Cruel And Unusual Punishment

[singo]

I cannot understand objections to "Cruel and Unusual punishment", if a punishment is not cruel then it serves no purpose. How can a punshment serve as a deterrent if people do not fear it?

And as for unusual, if punishment is not unusual, people get used to it, see it as part of their life, and accept it. No deterrent, also, if it is "Usual", the punishment is not severe enough.


begin insulting me now for being "unconstitutional"

[TranquilNightElf]

I guess society is built around keeping people in their comfort zones..punishment doesn't have to be extreme to be effective..with cruel and unusual punishment people wouldn't know what would happen to them but would know it would be something horrible....they would be living in constant fear..
That could work but the question would then be is to what situation do you award C&u punishment...if you decide that nobody must be spared no matter how minor the offence then you would have the entire populace living in constant fear. It's just not the way to co-exist from the humanitarian point of view as well as the political point of view as it would eventually lead to rebellion.
Look at the Nazis and the C&U punishment they dished out and see where it got them.

[EdvardMunch]

According to research done in operant conditioning, a moderate punishment is often as effective as a harsh one. Here's a quote from my psychology text book: "Punishment can also deter some young criminals from repeating their offenses. A study of the criminal records of all Danish men born between 1944 and 1947 (nearly 29,000 men) examined repeat arrests (recidivism) through age 26 (Brennan & Mednick, 1994) After any given arrest, punishment reduced rates of subsequent arrests for both minor and serious crimes, though recidivism still remained fairly high. Contrary to the researchs' expectations, however, the severity of punishment made no difference: Fines and probation were about as effective as jail time. What mattered most was consistency of the punishment." - page 252, "Psychology" Carole Wade & Carol Tavris

Furthermore, not all criminals are hardasses who need a sledgehammer to be convinced to play nice. A lot of people who break the law are relatively normal people who committed minor crimes. A few days/weeks in jail will most certainly fix them up and turn them into good people, so why be cruel?

As for your unusual punishment argument, I agree there. I get the impression "unusual punishments" were punishments which were embarassing, and embarassment is cruel, I guess. However, if it weren't embarassing but just plain unusual then, as long as it isn't cruel, I don't see a problem with it. Unusual punishments seem to happen relatively frequently anyway. Judges seem to use them as an ultimatem. "Either you do lots of hard time in Lovers Lane at the Bubba State Prison, or you stand in front of the store you stole from with a sign begging for forgiveness and chicken wings."

[singo]

the punishment should also reflect the crime...minor crimes a few weeks in jail maybe.

robbery=flogging
manslaughter = flogging
(no of lashes depending on circumstances

murder, rape, REPEAT offences of other crimes, e.t.c = death

but the laws should be fair, if people obey the law how can they live in fear?
if they break the law then they should, the fear of the law will convince them to hand themselves in, take the punishment, and hopefully not do it again.

[TranquilNightElf]

The trouble with that is ..things are not always in black and white

[singo]

Why not? crime = punishment.

how can it not be black and white?

a crime is a crime, no matter the alleged "reasons" for commiting it

[TranquilNightElf]

I won't go into the detail but It's not alwasy as simple as that...we don't have the system to convict people 100% without the shadow of a doubt that they are the guilty party. You should be ready to give out Horrible punishments only when your damn sure that the person committed the atrocity you are convicting him of...

[singo]

that goes without saying really

[TranquilNightElf]

and since it's not possible C&U punishment should be given only for cases with extenuating circumstances

[singo]

yes, agreed, when proved by DNA testing or multiple witnesses
or fingerprinting etc

[Nuts]

Hypothetical case #1

Male has consensual sexual intercourse with female. Female then has sexual intercourse with second male during the same evening. Female is found dead, yet only one man's DNA is recovered. Who is guilty? Can DNA determine guilt or innocence in this matter? No.

Hypothetical case #2 (ala Kobe)

Male has consensual sex with female. Female gets into argument with male, decides to punish him by claming rape. Male DNA is found during rape kit, male is thereby charged with rape. Is this correct? No.

DNA is a method to determine identity, it is not the X factor in guilt or innocence.

[TranquilNightElf]

Well said......there is just no way of convicting anyone 100% without any doubt

[singo]

well in that case why have any punishment at all?

following that argument if it is not 100% certain then any punishment is unjust.

i was making a case that if punishment is NOT "Cruel and unusual" it is not a deterrent to others or the individual concerned.

