Public Flogging - would it be effective?

[lollardy2000]

Would this work?

This is an idea I got from blueback, who wrote:
I like Heinlein's take on it: public flogging. A few lashes with a whip has been an effective deterrent to crime for thousands of years, especially when done publicly. Besides, it's more efficient. It costs nothing compared to putting someone in prison. And if it's not enough, and a person is a repeat offender, then they have voluntarily proven that they refuse to accept the standards of the society they live in.

[Homini Lupus]

Of course it works preventing crime. Then people gets used to violence and starts using it in every situation possible, you have pogroms and violent revolts. After all, what else can they do to you? They already flogged you and you survived. Fines and public work are better in my opinion. A society in terror of breaking the laws is too focused on what not to do and not enough on what to do. It sonds good in Helein's good but ancient societies weren't more efficient than modern.

[Mozzes]

Would this work?

This is an idea I got from blueback, who wrote:
I like Heinlein's take on it: public flogging. A few lashes with a whip has been an effective deterrent to crime for thousands of years, especially when done publicly. Besides, it's more efficient. It costs nothing compared to putting someone in prison. And if it's not enough, and a person is a repeat offender, then they have voluntarily proven that they refuse to accept the standards of the society they live in.

I don't know. It's easy enough to say it was an effective deterrent but was it really? Is there enough information to say so? And what sort of offenses would warrant public floggings anyways?

[SShack]

Discussing penalties/deterrents for crimes is meaningless without analyzing the reality that innocent people will be exposed to it. Would you be willing to be flogged because a jury found you guilty of a crime of which you're actually innocent of? Would you put your fate in the hands full a jury full of people who tend to be predisposed to convict in the first place?

[TheLastMohican]

Would this work?

This is an idea I got from blueback, who wrote:
I like Heinlein's take on it: public flogging. A few lashes with a whip has been an effective deterrent to crime for thousands of years, especially when done publicly. Besides, it's more efficient. It costs nothing compared to putting someone in prison. And if it's not enough, and a person is a repeat offender, then they have voluntarily proven that they refuse to accept the standards of the society they live in.

This is something I have thought about often, and I do think it would be an improvement over the current system. (I also happen to think that hanging would be a better method of execution than electrocution or lethal injection, so perhaps I am hopelessly old-fashioned in this area. :blank:) Flogging as a punishment would save an enormous amount of money, and in my opinion, be a better deterrent than most prison sentences. There are numerous pros and cons, but I think overall it would better society. Fines and public service would in some cases be better, since those usually profit the government, and some people would not be much affected by flogging, or it would be inappropriate for the crime.

[Brutananadilewski]

This is something I have thought about often, and I do think it would be an improvement over the current system. (I also happen to think that hanging would be a better method of execution than electrocution or lethal injection, so perhaps I am hopelessly old-fashioned in this area. :blank:) Flogging as a punishment would save an enormous amount of money, and in my opinion, be a better deterrent than most prison sentences. There are numerous pros and cons, but I think overall it would better society. Fines and public service would in some cases be better, since those usually profit the government, and some people would not be much affected by flogging, or it would be inappropriate for the crime.

How can any method of execution be more humane than a well-designed lethal injection protocol (ie. one that isn't using short acting induction agents as a means of causing anaesthesia, but rather one that guarantees a long period of unconciousness)?

[TheLastMohican]

How can any method of execution be more humane than a well-designed lethal injection protocol (ie. one that isn't using short acting induction agents as a means of causing anaesthesia, but rather one that guarantees a long period of conciousness)?

I wasn't really thinking about it in terms of humaneness. Hanging is a lot cheaper and faster.
However, properly performed hanging is quite humane. If the knot is correctly placed (not sure if I should elaborate on the details), the neck is broken and death is instantaneous, not a slow strangulation. By contrast, lethal injection requires expensive cocktails of drugs designed to avoid painfulness, and the effects of those drugs are occasionally called into question. It is not foolproof. Also, some prisoners (often those with previous drug addictions) have a phobia of needles, or find the use of the needles very painful.

[Uytuun]

And if it's not enough, and a person is a repeat offender, then they have voluntarily proven that they refuse to accept the standards of the society they live in.

And then they have to die?

Myeah, and what about people that can live with the pain and don't care about the disgrace? We're living in an urban, globalised, anonymous environment these days, public disgrace has lost a lot of its deterrence potential. The crime scene has also become way way more complicated.

Besides, if it was so awesome, why did they ditch it in favour for other options back then? I agree that history is a cyclical process, but let's not get carried away. :p

I don't know. It's easy enough to say it was an effective deterrent but was it really? Is there enough information to say so? And what sort of offenses would warrant public floggings anyways?

QFE

[Bandit]

Only if I get the priviledge of hold the whip and beating the shit out of some of these people..

But yes... I like the idea.. along with public hangings, and other forms of punishment along these lines... Seeing someone get their hands chopped off in public for stealing would probably put a lasting image in ones mind that they should probably avoid that type of behavior

[md21017md]

How can any method of execution be more humane than a well-designed lethal injection protocol

Why should some piece of shit be entitled to humane treatment? By virtue of the fact they are being executed they apparently comitted an in-humane crime. I personally think anyone convicted of murder (maybe not accidental murder/manslauter) should die in the same manor as thier victim. The exception might be parents that leave a child in a car to die of exposure. They them self should be executed in the same manor.

Murder victims get no appeals, no pain killers, most of the time they do not get last rites, or a chance to see thier family, why should the killer?





md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 1 seconds later...

Seeing someone get their hands chopped off in public for stealing would probably put a lasting image in ones mind that they should probably avoid that type of behavior

Why should someone lose body parts when all he might have been doing was trying to feed himself or his family?

[Brutananadilewski]

I wasn't really thinking about it in terms of humaneness. Hanging is a lot cheaper and faster.
However, properly performed hanging is quite humane. If the knot is correctly placed (not sure if I should elaborate on the details), the neck is broken and death is instantaneous, not a slow strangulation. By contrast, lethal injection requires expensive cocktails of drugs designed to avoid painfulness, and the effects of those drugs are occasionally called into question. It is not foolproof. Also, some prisoners (often those with previous drug addictions) have a phobia of needles, or find the use of the needles very painful.

How many people are we executing such that cost even becomes a consideration?

You can play the "calling into question" card for hanging as well. There will be instances where the neck isn't instantaneously broken, and a person is still alive. What then?

I understand that the common induction agent of choice is thiopental. It is a very short acting barbiturate, which is why I qualified my statement of using a different, long-acting, induction agent that will guarantee unconsciousness until death is achieved. Needle phobia? Enter volatile anesthetic agents to ease the individual before infusion.

No method is foolproof, but we've got to find not only the most humane way of executing an individual, but also the one that is least likely to have complications, if capital punishment is to be part of our system. After all, they're still people, regardless of what they've done. Should they not be entitled to be treated with a basic level of dignity and respect?





