaths can lie. — darthbarracuda

Yes, if I lie in this way, no torture for me, just prison.

For your own psychological good, extirpate from your mind this desire to torture. — Bitter Crank

Why do you think it is bad to want to punish such heinous crimes? Don't you find it outrageous that such things can happen? And don't you think that those who commit them deserve to suffer for it? What would you do if this happened to one of your loved ones? If someone did this to them? Would you not want to see them punished? Will you not be happier if they are punished?

Also I do not have a desire for torture - as I have repeatedly said, I find it highly immoral to torture anyone (for example the State torturing someone for information - i find that immoral), EXCEPT in the case of the most heinous crimes. So I don't see how I have a desire for torture. I just have a desire for justice, because I want torture to be used for the purposes of justice. Do you think justice can be done in such cases without torture? If so, how?

Revelations 21:8... But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” [You said this you especially liked this book; do you suppose you will be put in charge of the burning sulfurous pits?] — Bitter Crank

Do you think there will not be joy in Heaven when Satan is destroyed and Justice is done by God at the Final Judgement? I think there will. And no, I didn't say I especially liked that book, I said I read that book first, and found it essential to see the whole character of Jesus. It's not one of my favorite books from the Bible though.

You have now publicly stated your desire to see such practices resumed. — Bitter Crank

*Facepalm*
I fail to see what the examples you have offered me have to do with me. Does it sound to you like I'm advocating for any of those? Seriously now... this is the biggest strawman I have ever seen. I'd agree with the actions from exactly ZERO of the examples you have provided, and I find all of them morally reprehensible to a high degree.

As for "Vengence is mine saith the Lord!" Let me tell you a joke :D ... There was a priest in a small town, he dedicated his whole life to God, praying, growing the numbers of his Church, saving others from sin, etc. One day, a big flood happens. Just the first level of the Church gets flooded, and the priest climbs to the second level and starts praying. A boat comes "Come with us Father, we're here to rescue you!" "No, no, the Lord will deliver me!". So they leave, and the rain continues, and now the second level of the Church gets flooded as well. The priest climbs to the third, and even more fervently prays for his salvation. Another boat comes "Father, Father! Come with us, we have come to rescue you!" "No, no, I don't need human rescuing, the Lord will deliver me". The rain doesn't stop, the third floor gets flooded, and the priest finally climbs to the top of the bell-tower, where he keeps praying even more fervently. A helicopter comes: "Father, Father, the water will soon reach up to you and you will die! Let us rescue you!" "No... the Lord will deliver me, I have Faith!". So they leave, the water comes, takes the priest away, and he dies. He goes to Heaven, finally meets the Lord, and very puzzled he asks: "Lord Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?" And the Lord answers: "Forsaken you?! I have sent two boats and a helicopter after you!" ;)

Same thing with justice in these cases - God acts through human beings, on Earth at least! :)

And to clarify - I propose torture to apply as a possible punishment to heinous crimes which don't include your average day rape, murder, etc. They include those few cases of murder and rape which are such moral abominations that the mind recoils even at the thought of how much the victim must have suffered. And no, such crimes where torture would apply would be CLEAR cases. The person responsible would simply HAVE TO admit to the crime in some way and make a mockery of the court and of their victim (or their families) for this to happen. It would only be reserved to some serial killers and the like. I can't understand how you can have sympathy for such a criminal and have NO SYMPATHY for the poor victim's family which must suffer such an unjust fate... This to me is a moral atrocity. How can society abandon people who have been hurt so much by such a terrible crime?

No. Displaying a lack of remorse should be a contributory factor towards a harsher sentence, which it is. But the use of torture as punishment is barbaric and has rightly been prohibited by The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of which there are 159 parties.

Your reactionary views, as ever, are detestable and misguided.

...this is the biggest strawman I have ever seen. — Agustino

Speaking of big strawmen...

I can't understand how you can have sympathy for such a criminal and have NO SYMPATHY for the poor victim's family which must suffer such an unjust fate... This to me is a moral atrocity. How can society abandon people who have been hurt so much by such a terrible crime? — Agustino

No sympathy for the victim's family?! False. Society abandons them?! False. Life imprisonment for the criminal and support for the victims isn't abandonment.

Let me tell you a joke — Agustino

Let me return the favor; this is a piece of a skit I heard on the radio a long time ago, probably before you were born. The end of times have arrived and God is busy sorting out the wheat from the chaff. Various groups are called forward and sent either to the left (chaff) or the right (wheat). "Moslems -- yes, both kinds. You go the left. Jews. You go to the right; welcome. Zoroastrians, you can go to the right too. Christians, to the left. Sorry, you were mistaken."