At the moment, the system of punishment in nearly all western countries can be simplified as follows

1) A child misbehaves, liberal parents refrain from punishing child in the belief that it will cause permanent psycological damage.
2) Child gets older, petty crime. police arrest then release telling them not to do it again. this is repeated for years, punishment never getting severe enough to stop the downward spiral of the child
3) more serious crimes committed, now teenager is shut in a "Young offenders institute" or some such place, let out after a few months.
N.B, notice that, having never been punished severely, the person is a young adult, knowing that whatever he does is not serious, even up to crimes like theft etc.
4) person commits a serious crime such as murder, is executed.

having no loyalty other than to a possible gang of peers, experience has taught the person that doing this is the way to survive, wheras swift and effective punishment such as a flogging would have given pain and deterred the individual from the life of crime he/she followed, thus saving not only the life of the victim, but also the life of the "criminal", who, had he been punished as a youth would have not in any sense actually been a criminal, having given up crim at the latest in his late teens.

the solution? encourage parents to smack their children, introduce public flogging followed by a fine/severe jail term for ANY crime more serious than petty theft. and I do mean ANY crime. (number of lashes determined by seriousness of the crime)

Death penalty to be re-introduced in ALL countries that have banned it for rape, murder, terrorism, kidnapping, multiple assault and repeat offenses of other crimes.
note, the death penalty only to be used in, yes, cases where guilt is proven beyond all REASONABLE doubt.

In response to claims that this is "Inhumane", how much worse is it to destroy dozens of lives, the criminals included, out of deference to values that do not exist?

the response to pain is a survival mechanisim developed over millions of years, why should society refuse to make use of such a perfect instinct?

[Nuts]

well in that case why have any punishment at all?

following that argument if it is not 100% certain then any punishment is unjust.

Because it's slightly easier to forgive incarceration, yet it's very difficult to lead a normal life once one has been executed.....you know, death and all.

I support the death penalty, but I do think that cases where the defendant has plead guilty should be expedited to avoid additional taxpayer costs. There should also be some form of super-jury by which cases that have overwhelming amounts of evidence can be decided in short periods of time. These would be cases involving multiple eye witness accounts and/or video surveilance, etc. Other forms of evidence should be judged accordingly and given a weight based on probability.

[Schwitzer]

Eye-witness accounts, whilst nice, are generally taken with a pinch of salt, though; peoples' memories become awefully fuzzy sometimes, especially when emotions run high...

I agree with the idea that parents should be allowed to occassionally beat their children when they misbehave, but there is a serious line between discipline and outright abuse. Still, if you belt a kid for acting up he/she won't do it again in a hurry.

Death sentence is a very serious subject that shouldn't be taken lightly. You sound like you want to cull off everyone who screws up any more than pinching some chips from the local convenience store, singo. Whilst I agree the death penalty should be enforced, I also think liberal use of it is necessary.

[TranquilNightElf]

well in that case why have any punishment at all?

following that argument if it is not 100% certain then any punishment is unjust.

No..any punishment is not unjust..we have to give out punishment according to our ability to determine the guilty.




having no loyalty other than to a possible gang of peers, experience has taught the person that doing this is the way to survive, wheras swift and effective punishment such as a flogging would have given pain and deterred the individual from the life of crime he/she followed, thus saving not only the life of the victim, but also the life of the "criminal", who, had he been punished as a youth would have not in any sense actually been a criminal, having given up crim at the latest in his late teens.



You talk about peer pressure...consider then if you have C&C punishments for
I doubt that people who are criminals would be afraid of committing the crime; sure it may stop a few first timers from going in again but it might also lead more and more daring acts of crime in defiance of the law and punishment that is handed out.
Many young people who commit crimes get a thrill out of it, and with more severe punishment it just may look to them as a game of dare.



the solution? encourage parents to smack their children, introduce public flogging followed by a fine/severe jail term for ANY crime more serious than petty theft. and I do mean ANY crime. (number of lashes determined by seriousness of the crime)



It just doesn't work that way. A child abused or pysically punished by his parents frequently wold be more likely to have emotional issues and be more likely to go donw the wrong road while growing up.

You also have to consider the fact that, this isn't a dictatorship that people fear the law to the degree that they turn tail at the mention of committing a felony.Such use of C&C punishment would more likely lead to resentment and future violations by the 'criminals'

[singo]

an abused child maybe. but, given the way society worked for hundreds of years with a lower crime rate when children were punished. notice the disproportionate increase in crime since punishing a child became "unfashionable".

and i fail to see how people can fear the law if they have committed no crime. please explain that one.

[TranquilNightElf]

Children are still punished not beaten as much....

and secondly
I mean that people who commit a crime and get punished for it don't turn tail at the thought of committing it again.

[singo]

Children are still punished not beaten as much....

and secondly
I mean that people who commit a crime and get punished for it don't turn tail at the thought of committing it again.
Exactly my point, that is why punishment needs to be more severe.