Brutananadilewski added to this post, 2 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Why should some piece of shit be entitled to humane treatment? By virtue of the fact they are being executed they apparently comitted an in-humane crime. I personally think anyone convicted of murder (maybe not accidental murder/manslauter) should die in the same manor as thier victim. The exception might be parents that leave a child in a car to die of exposure. They them self should be executed in the same manor.

Murder victims get no appeals, no pain killers, most of the time they do not get last rites, or a chance to see thier family, why should the killer?

Whoa! Put the emotions away for a second.





md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 1 seconds later...



Why should someone lose body parts when all he might have been doing was trying to feed himself or his family?

Your standards of justice are bewildering. Where is the logical consistency within the framework you've just outlined? Dare I say there is none, but rather it's emotionally governed?

[md21017md]

Whoa! Put the emotions away for a second.

Can't, I am an ExFP


Quote:
Originally Posted by md21017md
md21017md added to this post, 1 minutes and 1 seconds later...



Why should someone lose body parts when all he might have been doing was trying to feed himself or his family?

Your standards of justice are bewildering. Where is the logical consistency within the framework you've just outlined? Dare I say there is none, but rather it's emotionally governed?
Brutananadilewski is online

What is so bewildering? I see pre-meditated murder as far more serious than theft. A life can't be replaced, stolen items can.

A hand can't be replaced either. I don't see some one stealing food deserving of losing a hand, maybe lashing sure.

[thod]

Why should some piece of shit be entitled to humane treatment? By virtue of the fact they are being executed they apparently comitted an in-humane crime. I personally think anyone convicted of murder (maybe not accidental murder/manslauter) should die in the same manor as thier victim. The exception might be parents that leave a child in a car to die of exposure. They them self should be executed in the same manor.

Murder victims get no appeals, no pain killers, most of the time they do not get last rites, or a chance to see thier family, why should the killer?


Someone that rapes a 20 year old woman should in turn be raped by a 20 year old woman? I can see a lot of them liking that.

How about the practical angle, If you know whats in store for you then you will shoot it out with the cops since a bullet is so much better, more dead cops.

How about the 'cruel an unusual punishments' set out in the eighth amendment or English bill of rights.

How about the moral argument. If we do to them what they did to others, then we are no different from them and cannot condemn their actions.

I don't care how much their revenge is justified. Someone that enjoys watching the other man writhe in pain is ugly to me, and they need psychiatric help. If its is decided that someone must die, then do it as quick and painless as possible.

[TheLastMohican]

How many people are we executing such that cost even becomes a consideration?

More than 600 people have been executed in the US in the past 10 years (2008 included). According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the cost of the drug cocktail for an execution is $86.08. Then there is the cost of the doctors and assistants required for the procedure.
This all adds up to a relatively minor total, considering the magnitude of our tax revenue. But what sense does it make to continue just because it doesn't seem to cost that much? It is still something, and if we could cut back on numerous such small expenditures, we would end up with large savings. I think we should save money wherever practical.


You can play the "calling into question" card for hanging as well. There will be instances where the neck isn't instantaneously broken, and a person is still alive. What then?


Then you kill the person by another method, or just try the hanging again.
I think hanging is harder to screw up than mixing the right cocktail of drugs. The drugs are much more difficult to analyze, because no one but the person being executed can actually feel how they affect the body. Recently there was a burst of controversy over whether the cocktail numbs the pain as it should, and people were exclaiming in horror that the condemned might actually feel pain while on the table! It would be far simpler to just know where to place a knot and get it over with. No need to analyze the sequence of events or the effects on the nervous system vs. the effects on the organs. The neck is supposed to break, and it's done with. If the neck doesn't break, you screwed something up, and it is usually very easy to identify and prevent such mishaps.

No method is foolproof, but we've got to find not only the most humane way of executing an individual, but also the one that is least likely to have complications, if capital punishment is to be part of our system. After all, they're still people, regardless of what they've done. Should they not be entitled to be treated with a basic level of dignity and respect?


I must ask: is this a joke?
Those who are sentenced to death have normally committed crimes of heinous nature. Since they did not offer any dignity to their victims, why do we have any obligation to walk an eggshells for theirs? You might think this sounds callous, and indeed it does. But this is an extraordinary circumstance, and we do not need to sweat over the comfort of those whom we are going to execute. We are going to kill them, for goodness' sake. It's not as if we are preserving their lives, let alone their comforts. The humaneness of execution is really just for the feelings of those who remain. Beheading is also quite a foolproof method, especially when an ingenious device such as the guillotine is employed. The reason we do not do it that way is because people have a natural aversion to such mutilation, as they see it as barbaric and grotesque. People usually don't like to see blood and unsightly corpses, and so we do the considerate thing and make the executions relatively watchable.

[md21017md]

Someone that rapes a 20 year old woman should in turn be raped by a 20 year old woman? I can see a lot of them liking that.

There are of course holes in the idea, as with any idea.

How about the practical angle, If you know whats in store for you then you will shoot it out with the cops since a bullet is so much better, more dead cops.

I think you are leading now. Most know when the are going to get caught for murder they will get life or maybe deth penalty.

How about the 'cruel an unusual punishments' set out in the eighth amendment or English bill of rights.

Just because I think it's a good idea doesn't mean I want to see it implemented despite our constitution.


How about the moral argument. If we do to them what they did to others, then we are no different from them and cannot condemn their actions.

Damn morals always get in the way.

I don't care how much their revenge is justified. Someone that enjoys watching the other man writhe in pain is ugly to me, and they need psychiatric help. If its is decided that someone must die, then do it as quick and painless as possible.

I see no reason we should worry about making it comfortable for a murder. He did his victim no favors, why should he be entitled to any?

[Beery Swine]

Flogging would only deter the intelligent people who aren't as impulsive as the typical criminal, but it would also probably outrage the current moral zeitgeist, which would lead to protests and ACLU this and blah blah blah would get repealed in no time. Guess what? Those same people who would be deterred by PFs (like me) are already deterred by our normal system of punishment, and American society is simultaneously one of the most violent societies in the west with one of the worst prison systems and far less violent than just about any other society in 5.000 or so years of recorded history.

[Brutananadilewski]

Then you kill the person by another method, or just try the hanging again.
I think hanging is harder to screw up than mixing the right cocktail of drugs. The drugs are much more difficult to analyze, because no one but the person being executed can actually feel how they affect the body. Recently there was a burst of controversy over whether the cocktail numbs the pain as it should, and people were exclaiming in horror that the condemned might actually feel pain while on the table! It would be far simpler to just know where to place a knot and get it over with. No need to analyze the sequence of events or the effects on the nervous system vs. the effects on the organs. The neck is supposed to break, and it's done with. If the neck doesn't break, you screwed something up, and it is usually very easy to identify and prevent such mishaps.

