The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[MMI]

A question for you then MMI:

So are you saying that a rapist or someone guilty of kidnapping and torture of their victum should only have to sit in jail for a certian period of time geting three square meals a day but have no other form of retribution delivered upon them?

Hardely seems fair to the victims.

Yes, if that's the punishment handed down by the courts, that's the sentence he should serve (subject to any appeals).

It doesn't matter what the victims feel about it.

What would you have? A legal system that tortures the criminal?

[Saheli]

Yes, if that's the punishment handed down by the courts, that's the sentence he should serve (subject to any appeals).

It doesn't matter what the victims feel about it.

What would you have? A legal system that tortures the criminal?

I agree that punishments should not depend on how victims feel about things. I believe they should be somewhat of a reflection of the damage doled out to the victim: damage-focused, not victim-focused. Sometimes, they may equal, but that should be irrelevant. Can you imagine the psychological damage done to a child victim of rape? What if the rape was a longterm constant component of the child's life? What if the rapist was a family member? There are so many details that add varying degrees of damage. A few months in prison or even a couple of years pales in comparison.

There is nothing that anyone could do to such a rapist to impart the damage that was done to the child...unfortunately. But to say that if a court hands down a verdict, that's fine is not something I agree with. Of course we all should have respect to the systems that govern our lands, wherever we are in the world, but the only way I could agree to the statement that we should accept all verdicts handed down would be if that acceptance was accompanied by absolute certainty that the verdict was just.

Of course, we also know that there will never be a certainty either way: some verdicts are just while others are more of a joke. So back to the rapist, whose verdict might or might not be just...how do you define "just"? I don't know that we can, which is really what this entire thread is about. Is the death penalty justice? A few years, months? Guilt-driven, psyhological self-punishments?

I don't know what the answer is. But in the case of a child rapist, if the court hands down a couple of years when that child will be psychologically scarred for ALL OF THEIRS doesn't seem to be anywhere close to just in my opinion. So in that case I wouldn't be able to just accept the decision. You can never repair all damage done. I think we all know that. But we can get a little closer, don't you think?

As far as torturing criminals who have tortured other people, YES that is EXACTLY what I would consider justice! The main reason I believe that isn't a common practice is because there are so many other scenarios which would make that difficult to determine. What do you do to someone who got drunk and hit another car, killing someone? Put the criminal in a car, get drunk, and hit him? But in cases where it is a fairly obvious and not too difficult thing to do, no matter how inhumane it is, that is justice. So in that case I would absolutely be 100% in favor of torturing a torturer. And I wouldn't be opposed to having it taped and sold, either...send the money to the victim (if still alive) or victim's family.

[DuncanONeil]

That is one of the difficulties of the American system of governance. We have codified that no punishment can be cruel or inhumane. That holds even when the crime is both cruel and inhumane. On the basis of that we can, in many cases, not provide a punishment that actually fits the crime. That is why in response to the torture question my answer is perhaps.
The measure of "cruel and inhumane" has be fixated upon to create the "luxury" prisons that now are de rigueur. There is no real punishment in prison, merely an inconvenience.

As far as torturing criminals who have tortured other people, YES that is EXACTLY what I would consider justice! The main reason I believe that isn't a common practice is because there are so many other scenarios which would make that difficult to determine. What do you do to someone who got drunk and hit another car, killing someone? Put the criminal in a car, get drunk, and hit him? But in cases where it is a fairly obvious and not too difficult thing to do, no matter how inhumane it is, that is justice. So in that case I would absolutely be 100% in favor of torturing a torturer. And I wouldn't be opposed to having it taped and sold, either...send the money to the victim (if still alive) or victim's family.

[DuncanONeil]

Yes, if that's the punishment handed down by the courts, that's the sentence he should serve (subject to any appeals).

It doesn't matter what the victims feel about it.

What would you have? A legal system that tortures the criminal?

Perhaps! If the criminal tortures their victim.
Prison in America is more of an enforced vacation than anything else. The only punishment that exists is meted out by the other prisoners. Although it is a crime on their part.