Actual extreme torture could be a good deterant to crime.
>but muh ethics
Don't care.
If someone knew that they were going to get skinned alive if they were found guilty of murder, something tells me they would maybe kinda think twice about it.
Actual extreme torture could be a good deterant to crime. >but muh ethics. Don't care.
It's not though, it's just for the sadism of the torturer. Just look at the Catholic inquisitions against Christians.
>Catholic inquisitions against Christians.
Scathingly red pilled
>Catholic inquisitions against Christians
Your phrase doesn't make sense, since only catholics are christians.
People who commit murder even in our society constantly think twice about it because they know they would be put in a cell for the rest of their life for doing it. No actual torture necessary.
Are you sure you want to risk judicial errors with that?
Life in prison IS torture.
That's like cutting off your arm because of a paper cut. Even if it DID make sense, it's disgustingly excessive.
It already exists in American and South African prisons. White men that commit crimes end up getting repeatedly raped by black men. Sometimes they get HIV infected black inmates to rape the white man in what's called a "slow puncture" It's part of the reason why whites are much less likely to commit crimes in the USA.
It's pretty hot to be honest.
>South African prisons. White men that commit crimes end up getting repeatedly raped by black men.
Source?
Why are Black folk so gay?
The enlightened position is to address the causes of crime in society and to rehabilitate those who violate the law.
lol the guard quoted the US constitution. He knows American Enlightenment virtues better than many of us.
The Norwegian constitution is only 30 years younger than the American one and it's based mostly on the same ideas with some notable exceptions.
>Actual extreme torture could be a good deterant to crime.
You know nothing. These kinds of punishments were usually acts of religious penance for the one to be punished and good entertainment for the public.
Public executions went out of style BECAUSE they had 0 deterant effect, to the contrary, people would commit crimes to get in front of a crowd.
The thing is, you're giving people way too much credit. Nothing really works as a deterrent, people who fear deterrents would most likely behave themselves anyway, or would be just as deterred by almost any punishment, even the most minor.
The kind of people maybe the majority of people) are not smart enough to be deterred by anything, or else even if they know about and fear some dreadful punishment, they still subscribe to "magical thinking" about how they won't get caught, etc.
most criminals, career criminals, if you study criminology at all, you see that there are just certain TYPES of people, and these are very common in the general population, who are naturally very predisposed to being lifelong criminals and not worth a shit for really anything else because they're SO impulsive and also complete masters of the art of self-delusion, and they are completely unreasonable, they can't stop their behavior, they can't control it. The only thing they can do is take big risks and big chances and usually with the bare minimum of preparations at best, at worst, they sabotage themselves every step of the way.
>people who fear deterrents would most likely behave themselves anyway
This is why being severe with all crimes doesn't eliminate crime, it just makes your citizens resent you for your barbarism.
Basically this . I work in the criminal justice system, and most criminals are absolute idiots, or people with no impulse control, or both. The "criminal mastermind" is an appealing trope, but it's not very common in real life.
which is why the best way to prevent crime in any society is to correct the causes of crime in that society, and to rehabilitate the people who do commit crimes so that their circumstances wont lead to crime again.
The literature is muddled on severity of punishment affecting crime rates. What we can say for certain is that there is no provable, direct correlation between heightening punishments and crime decreasing, although you can also say of course that you can't prove it doesn't work.
What has been proven is that perceived imminence of capture is effective in reducing crime rates. In other words, since Humans are poor long term decision makers, even if someone knows they're getting broken on the wheel if they're caught stealing bread, they will still attempt to steal bread in many situations, even though the punishment is horrific. However, if the punishment is a $5 fine for stealing bread, but there are 3 security cameras pointing directly at the bread and a guy behind a door watching them with 2 more guys at the exit ready to make you pay $5, people are much less likely to steal the bread.
We used the death penalty for thousands of years and that didn't stop people from murdering. Even those who believe in Hell continue to sin.
>gets falsely accused of something
>skinned alive
Oh no
You out yourself as a soulless fricktard when you say this FYI.