Meanwhile, in trying to do a hanging the second time, they're in pain and agony. Again, the neck isn't guaranteed to break. The same thing goes for hanging; no one but the hanged knows what it feels like to be hung. Which is a safer alternative for assuring the least amount of pain?

I already addressed the issue concerning drugs and consciousness. I'd say current methods are using induction agents that are too rapidly acting. Something with a longer duration of action than thiopental is needed. I'm a medical student with a very strong interest in anesthesiology, and a competent anesthesiologist can induce unconsciousness in someone and keep them that way without the person waking up, especially in instances wher we don't want them to wake up again.



I must ask: is this a joke?
Those who are sentenced to death have normally committed crimes of heinous nature. Since they did not offer any dignity to their victims, why do we have any obligation to walk an eggshells for theirs? You might think this sounds callous, and indeed it does. But this is an extraordinary circumstance, and we do not need to sweat over the comfort of those whom we are going to execute. We are going to kill them, for goodness' sake. It's not as if we are preserving their lives, let alone their comforts. The humaneness of execution is really just for the feelings of those who remain. Beheading is also quite a foolproof method, especially when an ingenious device such as the guillotine is employed. The reason we do not do it that way is because people have a natural aversion to such mutilation, as they see it as barbaric and grotesque. People usually don't like to see blood and unsightly corpses, and so we do the considerate thing and make the executions relatively watchable.

You are a Christian, yes? I guess when it comes to committing a heinous crime, we can throw the ideals of love and forgiveness out the window in order to dehumanize them? I fail to see how what you're saying here can be in any way consistent with your self-professed worldview.

Regardless of any religion or worldview; people are people. Human beings. If we're to condemn others, we must hold ourselves to the ideals of justice, mercy, compassion, love, and forgiveness Anything else is hypocrisy. Who are we to condemn when we're treating them no differently than they treated those that they've transgressed? Once we begin to justify the dehumanization of an individual, many unpleasant doors are opened; it's a very slippery slope. How did the holocaust come about? Dehumanization. While this was a case to the extreme, events such as this are possible when we start making small allowances for dehumanization in everyday life.

[blueback]

I think that the main problem our modern society is having with justice is that we want to be able to change people's behavior without pain.

We want everything to be painless. However, pain is nature's behavior modifier. There are very few peopl in the world who voluntarily limit their own behavior for rational reasons. The vast majority of humans respond predictably to pain and pleasure.

It seems to me there is a simple breakdown of options:

1) The person does enough right without any interventions
2) The person does enough right with only warm-snuggly interventions
3) The person does enough right with painful interventions
4) The person will not do enough right despite all interventions

In the case of 1) there is nothing to be done. In the case of 2) we can all gather together in a big group-hug and brainstorm on constructive ways to entice them towards good behavior. In the case of 3) we will HAVE to accept the fact that we will have to officially sanction the use of pain to change their behavior. In the case of 4) we must eventually recognize that their behavior will remain unacceptable no matter what we do so we should probably just kill them.

I think the biggest problem with the system we have now is that there is no official way to deal with the character-defining events that are below the level that is officially recognized. We can't seem to agree on how to develop good character, so we end up with a system in which no one is allowed to act because someone else disagrees with them. When I was growing up I was paddled in school once and it was good for me. Then my parents paddled me when I got home, and that was good to. Not because pain is good but because the way everyone delt with the situation was consistent. There was no one I could turn to to play one party against another.

However, not everyone had that experience. A lot of people grow up in a situation in which their parents can't muster up the courage to provide consistent discipline and no one else is allowed to discipline them at all. Since juveniles can't be held officially responsible for their actions they have a long period of relative immunity from punishment before they are suddenly officially recognized as mature enough to punish. By that time their crimes have gotten so bad that the punishment is incredibly severe compared to what it was on the other side of their 18th birthday. That sort of inconsistency doesn't create discipline; just the opposite in fact.

We need too come up with a comprehensive system of character development and punishment.

[ElstonGunn]

Corporal punishment has been around for a long time. If I remember my history correctly, Hammurabi's Code was novel because of how lenient it was. So if you poked out someone's eye, you'd just have your own eye poked out, rather than getting your whole head chopped off.

Fast forward a few thousand years, and most of the Western world has banned corporal punishment. The question in my mind then is, did they get rid of it because it worked so well that it completely eliminated violent crime? Or did they get rid of it because it just doesn't work, regardless of all the logical reasons that it should work?

[Seppuku Savant]

This seems humorous to me. I don't think flogging would work in this day and age. I'm all about the death penalty though.

[lollardy2000]

I think that the main problem our modern society is having with justice is that we want to be able to change people's behavior without pain.

I totally agree. This holds true for changing our own behavior as well.
I think a big problem stems from, at least in the U.S., parents raise their kids using only one method, say numbers 1, or 2, or 3. But different situations, and different children, call for different styles of rehabilitation. Kids grow up distorted from this - too lenient or too harsh punishments wacks kids in the head and in the heart. You have to balance them. That's hard to do. But in general we post-modern Americans are lazy and gluttonous. I blame consumer culture more than the so-called welfare state.





lollardy2000 added to this post, 3 minutes and 17 seconds later...

Hammurabi's Code was novel because of how lenient it was. So if you poked out someone's eye, you'd just have your own eye poked out, rather than getting your whole head chopped off. Fast forward a few thousand years, and most of the Western world has banned corporal punishment. The question in my mind then is, did they get rid of it because it worked so well that it completely eliminated violent crime? Or did they get rid of it because it just doesn't work, regardless of all the logical reasons that it should work?

Hmmm..... if I remember from The History of Torture by Daniel Mannix, the ancient Persians used this as their ultimate method of punishment/execution:

find a large horse, ox, cow, etc. while it's still alive, slit open its gut. put the condemned inside, and sew it shut so only the person's head is outside the beast. put it out in the desert.

is this effective?

[Brutananadilewski]

The question in my mind then is, did they get rid of it because it worked so well that it completely eliminated violent crime? Or did they get rid of it because it just doesn't work, regardless of all the logical reasons that it should work?

Is there any reputable literature/research done on this subject, because I hoenstly don't know.

In my mind, if there isn't any research to corporal punishment, then it's best to avoid it until it can be logically justified, that is if we value other humans. We can spend all day with common sense insights, but often our insights can and may be wrong, as they're always based on presupposed worldviews.

If there is literature to support corporal punishment as being the most effective deterrent, then I'm behind it, so long as we're not reducing the punished to a level that is lower than human.

[lollardy2000]

Is there any reputable literature/research done on this subject, because I hoenstly don't know. In my mind, if there isn't any research to corporal punishment, then it's best to avoid it until it can be logically justified, that is if we value other humans. We can spend all day with common sense insights, but often our insights can and may be wrong, as they're always based on presupposed worldviews. If there is literature to support corporal punishment as being the most effective deterrent, then I'm behind it, so long as we're not reducing the punished to a level that is lower than human.

