It was you and not me who assumed people were shot 'the right way'. I merely pointed out that execution by shooting was/is usually not carried out in the way you mentioned, and that it is thus de facto inhumane. If it were rendered as humane as possible de jure, that would be another thing, while I'd still object to the execution as such.

An assumption I expressly stated: Assuming you place them in the correct position, and fire a large caliber round into the brain stem at an upward angle, such that it passes through the centre of the brain, the result is perhaps the fastest and least painful death imaginable.

You, however, did NOT say execution by shooting was/is usually not carried out in the way you mentioned; you said shooting people is not humane. Period, full stop.

asphyxiation in nitrous oxide would likely be painless, and even temporarily enjoyable. I still think death by fire, radiation, slow poisioning is better though, shame it's cruel and unusual. Actually, that makes me wonder, is it worded cruel AND unusual, or cruel OR unusual? The two are different. Something could be cruel and usual, or humane and unusual.

LNH, while there's plenty of evidence that the orignial intent of the Eight Amendment's "Cruel & Unusual" clause was simply to prevent traditional English punishments that were designed to be particularly and deliberately painful--drawing and quartering, disembowelment, etc.--the jurisprudence on its interpretation has long since moved into an entirely subjective inquiry into whether the punishment, taken as a whole, is in keeping with "evolving standards of decency."

Find and read the recent Supreme Court opinion that held that any state law that provided for the death penalty for the forcible rape of a child was per se unconstitutional as "Cruel & Unusual"--it's a masterpiece of making up the rules as you go. Amusingly, too, the Supreme Court and everyone arguing the case missed the fact that the United States military's UCMJ actually provides for the death penalty for soliders who--wait for it--rape children. The fact that this was true turned out to directly contradict a major point on which the majority opinion relied: the fact that the state law in question was the only instance of such a penalty for such a crime in American law. After this error was pointed out, of course the case was re-evaluated. No, just kidding. Nobody was willing to discuss it.

Anyway, nobody is quite sure how nine old farts in D.C. are capable of objectively determining what "evolving standard of decency" means, unless it means their personal opinions on what the current "standard of decency" is, but as my con law professor used to say when some sort of idiotic branch of constitutional law was identified as being entirely contrary to the constitution:

It's OVAH!

Yea I remember that case, it wasn't even a year ago I think. That's one of those instances where drawing and quartering sounds appropriate. Seems however that the supreme court decision was really focusing on the unusual aspect of the punishment, also if I remember right they said something about capitol punishment being too extreme a punishment for rape, in my opinion, Bullshit!

Yes, exactly! It is the assumption I don't like. Assuming things, I could argue that capital punishment isn't necessary because in the end, all criminals are just misled people who would better themselves given time and attention. Not.

For my imprecise writing I apologize, my bad.

Your imprecise writing is what led to my posing the hypothetical; say what you mean, and you're less likely to get questioned in a way that includes "Assuming X, isn't what you just said a bubbling crock of maggoty shit?"

Lecter:

Quoting out of context is an easy way to make people be misunderstood, even to you yourself. Perhaps I should have explicitly stated that shooting people as a means of execution is not humane, since in many cases where execution by shooting is carried out, it comes with a contempt for human rights of the individual person being executed (cf. China's method of execution, esp. levying a 'bullet fee' from the family of the offender, which in my opinion violates the deceased's as well as her/his family's right to something like dignity).

The sentence "Shooting people is not humane." was, however, quoted in direct connection to the execution of drug dealers (and other offenders) in China (cf. my second post in this thread, first page), so only if you took the phrase out of context could you construe a connection between it and my objection to your assumption of a humane way of executing a prisoner by bullet.

Add to that the fact that my generalising comment about capital punishment was, as it were, detached from my debating your point of a humane death by shooting.

In order that you do not mix up topics yet again and top it the falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus again (no guarantees on correct latin grammar): The following paragraph is intended not as part of the discussion, but as an observation.

I wonder if this discussion could move beyond rhethorical fencing and get to the heart of the matter. As it stands, I highly doubt it, the two positions being as well-entrenched as they are (since neither side has brought ultimately convincing arguments to the table).

I think we hit the heart of the matter a page ago: I think and have argued quite plainly that retribution for particularly terrible and undeserved acts of malice is both good and necessary, and that such retribution requires the execution of certain criminals--to do otherwise is disrespectful of the victims (and arguably the criminal, who escapes being treated like a soverigen being who receives the due for their choices).

You think punishment for doing wrong (at least the most severe punishments), as apart from actions taken to rehabilitate or restrain from doing future harm, is immoral--regardless of how much the criminal enjoyed doing harm, has no remorse for having done harm, how much harm they did, and to how innocent of a victim.

As long as we're on context, though, you also asserted that "hanging is inhumane." That's also an absolute, unqualified statement that seems to be part of you claiming that certain methods of execution are always and no matter what inhumane.

It's also another wrong statement. Done right, a hang-man's noose and a few dozen inches of drop will cleanly break the neck at the C1/skull point, severing the spinal cord at the brain stem.