Why do you think it is bad to want to punish such heinous crimes? — Agustino

In the wake of tragedy we feel all sorts of powerful emotions. It isn't "bad" to have feelings, even feelings of hatred, rage, and such. What is bad is turning those hot feelings into policy (torturing the convicted).

Don't you find it outrageous that such things can happen? — Agustino

Outrageous? Yes, we live in a world where all sorts of outrages occur -- everything from the young child being afflicted by a refractory cancer which eats it's way through its young body, bombs going off on the subway, to planes crashing into the WTC.

Bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. Life is not only not fair, sometimes it is downright awful.

And don't you think that those who commit them deserve to suffer for it? — Agustino

The suffering you would like to inflict will not bring your loved one back. Nothing else will, either. The state is prepared to separate the proven-murderer from society. (Some states are prepared to do more than that, of course--I am also opposed to capital punishment). The friends and family of victims have to go on with their lives as best they can. The convicted and imprisoned will live out a very diminished life.

What would you do if this happened to one of your loved ones? If someone did this to them? Would you not want to see them punished? — Agustino

First, I will suffer: grief, anger, loss, rage, regret, guilt, extreme angst. I would want to see them punished, certainly. We have had, for a long time, the necessary apparatus in place to imprison, commit, seclude. I won't be joining you in a crusade to torture the perpetrators of appalling crime.

Will you not be happier if they are punished? — Agustino

A need to see justice done will be satisfied when they enter prison. I don't think I will become a lot happier on that basis alone -- not because I would have feelings about the suffering of the prisoner, it's just that... loss is loss, and it can't be undone.

Imprisonment is punishment. Nobody breaks into prison to enjoy the wonderful life there.

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

What makes you think people give up their humanity by committing atrocities? The thing that makes life tragic is that it always ourselves who commit atrocities. Fully fledged, deeply human people commit very good and very bad acts. Very, very bad, sometimes. Only a human, possessed of humanity, is capable of achieving profound evil. I don't like it, but that's a feature of life.

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. — Agustino

Psychopathy (which is the likely condition of the prisoner in the dock of your OP) isn't preventable at this point (before birth) and isn't treatable later. Psychopathy is caused by a failure in brain structure which enables the child to connect "fear of punishment" to "wrongness". The psychopathic brain doesn't "feel fear" like a normal person does, and the limbic system where fear is felt just doesn't connect to the pre-frontal cortex the way it is supposed to. Consequently, children don't learn to "feel" rightness and wrongness.

Psychopathy usually occurs somewhere on a continuum, between very mild and severe. Towards the mild end, psychopathy can be an advantage to people who have to make difficult business decisions, for instance, and then move on to other pressing issues. If they have to lay off 1000 people, they'll still sleep well that night.

I don't know whether the laughing murderer in the court room represents paychopathy or just plain madness.

I don't know anything about the high security prisons you are familiar with, but in the US prisons are usually some version of a hell hole. They are either grimly isolating (everybody in solitary confinement, essentially) or they are more open and the other prisoners would just as soon rape you or cut your throat, as look at you. In the average large state prison, the inmates are running the joint to a large extent. Spending the rest of your life there is not a mild sentence.

*Facepalm* — Agustino

Keep slamming your hand into your face until it drives some sense into your head.

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

Those people getting tortured weren't necessarily normal. People who torture innocent people usually don't publish studies, so the studies are from intelligence and military situations. Serial killers have been studied extensively. But even ignoring that, you ought to be able reason out that serial killers must have some level of intelligence and are well practiced at deception. They have to be able play sane well enough not to be put into an institution before they kill, and they have to be smart enough to avoid capture to get the title of "serial". But even ignoring that -- if there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion, then what justification is there to claim that torture is effective at reforming them over other methods?

Actually, torturing crazy people sounds a lot like the unfortunate abuse of ECT or "shock therapy" in the 1930's. When it was first introduced, it ended up getting abused by many people as a form of punishment, (think "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest").. Although it apparently has some valid uses as voluntary therapy, when forced on patients found the same thing -- patients simply learned to hide their compulsions, fears and delusions rather than overcome them. (Now think "A Clockwork Orange" -- the ending of the movie is ambiguous, what was he "cured" from?).