From what I know, the move from corporeal to "rehabilitative" (though see Clockwork Orange for a savage critique of such "humanism" - behavior and thought modification) punishment was presented as "preventative" - nipping the crime in the bud - which involved not harming the harm-doer but getting him [sic] to correct his ways. For that, one needed to enter the mind of the criminal... and get him to see for himself the error and harm to others of his ways. Thus, prison workhouses and schools. Of course, this rests on the supposition that the criminal is simply "ignorant" of the effects of his actions. Conservatives will argue that some kind of liberalism is at fault for this weak form of punishment that lets criminals off the hook without physical punishment. I see it more as States learning new forms of control over people (see Foucault (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), Chomsky, Creel Commission (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)), useful in propaganda, advertising, military, electioneering. In the end, I think you have to balance forms of punishment, see what will work best for the individual criminal. I think we can all agree current system produces nothing but recidivism.

[Brutananadilewski]

I think we can all agree current system produces nothing but recidivism.

That's a pretty bold statement. Care to back it up?

[ElstonGunn]

That's a pretty bold statement. Care to back it up?

-Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.

-The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.

US Dept. of Justice (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Of course, you can prove anything with statistics.

[Brutananadilewski]

-Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.

-The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.

US Dept. of Justice (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

While that seems like a fairly high number, it is neither all people who've entered prison, nor is recidivism the sole product of the current penal system, as was the implication of lollardy2000's statement.

How does it compare to times when corporal punishment was more mainstream in the past (ie.how many people who weren't executed ended up as recidivists)? Of more important and interest to me, how did corporal punishment effect deterrence?

Of course, you can prove anything with statistics.

“Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.”

That Homer J Simpson is a gem!!

[TheLastMohican]

Which is a safer alternative for assuring the least amount of pain?

I say hanging. That is a highly uncertain and irrelevant matter, however.

I already addressed the issue concerning drugs and consciousness.

Unless you have significant influence over the choices of drugs used for lethal injections, your opinions of what should be used are irrelevant.


You are a Christian, yes? I guess when it comes to committing a heinous crime, we can throw the ideals of love and forgiveness out the window in order to dehumanize them? I fail to see how what you're saying here can be in any way consistent with your self-professed worldview.


Firstly, my Christianity does not determine my views of government. I think governments such as ours should be run according to what is most logical and efficient, not according to the religious preferences of a majority.

Secondly, the subject matter negates the usual factors of love and forgiveness. We are already discussing the ultimate situation of unforgiveness, namely killing the criminal. It makes no sense to say, "We are going to kill you now, but to show just how loving and forgiving we are, we'll execute you by lethal injection instead of that possibly painful hanging."

Regardless of any religion or worldview; people are people. Human beings. If we're to condemn others, we must hold ourselves to the ideals of justice, mercy, compassion, love, and forgiveness Anything else is hypocrisy. Who are we to condemn when we're treating them no differently than they treated those that they've transgressed? Once we begin to justify the dehumanization of an individual, many unpleasant doors are opened; it's a very slippery slope. How did the holocaust come about? Dehumanization. While this was a case to the extreme, events such as this are possible when we start making small allowances for dehumanization in everyday life.

To understand where you're going with this logic, I must know your position on the death penalty as a whole. Do you think the death penalty is acceptable or not? Why?

[Brutananadilewski]

I say hanging. That is a highly uncertain and irrelevant matter, however.

Of course. My point; objectively, there is no answer. In light of that fact, however, we must consider how we define an individual, and their rights. We must be consistent in teh applications of such constructs, else they lose any and all validity/applicability.

Unless you have significant influence over the choices of drugs used for lethal injections, your opinions of what should be used are irrelevant.

Except that my "opinion" is not merely an "opinion," rather, it is an understanding of the basic methods of anesthesia. Someone who lacks this understanding has no grounds upon which to base their conclusions. How can you justify a conclusion in an area of which you're not well versed?

Firstly, my Christianity does not determine my views of government. I think governments such as ours should be run according to what is most logical and efficient, not according to the religious preferences of a majority.

I fail to see how views can be applied to one situation and not to another. It's inconsistent to apply views in one area and not another. Your post still doesn't clarify the inherent contradiction within your argument. How is it logically sound to have one idea for one thing, and yet abandon it for another? Essentially, Christianity makes no exceptions for matters of government...find me a passage in the bible in which you are provided exclusions when it comes to governance. Jesus never made exceptions in the bible; his ideas/laws/ordinances/whatever were universal in nature. How is it justified for you to pick and chose in which areas they are applied? Simply because a decision falls under governance means that we can disregard the golden rule, and other such teachings in terms of how we treat and view other human beings? This is about a fundamental view of another individual, in this area, you are not consistent.

Secondly, the subject matter negates the usual factors of love and forgiveness. We are already discussing the ultimate situation of unforgiveness, namely killing the criminal. It makes no sense to say, "We are going to kill you now, but to show just how loving and forgiving we are, we'll execute you by lethal injection instead of that possibly painful hanging."

Why is it that we are discussing ultimate factors of unforgiveness (ie. by who's objective authority, other than your own, are we basing this upon)? Who defines ultimate factors? Essentially, how are you justified in asserting an ultimate? More importantly, who are we to assert moral justification if we resort to the same level as those we condemn?

Nice quotation marks by the way...I can add quotations to any word to make it seem as if it's not valid. The application of such a rhetorical tactic does not infer validity.

To understand where you're going with this logic, I must know your position on the death penalty as a whole. Do you think the death penalty is acceptable or not? Why?

As previously mentioned within the thread, my position is such that the death penalty would be the best choice if it were demonstrated empirically that it were indeed the best choice for curbing both recidivism and initiation of crime. However, I've yet to see any evidence other than personal feelings, or beliefs, to come to such a conclusion. In the absence of evidence, I deem it most prudent to treat every person fundamentally as a human being, lest we fall into a trap of dehumanizing an individual (in which case it's a slippery slope). Innocent until proven guilty? Tell me what the logical conclusion of such a position is...

[kriss]

Anyone read Freakonomics?





kriss added to this post, 6 minutes and 23 seconds later...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

These gives some statitics from Singapore where the death panalty and caning are used quite frequently. However, singapore also consists of quite a conservative chinese community mainly. Whether it can be applied to other places may be of debate.

[Henry]

Would this work?

This is an idea I got from blueback, who wrote:
I like Heinlein's take on it: public flogging. A few lashes with a whip has been an effective deterrent to crime for thousands of years, especially when done publicly. Besides, it's more efficient. It costs nothing compared to putting someone in prison. And if it's not enough, and a person is a repeat offender, then they have voluntarily proven that they refuse to accept the standards of the society they live in.

One of the dumbest, least-supported arguments I've read.

