Dear Contributors--
I want to see if I can top the recent thread on Western intervention in Africa. Prior to the terrorist attacks on September 11, I was wary of the Constitutional prohibition against torture. Admittedly, I felt that some wrong doers, folks like Manson, pedophiles, violent rapists, should, as a normative matter, be subjected to unspeakable acts of horror, for no other reason than to vindicate the wrongs they committed against innocent people. I do not go around thinking about hurting just anyone. But when particularly heinous acts come to my attention in the news or elsewhere, I can show a mean streak. Unlike Christian theology, I do not believe wrath is wrong or untenable.
But in addition to this, the theories of deterrence we learn about in first year criminal law had also intrigued me. Somehow, it seems to me lifetime prison sentences are not deterring wrong doers. Maybe because they do not value their life, or maybe because substantive due process has gone way beyond a rightful single appeal that could be concluded in a months time or so to years and even decades before the convicted felon is brought before Ol' Sparky, criminals do not seem sufficiently deterred by the death penalty.
So why not just torture them? And I do not mean beating them, or depriving them of sleep. I mean reservoir dog type stuff with the razor, the petrol, and the lighted match, with "Stuck in the Middle with You" playing in the background. When the people's response is publicized, maybe then the type of potential wrongdoers I have in mind will then be sufficiently deterred and frightened. I guess that is one thing I admired about the Reich. It recognized that people respond to fear. The problem is that not all, even the vast majority of people are bad, but are in fact good. Thus, such treachery is simply not just; it is despotic, tyrannical, even demonic. But some elements of humanity are a different matter.
I suppose folks who have even an inclination to rape and kill little girls should just be eradicated. But since the supposed science of psyhcocology will never allow us to weed them out preemptively, and because norms of American and British civil law have always wanted to afford potnetial cirminals an opportunity for the devil to loose the contest at the last hour (a curious expression from my 1L casebook), the better solution is to just hold out the threat that if we do apprehend you, and convict you under substantive due process and a fair trial with teh safeguard of reasonable but brief, quick appeals, we are going to torture you. And whatever it is we decide to do, it is going to be so horrible as to be so much worse than death, that you really will not--some sick, evil compulsion notwithstanding--want to even think about committing these crimes in the first place.
Admittedly, it might be a little uncomfortable to live in a soicety where such a sanction is possible. But ultimately, the vast majority of folks really would not even be mindful of this because, first, they do not have these compulsion or tendencies, let alone commit these acts, and beause there is such scant chance that they could even be accused of such a crime, let alone convicted. Ultimately, the net effect would be much less of the type of heinous crimes recounted. ANd, because the deterrence is so strong, this type of state action would be witnessed onyl rarely. The net result: overall less human suffering.
Before the September 11 attacks, such musings on my part were jsut made to bring the theory of criminal deterrence to its most extreme conclusion. Since then though, I am entertaining these considerations more, but for the same reasons. The sort of religious fanatic involved in these terrorist attacks does not care about imprisonemnt because to him this world is second fiddle. With the islamic extremisist specifically, the real deal is to be with Allah. The death penalty--even if one could streamline the appeal process to be bring the convicted to the executioners hands withion months or weeks, as should be the case--is not a deterrent precisely because they seek death in sucide bombings, or by flying jetliners into buildings. Even if you could apprehend them before the deed was done, you are just delivering themto Allah. Deterrence theory, under the present constraints of state action, does not even come to play.
But I wonder if you re-enacted the aforementioned scene in Reservoir Dogs on attempted terrotis, and made a pulbic example of them, whether would be terrorits would be a little bit more frightened to be perpetrating these crimes. Though I do not fathom them as very rational people, I still suppose they might entertian this very rationale consideration: gee, if I get caught, a very horrible fate awaits me. I do not mind dying, but I saw what they did to Aziz on arabic television. I am really scared.
I do have considerations which would implore not repealing the 8th Amendment. But as they are having less persuasion now, I would rather just see what other comments and problems contributors might suggest. After such time, I might bring up a couple related points on how we can deter, but also make greater use of criminals, particularly those who are rescidivist and do not show hope of reform.
Should the 8th Amendment be repealed
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
-
Einsamer_Wolf
- Banned
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 11:45 pm
- Location: New York, NY
Should the 8th Amendment be repealed
Mögen die Flammen unserer Begeisterung niemals zum Erlöschen kommen.
-
Jason Pipes
- Patron
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 4:06 pm
- Location: CA & WI
"I want to see if I can top the recent thread on Western intervention in Africa."
Just a reminder, the main focus of this site is WWII German related research, not the offtopic section. This part of the forum is meant for exactly what it's being used for, offtopic postings, but try to keep discussion here as your secondary function on the board and not your primary goal!
I'd like to see 71 posts within some of the other threads on the forum too!
Just a reminder, the main focus of this site is WWII German related research, not the offtopic section. This part of the forum is meant for exactly what it's being used for, offtopic postings, but try to keep discussion here as your secondary function on the board and not your primary goal!
I'd like to see 71 posts within some of the other threads on the forum too!
Jason .. sorry for this. I know you don't like this type of unrelated threads to WW-II to proceed but I will still respond to Wolf.