The problem with that is that everyone who commits murder always thinks they'll be the one who outsmarts law enforcement and gets away with it. Obviously there are exceptions, like when someone immediately turns themselves in, but they only do that to avoid the death penalty.
Hanging drawing and quartering did not deter Cromwell, being torn apart by horses (like damiens was) did not deter Robespierre.
Robespierre did nothing wrong
This is a major problem. Your ideas sound well and good, and I would love to see racist mass shooters get tortured like the buffalo kid or dylan roof. But unfortunately, our justice system unfairly tries and convicts black folx the majority of the time, and this could be used to torture black folx which I am one hundred percent not okay with
Most subtle IQfy bait
Therefore, the countries with the most brutal legal systems in the world have the least crime. Is that the case, OP?
Who's going to skin them alive; you?
Impulsive people would still be impulsive and crimes of passion would remain. Better to have the outlaw system, it costs nothing and justice is outsourced to the mob.
>random morons chasing down other morons
Yeah this surely won't end badly
Yes based as frick
Many criminals don't see a life sentence as painful, they are accustomed to jail and that type of environment, what they aren't used to is extreme physical pain for their actions, even near braindead apes understand pain
except crime has only gone down despite punishments becoming far more lenient
And crime is rising back to previous levels so obviously the leniency has gone too far
It's only rising much in the US, and it's still WAY below historic levels. It's mostly gun crimes that are rising too, not every category of crime.
But you do agree that every category of crime has the potential to rise to historic levels given liberal insanity continues on its path
I'm not the anon who responded to OP. There's basically no chance you'll see violent crime rise to, say, 18th century levels, or even the late 20th century uptick. Courts and law enforcement are generally way more functional, the population is older, and there are fewer unwanted kids. Justice also isn't changing that much, not in the realm of policy at least. Some municipalities are trying to use their resources to focus on prosecuting major crimes rather than overwhelm the system with vagrants and drug addicts, but the sentences for things like rape or murder are still as long as ever.
If you steal 4 times fingers start getting broken or taken off
In addition to time served
If you assault people with blunt objects and knives you get your arms and legs broken, stabbed, hit in the back if the head with pipes and kept alive for time served, of course assuming it can be proved you attacked without provocation, and you have 3 prior assaults
We can go on for various crimes, rape, assuming it can be proved that it was forcible rape without teasing from the woman and unprovoked after the 3rd time your balls get hit with bats, cut off, or chemically castrated in addition to time served
The problem is people faced with being brutally tortured to death go absolutely nuts to avoid being captured.
Better for the tax system that they go out in a blaze of glory then
Because
>Be me
>Criminal
>Kidnapped 3 kids for ransom
>House surrounded by cops
>Know that if I surrender I'll be given 15 years in prison but at least I'll live and can look forward to getting out someday
>Surrender peacefully
Is better than
>Be me
>Criminal
>Kidnapped 3 kids for ransom
>House surrounded by cops
>Know that if I surrender I'll have my eyes put out, my tongue cut off, and then burned alive
>Kill the children and then charge the cops in a desperate attempt to escape
this. people like OP aren't interested in better outcomes for society, they just want the pleasure of torturing people.
moron who doesn't understand the situation or even the fake situation that didn't make any sense
What are you talking about, "torture" only goes into effect for repeated offenses, it's only for the criminals who have failed to rehabilitate after committing previous crimes, or in the case that you murder someone
Otherwise for first or second time offenders there is some reasonable doubt
Also for kidnapping the state would kidnap your kids in return, it should be a similar punishment
Also if you kill those kids the state has to kill your kids
It's a eugenic effect
>Frick, I'm surrounded by police, I have 15 years of prison in my future for kidnapping
>Eh, might as well kill the kids because what can they do - a few more years?
vs
>Frick, I'm surrounded by police, I have 15 years of prison in my future for kidnapping
>Know that if I kill the kids I'll be flayed
>Even my single core Intel(R) Pentium brain knows that's going to hurt
People who commit crime don't think they are going to get caught. Thats why big punishments dont actually deter anything.