I'm beginning to think arguing with Agustino is a fool's errand. I don't think I've ever seen him change his stance based on input from others on a forum (a change of opinion has to be sanctified by a genius like Spinoza or Wittgenstein). He slices up posts as though they were bound and prostrate sinners, joyfully, vehemently eviscerating each cornered isolated point. You sometimes get the sense the big picture is less important than the systematic doling out of punishment to each fisked sentence, using whatever's at hand. There's a barely restrained sadistic anger coupled with omnipotent fantasies of brilliance (he said somewhere he felt 180 proof was almost at his level.) He says women who cheat shouldn't be surprised when they get their heads bashed in.I'm calling narcissistic personality disorder (of which there is a common religious/moral variant) with psychopathic tendencies (everyone knows the stereotype of the serial killer obsessed with punishing the sinful wanton woman. It's worth noting the occasion for this thread was his comparison of adulterative unrepentant women to unrepentant murderers over on the LBGT thread. "Do you understand what you did was wrong now!?") I recommend preemptive torture as a curative. (Or at least a safe and consensual S&M partnership to redirect and release.)

No sympathy for the victim's family?! False. Society abandons them?! False. Life imprisonment for the criminal and support for the victims isn't abandonment. — Sapientia

That is why many of the victims feel scared and afraid of the world, and all that society gives them is counselling, which really doesn't help them practically speaking. They just want to see justice done, or the punishment of the criminal correspond to the gravity of his offence. A life prison sentence, does not do justice to the crimes that such a person has performed. Let me ask you differently: were you opposed to the death sentence that some of the Nazi leaders received during the Nuremberg Trials? Why or why not? And please consider that even the crimes of Nazi Germany pale in comparison to the crimes of these serial killers. At least, despite the immorality of everything the Nazi regime did, they had the legitimacy of a state, of a legal system, of a people. They had reasons for what they did, even if those reasons were wrong, misguided and evil. At least it made sense. What a serial killer does is so terrible that it doesn't even make sense!! There simply is NO REASON for the evil that they bring into the world - not even a wrong reason, nothing!

Let me return the favor; this is a piece of a skit I heard on the radio a long time ago, probably before you were born. The end of times have arrived and God is busy sorting out the wheat from the chaff. Various groups are called forward and sent either to the left (chaff) or the right (wheat). "Moslems -- yes, both kinds. You go the left. Jews. You go to the right; welcome. Zoroastrians, you can go to the right too. Christians, to the left. Sorry, you were mistaken." — Bitter Crank

I don't think any religions are wrong. I think atheism is wrong, I think forms of theism and polytheism, etc. are attempts to relate to the divine, so although some could be perfected, none are completely wrong. It's not black and white, the right answer :) I expect the good Christians, good Muslims, good Hindus, good Buddhists, etc. all of them to be in Heaven, and I certainly hope I will meet all of them in Heaven. Even good agnostics/atheists may possibly be in Heaven. And by the way, this is consistent with Christian doctrine - read Catholic Karl Rahner and his notions of "Anonymous Christianity" :D . As Jesus said, it's softness of heart and sensibility that saves one from the one and only sin which can never be forgiven - hardness of heart. In the same sense, because of the hardness of their hearts, the rapacious criminals described in my post deserve the worst of punishments.

I'm beginning to think arguing with Agustino is a fool's errand. I don't think I've ever seen him change his stance based on input from others on a forum (a change of opinion has to be sanctified by a genius like Spinoza or Wittgenstein). — csalisbury

As the Donald called Ted Cruz, I will call you: lyin' csalisbury - what the fuck is this then, please explain to us and don't run away like a coward:

Not exactly, but in discourse we treat each other's affirmations ("There is a cup") as if they were "The other person think there is a cup". Of course we treat our own affirmations as if they were really true (at least most people do). I would advise on some caution though. When someone claims I remembered something incorrectly, or I didn't see something right, I agree very easily with them and admit that I may be wrong - I doubt my perceptions quite quickly - perhaps too quickly.

I think the difference is not something that can be said as Wittgenstein put it. It can only be shown. For example, you walk in the room and tell me: "there is a cup on your nightstand". I will not take it to mean "Michael thinks there is a cup on my nightstand" - I will take it to mean "there is a cup on my nightstand". But if you walk in the room, and you say "there is a cup on your nightstand" and Emily at that point looks up and says "no there isn't a cup there" - then I will treat it as "Michael thinks there is a cup on my nightstand" and associate it with "There may be a cup on the nightstand". Meaning is use, and it depends on context, and the unspoken "rules" of interpretation.

Regardless, my affirmation still stands if we remove the "I think" from both meanings.

"I agree that there is a cup" = Meaning 1 + Meaning 2
Meaning 1: There is a cup
Meaning 2: Me and someone else think the same thing

"There is a cup" = Meaning 1
Meaning 1: There is a cup — Agustino

Here Michael's criticism makes me deny what I previously said, and change my opinion.

