Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
There is no possible way to undue the harm caused by a rape, or many other serious crimes.
I agree, but don't see any relevance to the topic of allowing the torture of criminals.
Plenty of people go through the same problems as a criminal and yet somehow don't turn to crime. Turning to crime, regardless of circumstances, is indication of the weakness of one's character.
I once would have had more agreement with you, but have come not to agree so much. I think there are a lot of myths that let people sleep better at night.
I've come more and more to see this sort of 'frame' for crime as erroneous, and helpful to feel more comfortable about the topic - in short, I don't see that much benefit to punishing for the sake of punishing, I think there are a lot of problems that are little understood, there's too little of a sympathetic approach which happens to boomerang back in violence (don't care about the criminal, they don't care about who they hurt), and I think we have too little effort put into helping people who need help as a criminal preventative measure.
Everyone wants to torture the pedophile who molests a child; how much interest and effort did they invest to help the pedophile deal with his situation before he harmed the child?
The view in your post I see as another example of where ideology has too large a role - the criminals *shouldn't* commit the crimes, end of story, and therefore don't do much for them preventatively, whereas a more rational approach would ask, what can we do that makes sense, to help reduce the crime, looking at the root causes? Many answers would come up if the question is asked. Instead, it's easier to not deal with that, and simply demand that the criminals not act out, and consider the system of punishment as all that's needed - satisfied with the highest crime and incarceration rates in the industrialized world, is that really good?
For mild offense, mild punishments are in order. Hence fines, and jails. I don't see these as deterrents...at least not significant ones. Rather they are punishments...reprisals.
For serious crimes there should be serious punishments...again not deterrents, consequences. If the crime is serious enough then that criminal, in my opinion, is incapable of existing in society and I prefer that they be removed from that society. I don't think innocent people should have to pay for it, so I prefer a $.30 bullet fired into their heads. If the victims of said crime would rather torture them to death so that they experience the pain and horror that they themselves inflicted upon an innocent then that's fine with me.
We disagree on a moral level about capital punishment, but another angle is the practical issue - you say you don't want to make innocent people pay for the criminal justice for criminals, so let's look at how to avoid that: the fact is, the bare minimum constitutional requirements for capital punishment in the United States make capital punishment cost far more than life sentences; estimates today a few years ago were averages of $500,000 for life sentences and $1.5 Million for capital punishment. You aren't going to change the constitution, so the only way you can do what you say you want, to reduce the costs to innocent taxpayers, is to get rid of capital punishment.
I don't think the government should inflict that torture, as it largely wasn't the government who was wronged. In part, yes, but not primarily. Choice to torture to death instead of kill should be up to the victim's immediate friends/family.
I share your bias for the victims and those impacted to be more directly involved in the punishment than the state where possible, but don't see allowing any torture as useful.
I tend to apply that more to the sort of program where the victim of burglary is allowed for a year to enter the thief's house any time (limited number) he wants, and take an item.
It attempts to create the empathy lacking in the criminal. I'm not sure how well it works, but it seems worth trying, and probably gives the victim more satisfaction than a state fine.
I return to my view that our best policy is to say torture is not acceptable any time, period.
It's something to ponder why it's so much more satisfying to torture a rapist, than to prevent the rape. While no one would rationally choose the former over the latter, in fact we do choose that sort of thing constantly by our spending priorities, as we fund the more 'satisfying' rather than the prevention.
By the way, I LOVE the last quote in your sig. I'll be using that in a debate in the near future, thanks.
Thank you. I appreciate the feedback on it. Good luck with the debate, let me know how it goes.