If you don't understand the importance of the 8th amendment then I question if you're intelligent enough to have an opinion worth considering.
>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
It isn't a cruel or unusual punishment to assault someone who assaults people
Or to shoot a gangbusters in the stomach and let him bleed out in response to him doing that to someone and being convicted for murder
It seems to be the most fair way to punish someone because they believed they had free reign to do that to others
yep, you're moronic.
here, read up on what it means:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cruel_and_unusual_punishment
tldr:
>being a sadistic butthole isnt cool no matter how bad you think you deserve revenge or that they deserve to suffer
Yea Cornells israeli opinion for the goyim doesn't matter
If you hit me over the head with a pipe unprovoked, then you go to jail for assault, assuming it's your 3rd assault and it is determine rehabilitation will be ineffective the stakes are raised
You will be pummeled with pipes until you're concussed multiple times in addition to time served
wtf? are you seriously pretending as if your imaginary legal system is real or something?
Obviously if you batter people with pipes and it is clear that jail hasn't rehabilitated you after the 3rd time, then the punishment is raised and you will receive it in order for you to attempt to learn from your mistake
There is nothing cruel or unusual about it
>There is nothing cruel or unusual about it
lucky for everyone us your moronic and incorrect opinion on the definition of "cruel or unusual" is irrelevant.
Nothing incorrect about it
The law can always be improved
lol, we should make the punishment for moronic posts like yours be having your fingers chopped off. definitely would be an improvement.
Too bad it isn't a crime you fricktard
And it's a matter of opinion unlike murder, theft and assault
>it isn't a crime
not yet, and "the law can always be improved"
Yes the punishments for crimes like, theft, assault and murder can be improved
When it is determined jail is ineffective at dettering repeat offenders then the punishment is raised
This goes beyond the law of tribal peoples and even some illiberal countries like Singapore.
So what, I don't give a frick
Tribal and historic people would just kill you, I'm being fair
Depends on the specifics, but you'd be surprised. Ancient Germanic peoples demanded monetary compensation in the event of murder IIRC. Eskimos sent troublemakers into exile. Violence in stateless societies can initiate a blood feud, but that's not the only or guaranteed result.
If you couldn't pay the fine, then its gonna be blood feud.
Making a criminal experience the pain he inflicts on others seems pretty tame, I'm not advocating for anything excessive, and only for repeat offenders who clearly have no intentions or ability to learn from their mistakes
Many criminals don't see prison as a negative, they learn from experienced criminals, they get free room and board, in some cases its better than their life on the outside
It's literally an eye for an eye - the definition of primitive or barbaric justice. The vast majority of people in prison don't want to be there, and if it's better than life outside that's sometimes because they've become totally unable to live normally. That's why many systems have furlough/work release and keep an eye on recently released people to ensure they don't end up homeless or addicted. Some people don't learn from prison or other penalties, but they're not likely to learn through anything, including more gruesome punishments. That's why maximum security units exist.
Or you'd be forced to sell whatever you had, maybe including yourself for a while.
Only when it has been proven that the traditional system won't work on you
Before that the system is identical to the current one
OK another example
Let's say you like to get in fistfight and suckered punch people all the time, let's say it's your 5th offense, and it's been determined that you start these altercations unprovoked
In addition to you sentence the judge can throw in some spice, like depending on your weight class or weight disparity to the victims a heavyweight boxer can come in and knock you out like 10 times to reflect your crimes or something
Not only is it funny it's fair
I think that falls into the cruel and unusual camp again there, champ
I say, kill them all, innocent or otherwise.
Let god sort them out
I agree, anon. Torture obviously works and deters. Otherwise, the cartels wouldn't rely on it so much if it didn't. It just hurts people's fee fees so they won't admit the truth of it.
It "works" as a form of terror, just like a terrorist's bombing campaign might "work."
Fear of pain works
If prison is better than a criminal's life then there is no incentive to follow laws
Even without torture, prison is not something that criminals look forward to, except for the ones that have already been broken by the system or are too busy shivering and puking to care where they are.