↪Bitter Crank Thanks BC, these facts are very interesting. Was not previously aware of many of these before! Also, I stand corrected regarding the 50%. — Agustino

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/8087#Post_8087

↪TheWillowOfDarkness I agree, your criticism is correct. I stand corrected. — Agustino

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/5633#Post_5633

I have always changed my views if there was rational criticism. You have no rational criticism except that you don't think it sensible to punish the worst criminals with torture. Why not? And it's a sensible question to ask, so please don't give me some stupid rhetoric about Hitler torturing Jews, etc. - these were fucking innocent people and they don't compare with the crimes I have described. LIAR

There's a barely restrained sadistic anger coupled with omnipotent fantasies of brilliance (he said somewhere he felt 180 proof was almost at his level.) — csalisbury

No my friend, there is no anger - it's just rationality which you have done nothing to combat or disprove. All you are doing, like in this post, is pointing fingers at something you don't like, which really is shameful. If you consider my posts reflect sadistic anger, I think you should book yourself to see a psychologist, show him my posts, and ask him whether it's a case of sadistic anger, or your mind has just lost the plot.

he said somewhere he felt 180 proof was almost at his level — csalisbury

Yes, because he has quite often changed my views regarding different things. He was, unlike you, rational. Even when we disagreed he was rational. In fact most of the time we disagreed - but he is someone I respect nevertheless, because he was devoted to the pursuit of rationality and most often we disagreed at those points where evidence spoke both ways, and it as only a difference of the heart that produced disagreement - not of reason.

He says women who cheat shouldn't be surprised when they get their heads bashed in. — csalisbury

Yes, just the same way one shouldn't be surprised that they get beaten up if they start swearing at random people on the street. This isn't to say that this SHOULD happen to them. I have never claimed that. So stop lying, and adding connotations which were never there.

I'm calling narcissistic personality disorder (of which there is a common religious/moral variant) with psychopathic tendencies (everyone knows the stereotype of the serial killer obsessed with punishing the sinful wanton woman. It's worth noting the occasion for this thread was his comparison of adulterative unrepentant women to unrepentant murderers over on the LBGT thread. "Do you understand what you did was wrong now!?") — csalisbury

Yes Doctor csalisbury, you are so right; that stereotype by the way is wrong - serial killers do not have a notion of sin or morality generally.

It's worth noting the occasion for this thread was his comparison of adulterative unrepentant women to unrepentant murderers over on the LBGT thread. — csalisbury

Yes because there is something highly aggravating about doing a wrong and then not admitting it. But I have proposed torture in this thread for the worst crimes (probably 0.0001% of all crimes) - NOT for adultery for that matter. So again, you are a LIAR.

I recommend preemptive torture as a curative. (Or at least a safe and consensual S&M partnership to redirect and release.) — csalisbury

You have a diseased mind to recommend torture for a man who simply thinks that the worst crimes should be punished by torture - this must be that totalitarian mechanism of discipline that you want applied to everyone who rationally disagrees with you. Shame on you. Shame on you for the personal attacks as well. You ought to be embarrassed for being such a liar, especially on a philosophy forum, where matters have to be discussed rationally and honestly, without ad hominem attacks. I think Jack Nicholson's quote fits you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA

EDIT: And by the way, I have responded to your points. If you think I am wrong please go find my previous post addressed to you and respond rationally. Stop hiding behind these ad homs. Also - before you embarass yourself even more, please, I beg you, do some reading about serial killers. You have no knowledge. All you have is disgusting prejudice. Like serial killers had bad childhoods - quite many of them didn't actually (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201212/the-making-serial-killer). So please...

In the wake of tragedy we feel all sorts of powerful emotions. It isn't "bad" to have feelings, even feelings of hatred, rage, and such. What is bad is turning those hot feelings into policy (torturing the convicted). — Bitter Crank

I agree in all cases except the cases I have described in this thread. An eye for an eye - the punishment must be adequate for the offence. When someone does such a grave offence, do you think life-prison is adequate as a punishment? :s

Bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. Life is not only not fair, sometimes it is downright awful. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but in human society we have a duty to prevent the behaviour of our fellow citizens from becoming and being outrageous. That's why there exist all sorts of mechanisms to do this in virtually all societies.

The suffering you would like to inflict will not bring your loved one back. Nothing else will, either. The state is prepared to separate the proven-murderer from society. (Some states are prepared to do more than that, of course--I am also opposed to capital punishment). The friends and family of victims have to go on with their lives as best they can. The convicted and imprisoned will live out a very diminished life. — Bitter Crank

But is this sufficient punishment? Living a diminished life, after they have mocked our justice system, after they have destroyed in the most brutal fashion other lives, and they have caused unimaginable suffering for others? I can't imagine being satisfied about such a punishment if one of my children had been the victim of such a person.