E.W. ... I was in Saudi 11 years ago. Friday's used to be holidays and roads in Saudi are lovely to stroll on winter afternoons. Clean, cold, crisp desert winds and all that.
But on Friday's (all weeks) the expatriates had been warned not to stroll around or nearby main mosques around noon times.
The reason was "Near the main mosques are places of capital punishment. If a man and a woman caught involved in adultery are being stoned to death near a mosque ... and if you walk past them ... refusing to throw stones at them, then you are considered a "party" or "supporter" to the crime and would be stoned to death yourself".
Every Friday there used to be news of beheadings, stoning to death, arms being cut off (thieves). These punishments were countrywide - being carried out in Jeddah, Al-Khobar and all the main cities.
The news used to be terrifying. I preferred not to watch it.
Even the newsreaders voices used to tremble audibly (we could make out that they were very nervous and afraid).
But the funniest part of it was it was there every week ... so people continued to committ crimes. Shariat law could not stop them.
What do you make of that? Do you really think that tortures would reduce the crime rates?
Tortures or any physical punishment can go only to a certain length in keeping people in check.
Good men and bad men both can't be pushed beyond a limit.
That's why Spanish Inquisition brutally tortured and killed a lot of Jews ... but they did not turn to Christianity.
That's also the reason why week after week the news in Saudi Arabia still contains Shariat punishments.
E.W. ... I was in Saudi 11 years ago. Friday's used to be holidays and roads in Saudi are lovely to stroll on winter afternoons. Clean, cold, crisp desert winds and all that.
But on Friday's (all weeks) the expatriates had been warned not to stroll around or nearby main mosques around noon times.
The reason was "Near the main mosques are places of capital punishment. If a man and a woman caught involved in adultery are being stoned to death near a mosque ... and if you walk past them ... refusing to throw stones at them, then you are considered a "party" or "supporter" to the crime and would be stoned to death yourself".
Every Friday there used to be news of beheadings, stoning to death, arms being cut off (thieves). These punishments were countrywide - being carried out in Jeddah, Al-Khobar and all the main cities.
The news used to be terrifying. I preferred not to watch it.
Even the newsreaders voices used to tremble audibly (we could make out that they were very nervous and afraid).
But the funniest part of it was it was there every week ... so people continued to committ crimes. Shariat law could not stop them.
What do you make of that? Do you really think that tortures would reduce the crime rates?
Tortures or any physical punishment can go only to a certain length in keeping people in check.
Good men and bad men both can't be pushed beyond a limit.
That's why Spanish Inquisition brutally tortured and killed a lot of Jews ... but they did not turn to Christianity.
That's also the reason why week after week the news in Saudi Arabia still contains Shariat punishments.
-
Einsamer_Wolf
- Banned
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 11:45 pm
- Location: New York, NY
The reason was "Near the main mosques are places of capital punishment. If a man and a woman caught involved in adultery are being stoned to death near a mosque ... and if you walk past them ... refusing to throw stones at them, then you are considered a "party" or "supporter" to the crime and would be stoned to death yourself".
Every Friday there used to be news of beheadings, stoning to death, arms being cut off (thieves). These punishments were countrywide - being carried out in Jeddah, Al-Khobar and all the main cities.
....
But the funniest part of it was it was there every week ... so people continued to committ crimes. Shariat law could not stop them.
This goes against deterence theory. But maybe because the behavior so brutally punished in your post is noit realy a crime, but actually fairly normal behavior. Such behavior is not what my proposals are directed at. I want to traget terrorists, child molesters, serial kilers, and so on. Surely you see the distinction
"What do you make of that? Do you really think that tortures would reduce the crime rates?"
Well--I think we have a misunderstanding. I do not endorese the use of torture for garden variety offenses--and certainly not for something as natural as lust between man and a womna. What I propose is making torture available exclusively for fringe crimes--that are neither run of the mill, nor even natural. THere is a big difference between the complusion to steal--which is a crime*--and having sex--whihc is not--on the one hand, and molesting and killing children and attempting or plotting terrorits attackes.
I would then suggest that the moral repugnation we feel in how the Saudis apply the use of torture does not appyl precisely for these reaons
Tortures or any physical punishment can go only to a certain length in keeping people in check.
Agian--I wpu;ld only suggest when applied to more pedestrian type behavior that often times ought not be puniohsed all--like a man and a woman having sex. I think my application would be much different
Warm Regards
EW
*I am not fond of thieves though. I might endorese the cigar clipper rule. Whereby thieves when apprehended, get teh cigar clipper. THat might mean all five fingers cut off, or in the case of a juvenile, just the tip of the pinky.
Every Friday there used to be news of beheadings, stoning to death, arms being cut off (thieves). These punishments were countrywide - being carried out in Jeddah, Al-Khobar and all the main cities.
....
But the funniest part of it was it was there every week ... so people continued to committ crimes. Shariat law could not stop them.
This goes against deterence theory. But maybe because the behavior so brutally punished in your post is noit realy a crime, but actually fairly normal behavior. Such behavior is not what my proposals are directed at. I want to traget terrorists, child molesters, serial kilers, and so on. Surely you see the distinction
"What do you make of that? Do you really think that tortures would reduce the crime rates?"
