A perfect example of why the electric chair is needed for some. (Arguments concerning criminal executions and methods)

Bear Ribs

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
KilroywasNOTHere said:
Shouldn't most death penalties like hanging and the chair, as well as punishments like life in prison fall under this? it certainly removes the ability to "Die with your boots on" as so many Americans like to boast. Compare that to punishments like crucifixion burning at the stake or death by combat all of which provide a sense of martyrism or again "Dying with your boots on."
Click to expand...
You are hitting the quintessential issue. By definition, any punishment is going to have some aspect of cruelty because otherwise, it isn't a punishment.

And yes, Justice Brennan himself concluded that any death penalty was cruel and unusual by those standards.
 
King Arts

King Arts

Well-known member
Bear Ribs said:
The standard for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment was set by Justice William Brennan. In Furman v. Georgia.
  • The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture.
  • "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
  • "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
  • "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
It's highly unlikely impalement could pass this test, especially the first "essential predicate."
Click to expand...
Yes locking men in a cage and treating them as animals is respecting their human dignity. Also the definition changed. Rape used to be worthy of the death penalty but liberals changed it so now it is not an acceptable punishment for that crime. Why can’t it be changed back?
 
KilroywasNOTHere

KilroywasNOTHere

"BEEP!"
Bear Ribs said:
You are hitting the quintessential issue. By definition, any punishment is going to have some aspect of cruelty because otherwise, it isn't a punishment.

And yes, Justice Brennan himself concluded that any death penalty was cruel and unusual by those standards.
Click to expand...

and again the idea of what is dignified changes from culture to culture.

In Ancient Rome the Cross was considered a humiliating death fit for only the most worthless and petty of criminals. Meanwhile, in medieval and modern times, it'd be considered a good death. Same with burning at the stake. Meanwhile, while most would consider death/trial by combat to be little more than a glorified circus act, the Vikings of Scandinavia and indeed many in America would love to go down fighting as opposed to being locked in a cage like a zoo animal.
 
King Arts

King Arts

Well-known member
KilroywasNOTHere said:
and again the idea of what is dignified changes from culture to culture.

In Ancient Rome the Cross was considered a humiliating death fit for only the most worthless and petty of criminals. Meanwhile, in medieval and modern times, it'd be considered a good death. Same with burning at the stake. Meanwhile, while most would consider death/trial by combat to be little more than a glorified circus act, the Vikings of Scandinavia and indeed many in America would love to go down fighting as opposed to being locked in a cage like a zoo animal.
Click to expand...
What? In no time was crucified considered a good death. You might be respected for dying in a similar way to Jesus as a martyr like what we think of as the Japanese martyrs but no if you had to die in medieval times best is either a judicial duel or beheading, those are the most honorable.
 
S

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
King Arts said:
Rape used to be worthy of the death penalty but liberals changed it so now it is not an acceptable punishment for that crime. Why can’t it be changed back?
Click to expand...

The near totality of death penalties levied in U.S. history have been for murder or treason; while some states did make rape a capital offense, this was relatively rare and most states de facto only imposed the death penalty if the rapist was a black male. After the Supreme Court's landmark 1972 decision restricting the death penalty, 37 out of 50 states enacted new death penalty statues but only Georgia retained the death penalty for rape. This was then struck down by SCOTUS in a 1977 ruling which held that the death penalty for rape was categorically unconstitutional on the basis of being "grossly disproportionate" punishment for this offense.

Note that this was not a liberal SCOTUS roster; 1977 was five years into the highly conservative Nixon appointee Warren Burger's stint as chief justice.
 
Agent23

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
Bear Ribs said:
The standard for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment was set by Justice William Brennan. In Furman v. Georgia.
  • The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture.
  • "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
  • "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
  • "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
It's highly unlikely impalement could pass this test, especially the first "essential predicate."
Click to expand...
That is quaker shit?

Right?

I prefer the "we do not hang horse thieves because of one theft, but to deter theft" approach.

I'd say that a public flogging for doing nasty shit could be more effective in keeping down some forms of crime than others.

The reason we give out punishments is to force a person to:
1) See the error of his ways.
2) For his victims to get justice.
3)For the rest of society to be prevented from getting the same dumb idea.

In fact one of the reasons we imprison people is because of the fears of extrajudicial retaliation.