We have had, for a long time, the necessary apparatus in place to imprison, commit, seclude. — Bitter Crank

But how is this proportionate punishment compared with the crime they have committed? Or you don't believe punishment should be proportionate with the crime committed? If so, why not?

Imprisonment is punishment. Nobody breaks into prison to enjoy the wonderful life there. — Bitter Crank

I have heard of quite a few people willingly go to prison. For some it's an upgrade compared to the life they were living outside. And that's the problem. Criminals should not enjoy their punishment, especially when their crimes are so serious.

What makes you think people give up their humanity by committing atrocities? The thing that makes life tragic is that it always ourselves who commit atrocities. Fully fledged, deeply human people commit very good and very bad acts. Very, very bad, sometimes. Only a human, possessed of humanity, is capable of achieving profound evil. I don't like it, but that's a feature of life. — Bitter Crank

That is just not true. Normal human beings cannot commit such atrocities as I have described in these posts. I'm not talking of your average murder or rape. I'm talking of the 0.0001% of crimes which are simply outrageous and inhuman. Regular, average crimes are terribly wrong, and must be punished, but they are neither inhuman nor outrageous.

I don't know whether the laughing murderer in the court room represents paychopathy or just plain madness. — Bitter Crank

Do you believe that life prison is sufficient punishment for such a person?

Keep slamming your hand into your face until it drives some sense into your head. — Bitter Crank

Well quite honestly... what does my proposed punishment have to do with Hitler who mass tortured innocent people in the most brutal of fashions, etc.? And if it doesn't have anything - why are you bringing it up? It's quite offending to associate my proposals with the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc. I have not proposed the mass killing and torture of innocent people - but rather of only the most hideous crimes, for which there just isn't another means to make the punishment proportionate to the degree of the crime. Do you disagree that those crimes I have been talking about are the most hideous possible?

But even ignoring that -- if there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion, then what justification is there to claim that torture is effective at reforming them over other methods? — swstephe

A proposed mechanism is the justification. As serial killers have very high pain tolerance, they do not suffer as much as everyone else from the "usual" pains of life. So torture could put in their minds the idea of how much their victims have suffered, and thus make them regret their actions. Do you think such a mechanism doesn't exist or is wrong? Why?

Actually, torturing crazy people sounds a lot like the unfortunate abuse of ECT or "shock therapy" in the 1930's. When it was first introduced, it ended up getting abused by many people as a form of punishment, (think "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest").. Although it apparently has some valid uses as voluntary therapy, when forced on patients found the same thing -- patients simply learned to hide their compulsions, fears and delusions rather than overcome them. (Now think "A Clockwork Orange" -- the ending of the movie is ambiguous, what was he "cured" from?). — swstephe

But this isn't just crazy people... it's more than just crazy people. There is a difference between those in "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" and serial killers. Do you not think so? I haven't seen "A Clockwork Orange" yet so I can't comment, my apologies.

But thing is, from my perspective at least, someone who has a mental health problem is debilitated - that means they cannot do things that normal people can do. Serial killers on the other hand can function like normal people, except that they perform the most hideous of crimes. To me, they do not suffer of mental illness the way those in "One Flew over a Cuckoo's Nest" do. There is some degree of pure evil in the serial killer that is absent in the mentally ill person. One pities and feels sorry for the mentally ill person, but not for the serial killer.

No. Displaying a lack of remorse should be a contributory factor towards a harsher sentence, which it is. But the use of torture as punishment is barbaric and has rightly been prohibited by The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of which there are 159 parties.

Your reactionary views, as ever, are detestable and misguided. — Sapientia

Your misunderstanding Sapientia is that the harshest punishment you can give is limited. Life in prison. That's it. But the atrocities of the crimes that can be performed is unlimited. How is that fair - how is that just?

When someone does such a grave offence, do you think life-prison is adequate as a punishment? — Agustino

But is this sufficient punishment? — Agustino

But how is this proportionate punishment compared with the crime they have committed? — Agustino

Do you believe that life prison is sufficient punishment for such a person? — Agustino

Proportionality is worth considering when the effect of a crime is measurable. For shoplifting, you pay a relatively small fine. With repeated convictions of shoplifting, you pay a fine and get sent to jail. For embezzlement and grand theft you pay a very large fine (if you can) and/or you go to prison and/or receive probationary supervision by the state. And so on.

Bernie Madoff stole $65 billion; he wreaked havoc in thousands of people's lives; he destroyed trust, security, and hope; he undermined confidence in the wealth management systems for his victims. He preyed on his own community, in many cases. He corrupted his own family. He lived a luxurious lifestyle on the savings of other people. His sentence was life w/o parole, but Madoff was fairly old already when he went to prison, so his time there will not be terribly long (probably).