Well--I think we have a misunderstanding. I do not endorese the use of torture for garden variety offenses--and certainly not for something as natural as lust between man and a womna. What I propose is making torture available exclusively for fringe crimes--that are neither run of the mill, nor even natural. THere is a big difference between the complusion to steal--which is a crime*--and having sex--whihc is not--on the one hand, and molesting and killing children and attempting or plotting terrorits attackes.
I would then suggest that the moral repugnation we feel in how the Saudis apply the use of torture does not appyl precisely for these reaons
Tortures or any physical punishment can go only to a certain length in keeping people in check.
Agian--I wpu;ld only suggest when applied to more pedestrian type behavior that often times ought not be puniohsed all--like a man and a woman having sex. I think my application would be much different
Warm Regards
EW
*I am not fond of thieves though. I might endorese the cigar clipper rule. Whereby thieves when apprehended, get teh cigar clipper. THat might mean all five fingers cut off, or in the case of a juvenile, just the tip of the pinky.
Mögen die Flammen unserer Begeisterung niemals zum Erlöschen kommen.
-
Tom Houlihan
- Patron
- Posts: 4301
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:05 pm
- Location: MI, USA
- Contact:
Torture
I am all for capital punishment, IF there is no doubt that the one convicted is in fact the one who committed the crime. I also think that death should be an option for more crimes, particularly the more heinous ones.
Torture, however, is wrong. It is immoral, debasing, and brings you down below the level of the alleged offender.
I'd like to throw my support behind the deterrence theory, but it doesn't seem to be working. Too bad, 'cuz I like the idea.
Also, bear in mind that these are only MY personal opinions. I speak as a retired US Marine, and a serving law enforcement officer.
Sorry Jason, I had to throw my two cents worth on this one.
Torture, however, is wrong. It is immoral, debasing, and brings you down below the level of the alleged offender.
I'd like to throw my support behind the deterrence theory, but it doesn't seem to be working. Too bad, 'cuz I like the idea.
Also, bear in mind that these are only MY personal opinions. I speak as a retired US Marine, and a serving law enforcement officer.
Sorry Jason, I had to throw my two cents worth on this one.
This whole idea of capital punishment as a payback or deterrence for heinous crimes is a farce. The only way capital punishment works is if it is used to remove a constant threat, beyond the chance of redemption, from the society. Death row cases have become a haven for headline grabbing, for both the defendants and the prosecution. The prosecution usually has to get somebody convicted for a case that's caught the public's eye, and in more than a few cases here in Illinois, that's been just who's available, not who's guilty. The defendants use the threat of a death penalty to hype the existence of any sort of remote reasonable doubt, and use the examples of prosecutorial misconduct to make it seem like they're angels by comparison. Plus, we've got to go through the expense of sitting someone onto Death Row (for whatever reason running around two to three times the expense of a normal, maximum security prisoner), for the ten to fifteen years it takes for them to run out their appeals, and that's only if they don't merit a retrial or if they're completely innocent and should be let go (winding up with wrongly convicted reimbursements).
If we take the decision for pushing the death penalty away from the prosecutors, and lock it into a judicial committee for review of only cases that meet strict criteria (which would take years of legislation to hammer out), we could remove alot of the abuses. We do not elect and appoint leaders to carry out our revenge, we want them to protect and prevent.
If we take the decision for pushing the death penalty away from the prosecutors, and lock it into a judicial committee for review of only cases that meet strict criteria (which would take years of legislation to hammer out), we could remove alot of the abuses. We do not elect and appoint leaders to carry out our revenge, we want them to protect and prevent.
In the battle between good and evil, evil usually has more fun.
-
Einsamer_Wolf
- Banned
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 11:45 pm
- Location: New York, NY
Gorbag--
You are right. A lot of fat and gristle, in the guise of fiteen years of appeals needs to be cut off and trimmed from due process. Leaner due process would be as it is in texas, after a couple of months after brief but fair appeals process has been concluded, convicted felons are delivered to executioner's plans.
Of course, my proposal posits this. Get a fair hearing. If yoy lose, get an appeal to the state supreme court, opportunity to pertition certiorai to the United States Supreme Court, with of course, the 8th Amendment have been repealed by Amendment. Once appeals are exhausted, wrongdoes in these few groups--attempted terrorist, child molerster etc, get reservoir dogs sicked on them
You are right. A lot of fat and gristle, in the guise of fiteen years of appeals needs to be cut off and trimmed from due process. Leaner due process would be as it is in texas, after a couple of months after brief but fair appeals process has been concluded, convicted felons are delivered to executioner's plans.
Of course, my proposal posits this. Get a fair hearing. If yoy lose, get an appeal to the state supreme court, opportunity to pertition certiorai to the United States Supreme Court, with of course, the 8th Amendment have been repealed by Amendment. Once appeals are exhausted, wrongdoes in these few groups--attempted terrorist, child molerster etc, get reservoir dogs sicked on them
Mögen die Flammen unserer Begeisterung niemals zum Erlöschen kommen.