[TranquilNightElf]

The more severe the punishment the more thrill compulsuive criminals will get out of committing a crime.
This doesn't go to say that punishment should be soft, but it shouldn't be out-right inhumane

[singo]

not necassarily. why is it then, that crime has increased disproportionally since these kinds of punishment have been banned?

and if people insist on defying the law at the expense of decent citizens, well then, the hangman's rope is waiting......

[TranquilNightElf]

I really doubt that you can prove that crime used to be less in the olden days when punisment was more severe

[singo]

no, but it only seems logical that with drugs crime rising like theres no tomorrow, that when there were less drugs on the streets, less people were addicted therefore less crime was comitted to feed said addiction. (and yes i know about the opium trade, but that was not as easily available)

oh, another death penalty crime....Traffiking class A drugs. dont try and justify waking up in the morning and thinking "I know, ill go out and sell something that will consign hundreds of people to a slow lingering death"

also, murders have shot up. twenty five years ago, a murder would have made front page in most national newspapers, now it barely makes the front of the local ones unless it is a particularly depraved one (in england anyway, and there appear to be a good many more murders in the states).

cant blame that on population increases.

and ill try and find some statistics for crime centuries ago, just for the record

[TranquilNightElf]

I don't doubt that crime has risen when comparing the past times....but to say that it is because of the severity (or the lack thereof) of the punishments would be a bit of a stretch....there are several factors at play...population is one of them, desensitization of the public is another....

[singo]

having looked at the crime statistics for the entire US i can say it is not population increases.

For a population increase of 156.94 % between 1960 and 2000, in the same period

Murder increased by 170.33%
Rape by 524.64%
Robbery by 378.19%
and Assault by 590.17%

i worked these out from statistics at www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

[Nuts]

Eye-witness accounts, whilst nice, are generally taken with a pinch of salt, though; peoples' memories become awefully fuzzy sometimes, especially when emotions run high...

I agree, that's why I labeled it as "multiple eye witnesses" instead of one or two. Situations where a lunatic opens fire in a crowded mall and is subsequently arrested on the spot should be easy to prosecute, yet they are just as costly to prosecute due to the awful criminal justice system.

Oh wait, he's insane... let's lock him up until he's sane again, this way we won't hold him responsible for his actions.

[TranquilNightElf]

having looked at the crime statistics for the entire US i can say it is not population increases.

For a population increase of 156.94 % between 1960 and 2000, in the same period

Murder increased by 170.33%
Rape by 524.64%
Robbery by 378.19%
and Assault by 590.17%

i worked these out from statistics at www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm



Firstly you can't work out a direct relationship with the number of people and the amount of crime. It maybe exponential or directly related ..who knows...

Secondly..Let's say you do have horrible punishments given out..though that may discourage small time and one-time criminals...the gangs and the mafias and the triads etc are just going to try harder to topple what they see as "dictator regimes" ..not to mention terrorists who would get fuel for their cause

[singo]

the gangs and mafia etc will also be punished though.

and given most of their activities, for most of them it will be the death penalty straight away

and how would stricter punishments get fuel for thir cause of terrorists?

[TranquilNightElf]

If it were that easy to just punish the mafias etc i think all of them would be caught and put in jail by now.

Terrorists....They would be even more convinced of the brutality/evils of the world...more people may tend to join their cause..

[singo]

the problem with the mafias is bribery, if corruption could be eliminated they could all be rounded up, tried and than shot.

and the major cause of terrorism at the moment is to do with the "decadance" of those that do not bow to fundamentalist islam and with israel vs palestine.

i fail to see how more severe punishments would cause people to hate israel/convert to fundamentalist islam.

[TranquilNightElf]

if corruption could be eliminated they could all be rounded up, tried and than shot.

.

That is a BIG if.



i fail to see how more severe punishments would cause people to hate israel/convert to fundamentalist islam.

You misunderstood.
Terrorists (a majority of them ) hate the west. With the dictatorial type of punishments handed out, it would give them cause to hate them even more.

[singo]

ok admitted it is a very big if, but not much is getting done to even TRY and eliminate corruption.



And hate us even more than they do already? they are already willing to die to get rid of us what more can they do?

[Battlecruiser]

oh, another death penalty crime....Traffiking class A drugs. dont try and justify waking up in the morning and thinking "I know, ill go out and sell something that will consign hundreds of people to a slow lingering death"
Slow lingering death? Are you kidding me? Some people die on their second dose of the drug. The drug dealer doesn't care what he gives you. So he will willingly give you an overdose and he won't care that he just killed you by overdosing you.

[singo]

and that makes it right?

on the other hand it can take years to die, day after day, living only for the next fix, committing more crimes just to get another dose, before finally dying.

execute the dealers = no more problem