We engage in ridiculously unethical, antisocial, dehumanizing behavior...to encourage the person to be ethical, social, and more authentically human? We ignore those crazy things called "individual rights" and that bit about cruel and unusual punishment? And for what - because they don't "accept the standards of the society they live in"? At what level do we apply the punishment - when someone smokes a joint? AND OH YEAH ITS CHEAP!

Anyone who supports this just wants to dehumanize others, or is insanely unethical.

Keep this shit in SE Asia where it belongs.



Anyone read Freakonomics?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

These gives some statitics from Singapore where the death panalty and caning are used quite frequently. However, singapore also consists of quite a conservative chinese community mainly. Whether it can be applied to other places may be of debate.

Regardless of cost or effectiveness (and crime is an insanely complex issue involving dozens of psychological, economic, and sociological factors, not just WELL IF WE ASS RAPE THEM IN THE TOWN SQUARE FOR SMOKING POT THEY WILL STOPS, AFTER ALL SOCIETY SAYS THAT I SHOUDL NOT SMOKE POT, OR IF THEY ARE CHINESE WE DON"T HAVE TO WORRY), individuals in the west have the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and governments' powers are expressly limited in every western country that I am aware of.

Firstly, my Christianity does not determine my views of government. I think governments such as ours should be run according to what is most logical and efficient, not according to the religious preferences of a majority.


So your faith basically informs...your faith. It does not inform how you think other people should be treated, and all those bits about how you should treat others are really just optional, when convenient, or how you should treat other christians.

If your faith isn't informing your values, and your values aren't informing your life, its time to take a look at whether that time in Church is worth your while.

To understand where you're going with this logic, I must know your position on the death penalty as a whole. Do you think the death penalty is acceptable or not? Why?

In anticipation of your first argument:

I am uncomfortable with the notion that the state has the right to take a citizen's life when it sees fit.

The only providence government has to physically limit freedom is when someone is causing harm to others. A government can halt all serious risk of that with detention. The individual does not waive all of his or her rights when they do harm, and the government's has fully achieved its purpose by ending any chance of further harm. Using force beyond what's necessary to achieve its aim is wrong and deeply hypocritical.

Even assuming we get it "right" and execute the right person, we've ended a life for basically no other reason than a lust for vengence and to save a buck. Not the kind of place I want to live in.

[Brutananadilewski]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

These gives some statitics from Singapore where the death panalty and caning are used quite frequently. However, singapore also consists of quite a conservative chinese community mainly. Whether it can be applied to other places may be of debate.

The article doesn't mention rates of recidivism, nor does it mention rates of deterrence in relation to different systems of punishment. Numbers mean nothing without denominators for comparison. Furthermore, you are correct; how can you compare societies in which their basic values are significantly different?

[kriss]

One of the dumbest, least-supported arguments I've read.

It really depends on how you interpret this. Perhaps to put it simply: does corporal punishment work? An idea is an idea and no matter how controversial is it and should always be open to debate. Perhaps you should leave the emotion out of it.

We engage in ridiculously unethical, antisocial, dehumanizing behavior...to encourage the person to be ethical, social, and more authentically human?

And you think that jail is not dehumanizing? Jailing someone takes away one's physical freedom, sexual freedom and almost intellectual freedom. You call this human? All major punishment is dehumanizing so what are we talking about?

Secondly, is the sole aim to “encourage one to be ethical etc..” or are we trying also trying to deter others from commiting the same offence? After all punishment is just as much about deterrence if not more than to rehabilitate(which is quite a dubious concept given that character- “good” and “bad” is determined by both culture/environment and genetics).

We ignore those crazy things called "individual rights" and that bit about cruel and unusual punishment? And for what - because they don't "accept the standards of the society they live in"?

Individual rights refer to the rights of the individual granted by government. Therefore they are dependant on the society that one lives in. This is quite distinct from “human rights” which theory claims is a “basic right and freedoms to which all humans are entitled”. Human rights developed in the western world by philosophers such as Hegel and John Stuart Mill - hence a western concept. The last time I looked I didn't note that confucious mentioned anything about human rights, hence my comments about the chinese community in singapore. But apparently “this shit has to be left in SE asia” although a hypothetical discussion.

Again, “a cruel and unusual punishment”...a very broad definition and a portion from something out of the some UN declaration of which is only symbolic in what and whom it encompasses(the UN can't even keep the US out of iraq). As I've pointed out before, jail is also a cruel punishment but is considered acceptable by those with the higher moral ground. I believe that people are arguing for corporal/capital punishment for pragmatic reasons rather more so than moral. Society has standards and it should demand that it keeps them. IF this means employing certain means of displine that just let it be. The citizens who behave themselves need not worry.

Anyone who supports this just wants to dehumanize others, or is insanely unethical

Ethics and morality is more than often dependant upon one's point of view. It is relative rather than being absolute. We may be able to know what morality is in a certain culture or what one's own moral commitments are but there is no definite valid answer. Many times it depends on what side of the political, religious or cultural fence you are on.

One way to look at morality is this way with three varying levels. There are things that are EVERYONE will consider unethical and amoral. Ie those who torture and rape children. Most indivuals will think this an abhorrent act and have a very strong emotional reaction to this. Then there are situations which people can tolerate but view it as wrong, ie prostitution(which I have nothing against), smoking pot etc. Then there are real moral issues which have no real solution such as distribution of health care funding and where it bests goes. Corporal punishment can fall into the latter 2 situations given that many countries including the US still employ it ie Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, China and many countries in the Middle East. The last time that I checked, 45% of Australian agreed with Singapore hanging one of it's citizens for drug trafficking in dec 2006 just prior to the incident in a newspaper poll. According to this view of ethics and morality, this is not most people.

Regardless of cost or effectiveness .......... individuals in the west have the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and governments' powers are expressly limited in every western country that I am aware of.

I think I have covered this. But yes, you are right here-in the west.

I am uncomfortable with the notion that the state has the right to take a citizen's life when it sees fit.

This is an emotional argument. The topic surround effectiveness and not what we are comfortable with or not.

The only providence government has to physically limit freedom is when someone is causing harm to others.... A government can halt all serious risk of that with detention.

This is quite true but not the only aim of law and order. The original argument was for deterrence. There is an old saying “kill one, warn one-thousand”. Think about a minor crime which can have major consequences such as drug running. A typical drug runner know's right from wrong unlike a someone who commits a crime of passion. If one know's right from wrong, considerations will be given to the consequences of a crime if one is caught in the act. Prior to the 70s Singapore was a well known drug haven and a point of trade for illicit materials. Lee Kuan Yew brought in a mandatory death penalty for offences which depended on the amount of drugs one was carrying. All of a sudden, most of it stopped. Wonder how you explain it? Rise in wealth? Hmm, dubious......

Using force beyond what's necessary to achieve its aim is wrong and deeply hypocritical.

You are quite right. However, what is necessary to achieve an objective like this is a matter of debate and evidence. And what is you objective ? To reduce crime by 20%, 50% 100%? Some are confortable with 50%, some like me would like 95%.