Small correction: I do not think punishment is wrong. I think punishment is a necessary part of the judiciary system. I think capital punishment is wrong no matter what, while life-long prison sentences (or other forms, but still life-long, in cases like mental illnesses) are, in my opinion, also a difficult matter, but less so than the death penalty.

As for my statement claiming that hanging is inhumane, I connected that, like my other 'absolute' sentence, implicitly to the Japanese judiciary system. You are right in that absolute statements are (per definition) wrong, I merely used them for effect. My bad, again.

Curious as to your reasoning that, while punishment for punishment's own sake can be a just thing, some punishments are simply too harsh.

Death penalty presents a clear line of sorts, however indefensible I find it, but beyond that . . . how do you decide how long is "too long"?

I have no idea how long a prison sentence would make sense, since I haven't studied neither law nor psychology.

I know that in Switzerland, offenders can be sentenced to a maximum of 25 years' time; in cases of mental illnesses that manifest in behavior harmful to others, people can be contained for life. This is by no means perfect, but as far as I know, it works to a satisfactory extent.

I don't see how psychology factors into what's an appropriate sentence, assuming that the criminal has been found mentally competent. As for law, that's not important: you're proposing a limitation on the law of sentencing, not a particular way of matching crimes with punishments that "make sense."

For example, you would not support--as I read you--a sentence of 500 years in prison without possibility of parole. Period. Doesn't matter if I took your wife, child, and aged parents into a torture chamber and defiled them for a year before killing them in an extremely unpleasant manner accompanied by chemical sensory enhancement. Doesn't matter if I killed a million civilians with a stolen nuclear or biological weapon. No matter what I did, no single punishment can justly be that harsh (life without possibility of parole).

If I'm wrong there, just say so. Otherwise, surely you have some thoughts--expert or not--about what is the harshest punishment that should ever be imposed, regardless of the crime?

Also, let's assume I--of sound mind and body--engaged in one of the above described acts. Pick the one you find most heinous. I'm tried in a Swiss court, found guilty on all counts, and I'm still laughing about what I did as my 25 year sentence is imposed.

I spend the next 25 years living in a clean, climate controlled environment with laundry service, nutritionally balanced meals, books, internet access, exercise facilities, health care, a limited number of hours per week that I am allowed to work, and access to a law library and legal representation should I find any of the foregoing not to my liking (I'm assuming Swiss prison conditions to mirror U.S. standards, though I think it likely that Swiss prisons, not being so overcrowded and dangerous as U.S. prisons, are probably nicer). After 25 years of this existance, I get out shortly after my 50th birthday and go on to collect social benefits from the State, continuing to enjoy a relatively civilized existance, abet not one with any great luxury.

You would say that the system works to a satisfactory extent? If the answer is yes, my only other question is: have you no self-respect?

Dr. Lecter, you hit the nail on the head in the 12:58 post regarding the differences in our viewpoints, which is why I have not replied recently. You understand my point of view pretty completely, and I think I understand yours pretty well too...

Having not had your experience in personally dealing with truly Evil people I can not speak with complete certainty, but I do not think I would enjoy seeing them die (this is something apart from a discussion on whether it is *right* for them to die). Let's pick a person who nuked a city full of people I know and love, who is found guilty and is laughing at it. I doubt I would want to see them dead. Mostly I would feel sorry for them having to lead their life with such a horrendously broken moral compass as to make such terrible choices and be incapable of feeling regret or the pain they have caused. That is not to say I wouldn't feel angry and wouldn't enjoy (once again quite different from believing it is *right* to hurt them) seeing that person in a lot of pain... but certainly not dead.

Even if that person later truly regretted their actions I don't think I would be able to forgive them, but that is a failing on my part. However, if over 25 years the person really becomes rehabilitated, and somehow does not go completely insane in the process, I doubt they would themselves be able to come back to a society they have caused so much damage and pain. Personally, I would rather kill myself than bear to look in the eyes and feel the pain of thousands of people whose loved ones I have murdered.

If they do not become rehabilitated in that time they clearly do not belong back in the society. To have them walking around laughing in the faces of those they hurt would indeed be a grave insult to all and is completely unacceptable.

As for method of execution... to me it is like discussing if it is humane to murder someone with a sword as opposed to an axe, i.e. missing the point, so I have nothing more to add there.

To have then walking around laughing in the faces of those they hurt would indeed be a grave insult to all and is completely unacceptable.

But having them, say, issue mocking letters or press releases from prison for a life term would be acceptable? And don't say we can just lock them away incommunicado without brushing up on First Amendement rights as applied to the prison context ;)

Even assuming we could and did, is not the fact that they get to wake up, see the sun each day, and go on smiling and breathing (unlike their victims) a grave insult?

I do think psychology would be useful, Lecter, mostly because the effects of imprisonment could be gauged more correctly with more knowledge about the human mind. Law (or history of the law) would be nice to know about the development of sentences, their effect as a deterrent and so on.

Concerning the Swiss penal system: As far as I know, there are few cases where people do exactly the same thing after having spent 25 years in prison. It is not like they are not monitored, evaluated, time and again, and, if necessary, kept under closer scrutiny than non-offending citizens if there should manifest no betterment.