For shoplifting and ordinary grand theft we can calculate proportionality. For Madoff, and like criminals, the crime is beyond the scale of punishments that could possibly be imposed.

For assault and battery we can calculate proportionality. Plain old murder in the first degree isn't the worst felony on the continuum of crimes, but it is beyond calculating proportionality. The lost life, say your child's, can not be brought back. Nothing can adequately compensate you or the dead child. You can be paid a settlement, but that won't really help very much.

Anders Breivik killed almost 100 people, most of them young people, in one afternoon, one by one. He was sentenced to life in prison. Proportionate? Of course not. But nothing that could be done to Breivik could possibly compensate for the scope of his crime.

Torture degrades the culture that plans and carries it out, and does not achieve compensation in exchange for the degradation.

I can not further resolve my rationale for not torturing offenders.

Bernie Madoff stole $65 billion; he wreaked havoc in thousands of people's lives; he destroyed trust, security, and hope; he undermined confidence in the wealth management systems for his victims. He preyed on his own community, in many cases. He corrupted his own family. He lived a luxurious lifestyle on the savings of other people. His sentence was life w/o parole, but Madoff was fairly old already when he went to prison, so his time there will not be terribly long (probably). — Bitter Crank

Okay but the destroyed lives, etc. are the result of his irresponsibility, it's not like he wanted to destroy them for the sake of destroying them - the way a serial killer for example kills people for really no reason... That's what is outrageous about it - that something so terrible is done for no reason.

Torture degrades the culture that plans and carries it out, and does not achieve compensation in exchange for the degradation.

I can not further resolve my rationale for not torturing offenders. — Bitter Crank

This is a fair point. But if torture was introduced in the way I have outlined, you realise it would be used exceedingly rare (probably less than 0.001% of crimes) and even in those cases many would show remorse, even if faked, before it was used. What it would do is that it would prevent them for showing pride and arrogance in court for hideous crimes - it would simply deter that.

I follow your judgement, and I can understand why you think that way. I think this possibly combines with you not placing much value on the authority of the state, the sacredness of justice, etc. as I do - you place more value on not doing something degrading. I think it's very important for the state to show that to its people that it can keep them safe, and such criminals cannot undermine its efforts to keep the people safe and preserve justice. Fair enough though - although I would argue if someone like ISIS treats us like animals, and brutally kills, murders, and humiliates our people - then we have a right to do the same to them while defending ourselves, and should not try to treat them humanely, if they do not also treat us humanely.

Yes because there is something highly aggravating about doing a wrong and then not admitting it. But I have proposed torture in this thread for the worst crimes (probably 0.0001% of all crimes) - NOT for adultery for that matter. So again, you are a LIAR. — Agustino

They don't even see it is wrong. This is absolutely terrible, absolutely! At least in the past, because they feared it, they knew it was wrong. Now they don't. Many act as if it's their RIGHT to commit adultery if they don't like it anymore. That's just insane (not to mention uncaring, selfish, and virtually all the other vices). There's very few things more reprehensible than such an answer, and it deserves the same kind of punishment that a psychopath who kills and rapes a young girl, and then mercilessly feels proud and unapologetic of it in front of her family in court deserves.Such people deserve torture, and gnashing of teeth until they beg for mercy (in other words until they repent and feel sorry for what they have done). Same category of sin - the murdering rapist and the self-righteous adulterer — Agustino

I would respond to your other points, but I've been sufficiently shamed and must withdraw to nurse my wounds.

what does my proposed punishment have to do with Hitler who mass tortured innocent people in the most brutal of fashions, — Agustino

Three connections:

1. To emphasize that the Nazi regime did not depend on psychopaths. Normal, fully human people operated the Nazi state.

The crimes of the Nazi regime were carried out by many thousands of people. For now, let's say 100,000 people were involved in the various apparatuses of terror that the Nazi's deployed in Germany, Poland, France, the USSR, the Baltic states, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Italy, the Balkans, Greece, Norway, and Denmark, Northern Africa (and anywhere else they occupied). The 100,000 worked in the Gestapo and the SS, not the Wehrmacht.

Let's say another 500,000 people willingly cooperated with, aided, and abetted the Nazis in the regime of terror, genocide, repression, and brutal control. Maybe 5% of these people had quite disordered personalities (psychopathic-sociopathic), most did not. They were morally, politically and socially perverted and disordered, but otherwise disturbingly normal and sane. The same goes for lynch mobs in the US, or Hutu machete mass murderers in Rwanda.

Normal humans are perfectly capable of committing horrendous acts. 99 times out of 100 they don't commit these appalling crimes without supporting political and social conditions, social prompting, social leadership, and judicial allowance.