Even assuming we get it "right" and execute the right person, we've ended a life for basically no other reason than a lust for vengence and to save a buck. Not the kind of place I want to live in.


I don't believe it is just about vengence or to save a buck and I do not believe there is such a thing as absolutes. You can oppose or support corporal/capital punishment but in certain circumstances they both may be applicable or may not be applicable. For instance, in Singapore there have been several cases that the death penality has been taken off the table for certain reasons(which can probably be looked at on the web somewhere).

In certain cases, the death penalty could actually be the best option. It brings closure and comfort to the victims of the most horrendous crimes-this is separate from vengeance. It may be easier getting the death penalty than being sent to a maximum security prison where child molesters are repeatedly raped and tortured by other prisoners. The death penalty may also be an easy way out for these people as it's easy and it get's it over with. In one recent case in Singapore a murderer pleaded that he be given the death penalty because of the guilt and threats against his family. Even though small, there is a place for such a “cruel and unusual punishment”.

[pinkroger]

Yes, it would work, but there are better methods. Such as public torture (more severe than flogging) to the point of death. Perhaps even terrorists would think twice if they knew they would be given the most painful death yet conceived by humanity. And then broadcasting it on international television would make it even more fun.

[ElstonGunn]

Perhaps even terrorists would think twice if they knew they would be given the most painful death yet conceived by humanity. And then broadcasting it on international television would make it even more fun.

Wouldn't that just make their cause all the more noble and martyr-riffic, which in turn would lead to more people joining the cause?

[Henry]

It really depends on how you interpret this. Perhaps to put it simply: does corporal punishment work? An idea is an idea and no matter how controversial is it and should always be open to debate. Perhaps you should leave the emotion out of it.

Emotion? Try "values" or "ethics" or "human dignity". I'm not crying, I'm just...perplexed that educated people would seriously consider this.

If it involves torture, it doesn't really deserve a lot of consideration.


And you think that jail is not dehumanizing? Jailing someone takes away one's physical freedom, sexual freedom and almost intellectual freedom. You call this human? All major punishment is dehumanizing so what are we talking about?

Bull. Being locked in a building and given therapy until you are no longer a threat to society is not nearly as dehumanizing as putting someone in the middle of an arena and having 50k people cheer as you're beaten.

And yes, putting violent offenders in prison is humane. Society has providence to prevent violence, containment and treatment fulfills the needs of society without violating the individual's basic human rights.


Secondly, is the sole aim to “encourage one to be ethical etc..” or are we trying also trying to deter others from commiting the same offence? After all punishment is just as much about deterrence if not more than to rehabilitate(which is quite a dubious concept given that character- “good” and “bad” is determined by both culture/environment and genetics).

Where did I state that the "sole aim" is to reform the criminal? Priority one is preventing harm to others. Priority two is doing so in a manner that does not violate the individual's rights.

Deterrence is bull. Our prisons are filled with users of recreational drugs ---> extremely stiff punishments for 2-3 hours of escape. And yet, a huge number of people still use recreational drugs.

And the US is the only western country to still routinely use the death penalty, yet we have - by far - the highest per capita violence rates in the developed world. I know its a complex issue, but clearly deterrence is not a significant factor in committing crime.


You know what probably is the single most influential variable in high rates of US violence? This notion floating around our society that other people are just objects that are to be used to fulfill economic, sexual, and political ends.

Individual rights refer to the rights of the individual granted by government. Therefore they are dependant on the society that one lives in. This is quite distinct from “human rights” which theory claims is a “basic right and freedoms to which all humans are entitled”. Human rights developed in the western world by philosophers such as Hegel and John Stuart Mill - hence a western concept.

Uh you don't now what you are talking about. Read the bleeping US constitution - a very basic document, before you comment on Western political philosophy. An individual has certain rights that are "endowed by their creator" - ie that exist naturally and that governments do not have the right to take away.

I'm well aware that this is a distinctly western notion, but the prevalence of this notion in politics in the US, Europe and, to a lesser extent, Japan, is why people risk their lives every day to live in our countries.

The last time I looked I didn't note that confucious mentioned anything about human rights, hence my comments about the chinese community in singapore. But apparently “this shit has to be left in SE asia” although a hypothetical discussion.

What's your point? A lot of Asian political philosophy doesn't stress individual rights - it stresses the "rights" of "society". And most countries in Asia are run by petty-facist governments who can only develop economically by copying European and US economic structures and methods.

If you like Asian philosophy, I recommend you live there. The notion that individuals have inalienable rights is not going anywhere.

Again, “a cruel and unusual punishment”...a very broad definition and a portion from something out of the some UN declaration of which is only symbolic in what and whom it encompasses(the UN can't even keep the US out of iraq). As I've pointed out before, jail is also a cruel punishment but is considered acceptable by those with the higher moral ground. I believe that people are arguing for corporal/capital punishment for pragmatic reasons rather more so than moral. Society has standards and it should demand that it keeps them. IF this means employing certain means of displine that just let it be. The citizens who behave themselves need not worry.

Cruel punishment - any punishment above and beyond what is necessary to fulfill society's basic right to prevent an individual from harming other individuals or society at large. If the punishment has anything to do with a desire for revenge or to fill the masses' need to see violence, its also cruel.

"just let it be" - Um no thks. The US is a nice place to live, and don't intend to change that. KK BAI BAI


You attempted- and failed - to establish that being locked in a building and treated is "cruel and unusual". So stop repeating a failed thesis.



Ethics and morality is more than often dependant upon one's point of view. It is relative rather than being absolute. We may be able to know what morality is in a certain culture or what one's own moral commitments are but there is no definite valid answer. Many times it depends on what side of the political, religious or cultural fence you are on.


[retarded reasoning]So I am a Silesian German born in 1917. I am raised to believe that everyone other the northern Europeans are less than human. My religion, government, and culture tell me to believe this. I participate in the 2nd world war. When we invade Russia, I make a habit of raping all of their women because its fun, my society tells me its OK, and my society tells me I need to extinguish their race. When they tell me to make the Jews dig the ditch and then execute them all in masse, I do it with glee.

Therefore, you cannot judge the German because, after all, everything is relative.[/retarded reasoning[]


People have certain inalienable rights. One of those rights is to be free from torture.


One way to look at morality is this way with three varying levels. There are things that are EVERYONE will consider unethical and amoral. Ie those who torture and rape children. Most indivuals will think this an abhorrent act and have a very strong emotional reaction to this. Then there are situations which people can tolerate but view it as wrong, ie prostitution(which I have nothing against), smoking pot etc. Then there are real moral issues which have no real solution such as distribution of health care funding and where it bests goes. Corporal punishment can fall into the latter 2 situations given that many countries including the US still employ it ie Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, China and many countries in the Middle East. The last time that I checked, 45% of Australian agreed with Singapore hanging one of it's citizens for drug trafficking in dec 2006 just prior to the incident in a newspaper poll. According to this view of ethics and morality, this is not most people.