Just accept it Lecter, the Swiss (it's the only system I *know* anything about in this regard, even though it's not much) penal system works (to an extent I do not exactly know), too, despite its flaws. But it has the aim of correcting, not of just punishing the criminals. From what you tell me, the US system is different in that regard, please tell me if I'm wrong.

As for the longest prison sentence, I don't know. I'd have to read up on how long imprisonment actually does work on people. Perhaps life-long sentences would be an option, even though I don't like them. They're still much less final than death, at any rate. Like I said, there are sentences that provide containment (or surveillance) for life, in certain cases.

To answer your question directly, yes, of course such letters would be insulting to me and to others, and even if I didn't read them I would still know they are there.

However, the act of killing someone because they are writing letters (or breathing, or smiling) is in my opinion a far greater insult to a society (and me as a member of it) that values life than the letters.

Whether to allow such letters to be written by inmates is a more debatable issue, even though it goes outside the scope of this discussion.

The problem can be generalised to any person A writing a letter to any person B that will cause person B distress. In this country such behaviour is classed as harassment, and is a crime.

On one hand this is justifiable because person B has an expectation to be able to live free from harassment, which in my opinion is a pretty fair expectation to have. On the other hand any rules that restrict speech by definition have the ability to stifle debate, and so are damaging to a society that values the freedoms of thought, speech, expression, etc.

Personally I hold the absolute freedom of speech to be a necessary condition for unrestricted progress of a society. Most people disagree with me, are not enlightened to see a goatse in their inbox every morning, and believe that some restrictions are necessary to ensure an acceptably comfortable lifestyle and efficient progress (i.e. they would rather read 9 letters that are sensible and 1 that is not than 10 letters than are sensible and 90 that are not). Since I happen to live in the same society as them and they greatly outnumber me I accept that rule even though I don't completely agree with it.

Concerning the Swiss penal system: As far as I know, there are few cases where people do exactly the same thing after having spent 25 years in prison. It is not like they are not monitored, evaluated, time and again, and, if necessary, kept under closer scrutiny than non-offending citizens if there should manifest no betterment.

Just accept it Lecter, the Swiss (it's the only system I *know* anything about in this regard, even though it's not much) penal system works (to an extent I do not exactly know), too, despite its flaws. But it has the aim of correcting, not of just punishing the criminals.

You're dodging the question I posed: re-read my hypothetical, which implies (but I'll make it explicit now) that after doing what I did and serving my 25 years, I do not commit a crime again. Given all the facts of the hypothetical, do you agree that the system work[ed] to a satisfactory extent?

Also, I didn't ask you about how long a sentence would be appropriate for containment or rehabilitation. I asked, in response to your admission that you believed punishment for its own sake could be a just thing (just not death or excessively long sentences), what was the longest time you believe to be an appropriate punishment for someone who--although not believed to ever be likely to reoffend, and so not in need of rehabilitation or containment--has committed the most terrible crime of which you can think.

You say that punishment alone is an appropriate reason to jail someone for a crime, even assuming that they are no longer a risk, but you say that death and life without parole are not just punishments qua punishments because they're too harsh. What's your cap, then?

Antz: sorry if I wasn't clearer: you said that having them walking around would be "unacceptably insulting"--I'm just curious what's so special about them being out walking around, versus publically proclaiming their lack of remorse while in jail?

I have no 'cap' to prison sentences that I could base upon actual knowledge. Any cap would be a reply not based on any serious deliberation (which I am ill equipped for, like I said earlier), but purely personal evaluation. As far as that goes, 25 to 30 years seems OK to me. The life-long containment is a special case, which I approve of under certain circumstances (certifiable mental illness, e.g.).

I think that this works for the system I grew up with. I am unsure whether in the US, life-long sentences make more sense for some cases. I'm still opposed to life sentences as a general measure, but I don't rule them out a priori (never have). I'm just entirely opposed to the death penalty, to reiterate.

And yes, if a person convicted actually does not commit a crime again after having served a prison sentence *because* of the punishment, I am convinced that the system worked.

Kinda off topic, but not really.

This thread reminds me of a "Brinks Home Security" spoof commercial I saw the other day.

Chick on a treadmill, some dude outside, walks around to the front door, kicks it in.

Alarm goes off. Instead of chick going "oh god. argh, why why why?" and panicking like a whiny little ho. She reaches onto the shelf above her, grabs a pistol, runs to the front door, puts a handful of rounds into the mans chest and head.

*ring ring* "Hello, this is Brink's Home Security, everything all right?" "Yes thanks, I shot the bastard, please send the coronor"

EZR

If everyone just shot the criminals, in the act, then there wouldn't be near as many people prisons, or on death row.

Libertarianism ftw.

You wanna get high? Whatever, as long as you don't mess with me, or anything that affects me.

Just leave me alone, don't screw around with my family, or my property, and anything goes.

You start messing with my family, you just violated -my- rights? You just gave up your rights. And I -will- shoot you, if you are in my home. Period.