2. To emphasize that there is no adequate punishment possible for the worse crimes.

The crimes of the 600,000 terror operatives, and many more who tolerated what they knew was happening, is far, far beyond adequate compensation. There is no conceivable way, whether torture, mass incarceration, perpetual expropriation of any accumulated wealth, etc. that could possibly repay the damage the Nazi regime exacted on the world (and if we include the rest of the Axis, the problem just gets proportionately worse).

There is no way for the people of Great Britain to repay the damages of the British empire. The US can't now, and never could compensate African slaves and Aboriginal people for the crimes we committed against them.

3. Appropriate responses to atrocity

What fully human, civilized people do in the face of very atrocious, disordered individual behavior is seclude them from the community (life without parole).

We don't yet have the means to predict, identify, and reform potential severely criminal behavior. If we can identify a psychopath, for instance, we don't have a means to change their brains. If we can predict that some children in some settings are likely to end up in prison, we can (if we are willing) do a great deal to improve their lives. Unfortunately, we aren't all that willing.

Perhaps we could predict which child in which setting is likely to join a gang and participate in drive-by shootings and criminal enterprises. Great. Identify away. But then comes the costly part -- doing something about the child's family life (retroactively?) that conditions them to behave in criminal behavior.

Faced with mass atrocious disordered collective behavior, we go to war and (we hope) crush the nations that perform such behavior.

In both cases, individuals and states, we seek to prevent future outbreaks of behavior. Or at least, we should. Prevention takes time, consistent, focused effort, and commitment of resources. The US, for instance, has brought an (virtually total) end to lynching and mob justice. It took decades and the work of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of activists to change the culture enough. (Eternal vigilance...)

Political/economic/military efforts like the EU have established a less militantly nationalistic and more integrated and peaceful Europe--at least since WWII, more or less. Treaty organizations like NATO have helped limit the potential of aggression in Europe (so I have been led to believe). There are no guarantees, of course, but these are the kinds of things that humans should do--future oriented, positive, non-punitive approaches to restructuring societies.

But if torture was introduced in the way I have outlined, you realise it would be used exceedingly rare (probably less than 0.001% of crimes) and even in those cases many would show remorse, even if faked, before it was used. — Agustino

Once convicted and sentenced, I don't really give a rat's ass whether criminals like Madoff or serial killers feel or exhibit remorse or not. In prison they are and in prison they are going to stay, remorseful or vehemently unrepentant.

The "penitentiary" was first conceived by the Quakers as a way of salvaging the criminal--giving them a place to be penitent. It doesn't seem to have worked all that well.

I would respond to your other points, but I've been sufficiently shamed and must withdraw to nurse my wounds. — csalisbury

Okay perhaps I went a bit over the top on the adultery, my apologies (although there is a reason why this is a different thread, and I have not advocated for the same punishment with regards to adultery in this thread, which was opened after I thought about the idea in the other thread firstly - it's a bit strange to bring contents from other threads to here but OK, I will answer them). On reflection, it doesn't deserve the same punishment as the psychopath. Although the thing that is problematic in both is that the wrong-doer does not admit to having done wrong. What is further problematic in the case of the psychopath is that he has no reason for doing the wrong he does. At least the adulterer has a reason, even if it is a twisted and morally wrong reason. So yes, I would still advocate for torture in the case of the unrepentent serial killer as it threatens the sacredness and strength of our justice system in a way adultery doesn't, but no torture in the case of the unrepentent adulterer, although I would advocate as Ciceronianus described civil punishments, probably quite severe, of a financial nature, as well as public support of the victim of the adultery and disrespect for the adulterer.

Let me ask you differently: were you opposed to the death sentence that some of the Nazi leaders received during the Nuremberg Trials? Why or why not? And please consider that even the crimes of Nazi Germany pale in comparison to the crimes of these serial killers. At least, despite the immorality of everything the Nazi regime did, they had the legitimacy of a state, of a legal system, of a people. They had reasons for what they did, even if those reasons were wrong, misguided and evil. At least it made sense. What a serial killer does is so terrible that it doesn't even make sense!! There simply is NO REASON for the evil that they bring into the world - not even a wrong reason, nothing! — Agustino

Having said that, I retract calling you a liar on that point - my apologies once again. On the other points though, my case rests as it is :) . (as you see, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong, end of story - exactly as I have proven with the track record I mentioned in the post before. I'm one of the few people here who has admitted numerous times to being wrong, so it seems very strange to me that you would pretend it's the opposite - hence why you are lyin' csalisbury)

@Bitter Crank - I will respond soon to your posts! :)

Let me ask you differently: were you opposed to the death sentence that some of the Nazi leaders received during the Nuremberg Trials? Why or why not? And please consider that even the crimes of Nazi Germany pale in comparison to the crimes of these serial killers. At least, despite the immorality of everything the Nazi regime did, they had the legitimacy of a state, of a legal system, of a people. They had reasons for what they did, even if those reasons were wrong, misguided and evil. At least it made sense. What a serial killer does is so terrible that it doesn't even make sense!! There simply is NO REASON for the evil that they bring into the world - not even a wrong reason, nothing! — Agustino

You weren't asking me, but... what the hell.