I think that a dumb teenage brat caught drinking and shoplifting because of muh public pressure or for the lulz will get a better attitude adjustment, as will his peers, if he is flogged publicly.
 
Lord Sovereign

Lord Sovereign

The resident Britbong
Agent23 said:
I think that a dumb teenage brat caught drinking and shoplifting because of muh public pressure or for the lulz will get a better attitude adjustment, as will his peers, if he is flogged publicly.
Click to expand...

Eh...that's a touch too severe for something as trivial as that. Flogging is an incredibly traumatic and damaging thing, whereas a day or two in the stocks will only harm their pride.
 
Agent23

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
Lord Sovereign said:
Eh...that's a touch too severe for something as trivial as that. Flogging is an incredibly traumatic and damaging thing, whereas a day or two in the stocks will only harm their pride.
Click to expand...
We do not flog criminals for one crime, but to deter future crime.By them or by their peers.

To paraphrase the British dude that was on about hanging and horse theft.

If anything, it might be a life saver, since it is faster than being jailed and will definitely leave the right marks.

Nip it in the bud and act as a very good form of Broken Window Policing IMHO.
 
Bear Ribs

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Agent23 said:
That is quaker shit?

Right?
Click to expand...
Uh... no? That's US Court stuff that has been invoked all the way up to the Supreme Court and is treated as the current standard.

I tend to agree on corporal punishments, there would be a lot of benefit to both the criminal and society. Flogging is a bit extreme, for cases like shoplifting I would nominate birching instead, which will leave no more than welts. Flogging should be reserved for more serious crimes than that.

Benefits from this would include:

Less disruption of the criminal's life, a year in prison means they've lost their home, their job, all their worldly possessions, and many of their friends and contacts are gone leaving them with little recourse to legally move again. A birching will have a shoplifter back home and able to go back to their job and pay rent, albeit probably with a limp, the next day.

Less chance for criminals to teach each other. Prisoners invariable talk and share tips and many criminals leave the prison system more hardened than they went in.

Less expensive on society by far than room and board for a year paid to expensive private prisons that have been frequently bribing judges to send more innocents to prison in order to make more money at the taxpayer's expense.

I would reserve imprisonment for actual dangerous criminals who are unsafe to have on the streets, where they genuinely need to be separated from society.
 
Agent23

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
Bear Ribs said:
Uh... no? That's US Court stuff that has been invoked all the way up to the Supreme Court and is treated as the current standard.

I tend to agree on corporal punishments, there would be a lot of benefit to both the criminal and society. Flogging is a bit extreme, for cases like shoplifting I would nominate birching instead, which will leave no more than welts. Flogging should be reserved for more serious crimes than that.

Benefits from this would include:

Less disruption of the criminal's life, a year in prison means they've lost their home, their job, all their worldly possessions, and many of their friends and contacts are gone leaving them with little recourse to legally move again. A birching will have a shoplifter back home and able to go back to their job and pay rent, albeit probably with a limp, the next day.

Less chance for criminals to teach each other. Prisoners invariable talk and share tips and many criminals leave the prison system more hardened than they went in.

Less expensive on society by far than room and board for a year paid to expensive private prisons that have been frequently bribing judges to send more innocents to prison in order to make more money at the taxpayer's expense.

I would reserve imprisonment for actual dangerous criminals who are unsafe to have on the streets, where they genuinely need to be separated from society.
Click to expand...
Ok, for lighter crimes we can do it with a spiky paddle or something, say in front of the whole school if it is a juvie doing the nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Captain X

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
I'll note that horse thievery and thievery in general has continued in spite of any lynchings that occurred for it. :cautious:

This isn't significantly different than the deterrence argument used in an attempt to justify the death penalty in general. The thing is, it doesn't actually deter anything, because it tends to either be a crime of passion, and the person is hardly thinking about the consequences of their actions, or something planned out by someone who thinks they can outsmart everyone and get away with it. And then you have people with compulsions or other mental defects that prevent them from understanding consequences as a concept.
 
Agent23

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
Captain X said:
I'll note that horse thievery and thievery in general has continued in spite of any lynchings that occurred for it. :cautious:

This isn't significantly different than the deterrence argument used in an attempt to justify the death penalty in general. The thing is, it doesn't actually deter anything, because it tends to either be a crime of passion, and the person is hardly thinking about the consequences of their actions, or something planned out by someone who thinks they can outsmart everyone and get away with it. And then you have people with compulsions or other mental defects that prevent them from understanding consequences as a concept.
Click to expand...
And Stalin and Mao could not totally wipe out capitalism, your point is?