Well for criminals that continue to commit crimes after multiple supposed rehabilitations then obviously it wasn't effective, some people are only able to learn by touching the fire
Some of them are just too sociopathic to care what the law thinks. Others belong in a high security psych ward rather than an ordinary prison.
They might not care what people think but they can fear piain, or being crippled for life
Why bother when you can just keep them in a cell? They're not going to behave normal either way.
I just think pain and being crippled is a better deterent for psychopaths than sitting in a cell again
Keep them in a cell as in indefinitely. Less barbaric than torture or mutilation, but still keeps the offender from doing any more damage.
Who gives a shit how "barbaric" it is, the point is that they don't want to experience the pain that they doled out, so that is a greater deterrent than going to prison again
If you don't care about barbarism why have a state or justice system in the first place? The state's role is to reduce and prevent violence and cruelty, not to partake in it.
The state giving a sadistic criminal a taste of his own medicine is an effective deterrent, it's a harsher punishment, maybe you're just too pussy to enact real justice
This isn't an argument.
Yes it is, just saying it isn't an argument isn't an argument
You're trying to baffle me with feigned stupidity
Not an argument.
I won you lost
Dilate
Nice playbook, repeat shit other people thought up it doesn't require originality or brains
I won, you lost
That's rich coming from the guy repeating what boomers and edgy teenagers post on Facebook.
hey leave executioners alone they good boys
Sadism and cruelty is a non white trait
Define “white”.
Nothing cruel about revenge
>Actual extreme torture could be a good deterant to crime.
It isnt.
This was obivious to the people of the enlightenmen. People actually showed up in droves to watch people be tortured and executed for hours. Paid money to get a better view from peoples balconies and there was song and dance and whole fricking show.
The "people of the enlightenment" were hipster homosexuals and sound a lot like modern liberals
Lmfao this board I swear
Not an argument
The point of law & order is to reduce the incidence of violence against members of the in-group. Judicial torture legitimizes the use of violence against members of the in-group.
It ironically supports the very thing it's supposed to discourage.
So instead of a real punishment you prefer to feed and cloth your abusers for eternity, it's a cuck mentality
I agree, especially when it's public and mandatory to watch
But it didn't really stop people back then?
Out of morbid curiosity, what is YOUR definition of cruel and unusual?
Honestly I'm wondering how castration a 5 times convicted rapist is cruel or unusual
Or how beating a 5 times assaulted with a deadly weapon with a tire iron and breaking his arms is cruel or unusual
It's a teaching moment
Just because it is a mirror of the crime doesn't make it not cruel or unusual.
Might encourage them to prefer being killed in the chase rather than get captured.
Crime is genetic. It would be more ethical and effective to prevent habitual criminals from reproducing than empowering the state to torture people.
It's not genetic in most cases. There's no gene for kindness or law abidingness. There are just conditions that can predispose someone to violent behavior, and these can have a hereditary component.
>There's no gene for kindness or law abidingness
Absolute nonsense.
Then where is this gene?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3871336
you can start here
Interesting evolutionary biology paper, but it's about mankind as a species and not the reasons why crime and violence still exist.
To expand on this:
"Kindness" is vague, but there are genes that have been identified as being connected to altruism or empathy, not to mention genes that predispose people to uncontrolled anger, sociopathy, alcoholism and drug addiction, risk-taking and short-term thinking and more. Most personality disorders seem to have a chemical and genetic basis. Even if you think the identification is dubious, the great thing about sterilization is that you don't need to know what specific genes caused this or that, you're selecting against them either way.
It's pretty obvious when you look at other animals too, do you think it's a coincidence that ants are social and self-sacrificing to an incomprehensible degree while spiders are solitary and cannibalistic? Male lions will kill a rival's babies while the females might even adopt another species' babies as their own, is that just random personality differences? Of course not. Empathy and altruism and sociability are evolved traits, just like callousness, aggressiveness and greed.
Gosh OP that's a brilliant idea, can't believe no one ever thought of that before. I say we try it out for a few millennia and see how it works.