Had it been up to me, I would not have executed the Nazis after Nuremberg. In their case, they might have served as a more potent warning to the future alive than dead. I would never have released them, and they would certainly not have been allowed the pleasure of any sort of celebrity. I wouldn't have tortured them, but I wouldn't exactly have left them alone in a cell either. I would have brought them face to face with the atrocities and crimes they committed again, and again.

I don't think the crimes of Nazi Germany pale in comparison to anything a serial killer can do. (Actually, they are kind of similar).

Yes: Germany had the legitimacy of a state, of a legal system, of a people. Like I said, only genuine, human, and normal people can commit world-class atrocities and crimes against humanity. But really, the Nazi's didn't care that much about legality. Reinhard Heydrich, for instance, made it very clear that he didn't want his terror operations interfered with by lawyers or state and party bureaucrats. He liked to have educated people on staff, but no lawyers or ethicists, thank you.

We can debate military strategy. Maybe Hitler should have invaded England, maybe not. Maybe Hitler should have launched Operation Barbarossa earlier in the year. Maybe Hitler should have planned for the Russian winter better. Maybe Hitler bit off more than the Germans could manage.

But outside of the activities of the Wehrmacht, not much about the Nazi state actually made sense or was rationally managed. The Todt Organization carried out Hitler's wishes and built all sorts of fortifications, barriers, pill-boxes, etc. Hitler apparently liked building these things. Hermann Goering thought many of the structures were a joke. They barely slowed down the D-Day invasion or the invasion of Germany proper. The submarine pens were, actually, pretty good defense against aerial attack -- they were heavily over-built.

Hitler and the Nazi party groped toward the final solution of the "Jewish Problem" over the course of 15 years. Had the Nazis been rational, they would not have had a "Jewish Problem" in the first place and instead could have benefitted from the contributions of loyal Jewish citizens. They wouldn't have had so much confusion over what to do with the Poles once they had conquered Poland, had they really had reasons for doing what they did. Had they been rational they would have kept the Polish population more intact so that they could have served Nazi interests more effectively, especially when Germany needed all the productive power it could get when it invaded the Soviet Union. Had they been rational, they would have played a liberationist role in Ukraine and Belorussia, rather than the vicious blood bath policy they followed.

The Nazi state was not well run from an administrative point of view. The tool of terror didn't prevent government contract waste, fraud, and abuse. Parts of the Nazi regime worked OK, but other parts were sluggish, unresponsive, and inefficient.

@Agustino I kinda like 'lyin csalisbury,' it makes me feel like a old school gangster. I'm sorry that I misrepresented your willingness to admit error.

It seems like what you object to most about the serial killer is (1) he doesn't feel remorse and (2) his atrocities are senseless. I think (2) is scary because it bars us from doing what we normally do in the wake of trauma - tell a story that explains what happened. Explanation yields understanding which yields the sense of control that the trauma suspended. If you understand what happened you feel more able to prevent similar traumatizing irruptions in the future.

But if an adequate explanation of an outburst is impossible, then we can at least find some solace in the source of that outburst being as horrified as we are. His or her horror would signal an impulse to stave off any repetition of what transpired. Evil wouldn't be an infinite wellspring but an abberration which recoils from itself and self-corrects.

The serial killer offers neither palliative. He's a mute black hole which is unreachable. (The scariest version of Satan I can imagine is an old man (or young child) in an enclosed chamber, totally still, eyes wide open, transmitting evil into the world, but unreachable through language, almost insentient). He's an ineradicable black hole in those meaning/explanation-generating stories which make us feel safe and in control. Torture isn't about reforming such a person. It's a last resort in a control-crisis, a way of turning that black hole into an object over which we have total power.

The response to infidelity without remorse is similar. It's a panic response to the realization that love is never guaranteed and can always withdraw, no matter how perfectly you strive to deserve it. The desire to punish is an impotent wish to scare love so it will never leave us again.

The thing is, you can torture as many serial killers and punish as many adulterers as you want. But that won't stem the problem. The world itself is a ceaseless and remorseless generator of senseless violence. Serial killers, if you like, are 'places' in which being reveals itself utterly denuded. (Tho the sacred does the same, in a different register.)