What do opinions and statistics have to do with inalienable rights? People have a right to be free from torture - period.

Your supporting argument - that Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, and many countries in the Middle East practice this, therefore its an OK practice - works in my favor. Every country you specifically mention is an absolute shithole to live in with a terrible record on human rights, and most of the countries in the middle east are too.

Isn't there also still considerable (and largely condoned or ignored) child sex slavery in SE Asia?



This is quite true but not the only aim of law and order. The original argument was for deterrence. There is an old saying “kill one, warn one-thousand”. Think about a minor crime which can have major consequences such as drug running. A typical drug runner know's right from wrong unlike a someone who commits a crime of passion. If one know's right from wrong, considerations will be given to the consequences of a crime if one is caught in the act. Prior to the 70s Singapore was a well known drug haven and a point of trade for illicit materials. Lee Kuan Yew brought in a mandatory death penalty for offences which depended on the amount of drugs one was carrying. All of a sudden, most of it stopped. Wonder how you explain it? Rise in wealth? Hmm, dubious......

So all we have to do in the US to win the drug war is to execute anyone arrested for drug offenses. Got it. Just go facist and all your problems go away.



I don't believe it is just about vengence or to save a buck and I do not believe there is such a thing as absolutes.

There are basic and inalienable human rights - I hold this absolutely and without reservation. Like the right of a child to not be forced into sex slavery. Or the right to be free from torture.


In certain cases, the death penalty could actually be the best option. It brings closure and comfort to the victims of the most horrendous crimes-this is separate from vengeance. It may be easier getting the death penalty than being sent to a maximum security prison where child molesters are repeatedly raped and tortured by other prisoners. The death penalty may also be an easy way out for these people as it's easy and it get's it over with. In one recent case in Singapore a murderer pleaded that he be given the death penalty because of the guilt and threats against his family. Even though small, there is a place for such a “cruel and unusual punishment”.

Well I also support an individual's right to end their own life, but this is radically different from executing someone against their will.

[Undead Bonzi]

There are basic and inalienable human rights - I hold this absolutely and without reservation. Like the right of a child to not be forced into sex slavery. Or the right to be free from torture.

A false and unsafe way of thinking. There are no 'rights' you are entitled to as a human, only responsibilities. If you want human beings to behave with respect towards others lives and happiness and act for the betterment of our civilization you must work and strive for those things, not take them for granted as 'rights'. That is a basic flaw with our American premise of 'inalienable rights'. We take them for granted and forget that the callus can take them away at a whim. Sorry for splitting hairs on that one, just throwing out my own closely held belief.

For an interesting read on this subject I would recommend Robert Heinemann’s book 'Starship Troopers' (THE BOOK, NOT THE TRAVESTY THAT THEY MADE INTO A MOVIE). The book itself is a very intelligent and controversial commentary on human nature and civilization. Heinemann also talks about corporal punishments like spankings for children and public flogging for criminals; and in the case of youth criminals, for their parents as well. However the root of Heinemann’s argument isn't about corporal punishment, it is about taking responsibility. I can't really paraphrase it, I would just suggest you read the book if you feel strongly on this subject.

[Brutananadilewski]

Wouldn't that just make their cause all the more noble and martyr-riffic, which in turn would lead to more people joining the cause?

This raises a really interesting point; we can theorize as to the outcomes of corporal punishment, but people are not predictable. People have the capacity to react in completely unforseen and opposite ways to what we'd expect.

You can go back and forth all day in terms of how you'd rationalize society's reaction to the implementation of such measures, but the only way to predict with any reliable accuracy would be to figure out an ethical means of gathering valid evidence on the subject.

[kriss]

Emotion? Try "values" or "ethics" or "human dignity". I'm not crying, I'm just...perplexed that educated people would seriously consider this.

Why not consider this? All this is a discussion on internet forum. This is the type of topic that should be debated. Why? Because it's controversial and people generally get their emotions and value judgments all worked up. On a personal level, my friends and I discuss these topics all the time and many are highly educated people such as doctors, dentists, surgeons, accountants, businessmen and lawyers.

If it involves torture, it doesn't really deserve a lot of consideration.

Once again, an idea is an idea. The fact that has been employed in certain parts of the world and has also worked should lead it to be an idea that is considered. Eg my previous examples such as Singapore. In 1994, an American teenager by the name of Micheal Faye was caught graffitiing a sign post and subsequently canned 4 times by a Martial Arts expert. When one enters Singapore, one will notice the clean and efficient system that it is. There is minimal crime such as murder and common theft. When I was working there some years ago, I was never afraid of my wife walking home at 2am in the morning by herself. Of course there are more complex issues to consider such as culture, environment etc but nonetheless, these are valid points that should be taken into consideration and debated.

But overall, come on, if you know there is a severe punishment for something and you do it and get caught, then you can't really blame someone else..... common sense.

I also disagree with you calling this place a “shit hole to live”. Not only is this offensive and degrading to the people of this country, it reflects a very emotional, ignorant and poor perspective you have on living in SE asia. Many people do not want to leave their home country and if they do it is more of for pragmatic reasons rather than an ideological one. Many of the reasons people want to leave is due to the period of development that there country is in. Not all civilizations have blossomed at the same time and certain civilizations were once leading economies of the world at one point in time without the westernized democratic system that the US and other parts of the west holds in regards so highly.

Being locked in a building and given therapy until you are no longer a threat to society is not nearly as dehumanizing as putting someone in the middle of an arena and having 50k people cheer as you're beaten

Firstly, I wasn't refering to putting someone in an arena and watching everyone beat them. I have already explained that I took this as a humourous way of asking “does corporal punishment work?”

Secondly, prisoners in jail are not given therapy. They are simply locked away in a small rooms and left to rot. If you think that this is a method of rehabilitaing someone than I think you should have a check on reality. People are given therapy for crimes committed when they are mentally incapacitated or whom have a psychiatric disorder. It's called a psychiatric facility which is vastly different from jail.

I agree with you that psychiatric therapy is warranted in certain situations and is less dehumanizing that canning someone.

And yes, putting violent offenders in prison is humane. Society has providence to prevent violence, containment and treatment fulfills the needs of society without violating the individual's basic human rights.

Once again, a matter of personal perspective. Individuals human rights as I have pointed out is a matter of viewpoint and where you live as well. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. But as humans, all we represent is another form of animal with a slightly larger brain size. If you want to apply human rights to everyone, then you might as well say, let's all be vegetarian and give animal rights to all the animals we kill and eat as well. It's all arbitary. If you are in the US, you will be brought up with this concept, in asia.. well... doubtful if you have any idea of the general asian mindset.

.......is doing so in a manner that does not violate the individual's rights


Human rights. This is what we are really arguing over isn't.