Sometimes only relative, as opposed to absolute changes can be achieved.
 
Agent23

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
ShadowArxxy said:
The point is to actually study what's actually effective at deterring and reducing crime, as opposed to advocating "tough guy" measures that you find emotionally satisfying. Facts, not feels.
Click to expand...
Jails cost a lot of money and criminals use them as training grounds, hence the term university applied to them in some places.

Is it really more humane to cut off a person from their life for years and lock them up with worse scum than flog them publicly?

Years behind bars will inevitably lead to a harder time when returning to a normal life.

Whatever you think, a fast and nasty punishment that the guilty would not like to repeat is probably more effective.

Oh, and there is actual proof that it works, since it is still practiced in Singapore which is just the 3rd safest country on the planet, and one that turned from a shithole into a prosperous and fairly decent place to live virtually overnight, with one of the most highly educated and skilled work forces on the planet.
 
S

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Agent23 said:
Oh, and there is actual proof that it works, since it is still practiced in Singapore which is just the 3rd safest country on the planet, and one that turned from a shithole into a prosperous and fairly decent place to live virtually overnight, with one of the most highly educated and skilled work forces on the planet.
Click to expand...

Corporal punishment gets a lot of attention, but is not really that much of an important thing in Singaporean law. The key thing about Singapore is that society is closely regulated by aggressive use of criminal law.

Jaywalking? Criminal offense. Up to $2000 fine and six months in prison for repeat offenders.

Littering? Criminal offense, up to $5000 fine and three months in prison for repeat offenders.

Chewing gum? Criminal offense; up to $2000 fine.

Failing to flush public toilet after use? You guessed it, criminal offense!
 
Agent23

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
ShadowArxxy said:
Corporal punishment gets a lot of attention, but is not really that much of an important thing in Singaporean law. The key thing about Singapore is that society is closely regulated by aggressive use of criminal law.

Jaywalking? Criminal offense. Up to $2000 fine and six months in prison for repeat offenders.

Littering? Criminal offense, up to $5000 fine and three months in prison for repeat offenders.

Chewing gum? Criminal offense; up to $2000 fine.

Failing to flush public toilet after use? You guessed it, criminal offense!
Click to expand...
And despite all of that they still have flogging in schools, prisons, the military and various other correctional facilities.

So, obviously they think it has some benefit.
 
S

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Agent23 said:
And despite all of that they still have flogging in schools, prisons, the military and various other correctional facilities.

So, obviously they think it has some benefit.
Click to expand...

That's not the point -- the point is you argued Singapore is a good example for the United States to follow because of their low crime rates, while I'm countering with the fact that the Singaporean system is fundamentally incompatible with American values and civil liberties.
 
Bear Ribs

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Additionally, solutions that can work for Singapore just won't work anywhere else. It's a micronation island with a 100% urbanized and fully contained population and no borders.
 
B

Brickman van Catalhoyuk

Permanently Banned
Permanently Banned
Val the Moofia Boss said:
Also only costs 50 cents for ammo.
Click to expand...
We could always make the sentenced peddle on a bike to electrocute themselves.

ShadowArxxy said:
...civil liberties...
Click to expand...
Civil liberities are incompatible with American values. America was founded on individual sovereignty, patriarchy, among may other values, principles, and traditions.

Civil liberties are for slaves, and most living in America, especially the cities are scum that can't handle freedom, and so like children shouldn't have it.

We live under an antiWhite and antiChristian, anarcho-tyrannical, third-world system... either the government we pay the salaries of need to earn their pay, or they need to get out of the way so good, strong men can take back their neighborhoods, cities, and countries.

Bear Ribs said:
It's a micronation island with a 100% urbanized and fully contained population and no borders.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a nightmare, freaking UN smart cities slave gulag.

ShadowArxxy said:
Note that this was not a liberal SCOTUS roster; 1977 was five years into the highly conservative Nixon appointee Warren Burger's stint as chief justice.
Click to expand...
Whether they are liberals (evil scum) is based not on who appointed them or on what party they belong, but on their values and on their rulings and decisions.

And helping to turn society into a third-world shithole certainly makes them liberal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top