I have come to the conclusion as an individual that human rights are arbitary and dependant on the society you live in and not universal in nature. If you want to go by the US constitution, you are free to do so.........only in the US. This is a presrciptive ideology not necessarily bought by everyone in the world. I've already explained my point of view on human rights only being given as part of a social contract.

Deterrence is bull. Our prisons are filled with users of recreational drugs ---> extremely stiff punishments for 2-3 hours of escape. And yet, a huge number of people still use recreational drugs..........The US is the only western country to still routinely use the death penalty, yet we have - by far - the highest per capita violence rates in the developed world. I know its a complex issue, but clearly deterrence is not a significant factor in committing crime.

Quite true. However, I did mention before that such acts of violence for the prevention of crime has work in certain countries and may not be applicable to all. Like politics, it is not a one size fit's all solution. There will always be a small number in society who will not be able to resist the temptation to smuggle drugs, kill, maim and rape. The fate if these individuals is left in their own hands. They have made the decision and their own bed, they should also face the consequences and sleep in their own bed if you believe in individual rights as individual rights also comes individual responsibility.

On the other hand, I refer you to a previously mentioned book call “Freakonomics” which has some very valid points.

“First, given the rarity with which executions are carried out in this country and the long delays in doing so, no reasonable criminal should be deterred by the threat of execution. Even though capital punishment quadrupled within a decade, there were still only 478 executions in the entire United States during the 1990s. Any parent who has ever said to a recalcitrant child, “Okay, I’m going to count to ten and this time I’m really going to punish you,” knows the difference between deterrent and empty threat. New York State, for instance, has not as of this writing executed a single criminal since reinstituting its death penalty in 1995. Even among prisoners on death row, the annual execution rate is only 2 percent—compared with the 7 percent annual chance of dying faced by a member of the Black Gangster Disciple Nation crack gang”

If you were to compare this to the Singapore system, all executions are carried out within 4 weeks of the given sentence. A convicted criminal is given 4 weeks to appeal etc etc and the execution is efficient and bloodless.

An individual has certain rights that are "endowed by their creator" - ie that exist naturally and that governments do not have the right to take away.

Once again, only in the “US constitution” which isn't really valid in any other country(except the ones that the US invades and attempt to set up their own US style deomcracy which generally fails very badly).

Secondly, I'm not a christian, creationalist nor religious. Where does that leave me? Does that make you morally superior to me being a US citizen? I do not believe that we were created by any god nor given any specific rights. I'm more of an existentialist. Does this apply to me here on the other side of the world?

I'm well aware that this is a distinctly western notion, but the prevalence of this notion in politics in the US, Europe and, to a lesser extent, Japan, is why people risk their lives every day to live in our countries.

As previously mentioned. People from asia come to west to escape poverty which has often been caused directly and indirectly by western influence. It is more of a pragmatic reason rather than a ideological one. They come for financial opportunity rather than human rights. Although the US is a big advocate of human rights, it is not necessarily the best system as it still has it's more than fair share of problems. As you have already mentioned, it has a shockingly high crime rate....Has the record on human rights in the US had any impact on this or living standards? I think that first world living conditions reflect more on capitalism and written/formal legal system rather than human rights per se. Take china with it's form of authoritarian leadership. Although, some may spurn it's human rights record, it has taken 300 000 people from poverty into the middle classes giving them a better life and living standards over the past 30 years without any so called great human rights records.... Yes china still has it's problems, there are still 300 000 peasants but the US is not perfect either. You must take into consideration that asian countries are trying to achieve in a 30-50 year time period what the US and other western countries have achieved over several hundred years. There will definitely be compromises such as so called western individual rights. The asian belief in general is the greatest good fort the greatest number of people mentality. I prefer the philisophy: Does it work? Is it efficient?

What's your point? A lot of Asian political philosophy doesn't stress individual rights - it stresses the "rights" of "society". And most countries in Asia are run by petty-facist governments who can only develop economically by copying European and US economic structures and methods.

True and false. And what is wrong with this if it achieves its goals for the greatest numbers of people. So you execute a few little drug dealers, murderers and associated societal scum whom society doesn't really need. This is minor compared to achieving something that the entire society can benefit from. We are not talking of a hitler style genocide of races to achieve what they have or what they will. If this was the case, I think that most of these contries will be facing quite a revolution. You have also failed to see that as I have previously mentioned that many asian countries were the worlds largest economies 400-500 years ago. Empires rise and fall over time. We are only seeing a tiny spectrum of economic development in our time. Copying economic structure? My friend, when was the last time you lived in asia?

If you like Asian philosophy, I recommend you live there.

I have many times before and I liked it. This has nothing to do with the argument though. Your tone is denegrating and should be left out of debate.

If the punishment has anything to do with a desire for revenge or to fill the masses' need to see violence, its also cruel.

I agree. But I was arguing the case for different reasons.

I am a Silesian German born in 1917............When they tell me to make the Jews dig the ditch and then execute them all in masse, I do it with glee.

I have already explained a viewpoint of morality with the three different levels...........please read previous post.

People have certain inalienable rights.

This is based on a belief system that you have.

I do not agree. Who gives you those universal human rights? A belief is generally an idea that ones only “knows” is true without necessarily having any proof. For instance, if I was to say that I believed in God, you could potentially say to me “Prove to me that he exists”.

I could argue that people are given certain individual rights based on a contract which requires one to exhibit social resposiblity. Once that responsibilty diminishes, those rights are nullified. Is this wrong? Maybe to you but not to me.

It all depends on where you live and what you believe. If you are trying to push this notion on me, I will reject it. As said before, you just have to agree to disagree.

Isn't there also still considerable (and largely condoned or ignored) child sex slavery in SE Asia?

Yeah, sure there is. But as you have said, crime is a multifactorial problem. I have only given one example where corporal and capital punishment is handed out swiftly in a black and white judicial system and have not explored other systems. If you are talking about sex slavery, there are issues such as corruption, the legal system, public service efficiecies(or lack there of) etc.... I do not believe that it is condoned or ignored but rather, the system has not developed the appropriate ways of dealing with the issues as many of these countries are still primitive in the political and judicial systems, not from the point of view of punishment and discipline, but rather the running of the system itself. Punishments may be there, but a large amount of corruption does exist in certain countries.

Having said that, it is widely said that the child sex industry in places such as thailand are driven by europeans. Perhaps, these countries should look at more ways of incarcerating and punishing these individuals as well?

So all we have to do in the US to win the drug war is to execute anyone arrested for drug offenses. Got it. Just go facist and all your problems go away.

Perhaps, within guidelines. For instance, the Singaporean system is very clear. Anyone with over 15g of herion is hanged. Others go to rehab. It's the dealers they go after....It seems to have an almost “sqeaky clean” drug scene. :)

[Monte314]

Ultimately, no mature human is fundamentally changed by external pressure. Once the pressure is gone, so is the "new" behavior.

What is needed is not an old man in a new suit... you need a new man.

[novastar]

no