For one, I think many of us would feel good to see such a person subjected to the worst kinds of suffering until he begs for mercy. Would you disagree? — Agustino
Serial Killers, and rapists of the like I mentioned above aren't most people. Most people would also regret killing someone and the like. Serial killers don't. What makes you think they'll act like most people? Scientifically you CANNOT draw this conclusion, there's not enough evidence, nor theory to support such a hypothesis.Studies have shown that most people — swstephe
If they were normal, rational human beings, not cold-blooded, irrational serial killers, rapists, etc. yes.o I'm guessing those people facing torture would say they repent and feel sorry even before you laid a finger on them. — swstephe
Maybe because they didn't punish serial killers, rapists and the like during the Inquisition but rather many innocent people? :sIt didn't work for the Inquisition, (and you will end up looking just as evil), why do you think it will work now? — swstephe
Yes but you don't understand. These people are beasts, they are worse than beasts. They deserve the harshest of punishments. It's not about an eye for an eye - these are not normal people. If they were normal, I would agree with you.Absolutely I disagree. And eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. — darthbarracuda
This is interesting. Why would many of us, or let me not say many of us and assume, but rather I, why do you reckon I would feel good and joyful seeing such a criminal suffer? Please note that I would not feel joyful to see them suffer if they had felt genuinely sorry for what they had done. But if they felt joyful and happy for having committed such atrocious crimes, I would enjoy to see them suffer, and I would feel very angry to see them get away without suffering. So what is it that motivates this? Schopenhauer (from memory I'm recalling from Book IV of WWR Vol I, someone correct me if I'm not illustrating the thoughts rightly) thought that we seek to do justice (or vengence as you say) because we want to uphold justice itself, and when someone does something like this, and does not show fear of justice or remorse for their crimes, we automatically feel a need, coming from our very being, to set things straight, by ourselves if we have to, and thus uphold justice. If we do not uphold it, then everyone, including ourselves, is placed at risk of being unjustly treated because transcendentally, someone appears to have escaped justice. Thus such a crime is the greatest of crimes because it is transcendental in nature - it is, as per Christian theology, the unforgivable sin, the hardening of the heart that not even God can set straight anymore. And we cannot accept this, so our beings feels the urge to take matters in its own hands and give to such an individual what they deserve, ultimately in an effort of love - I think deep down I think that if they suffer horrendously, they will realise how it feels for others to suffer, and thus they would repent.All your reasoning here shows is our insatiable desire for vengeance and a deep belief in blood debts. — darthbarracuda
Serial Killers, and rapists of the like I mentioned above aren't most people. Most people would also regret killing someone and the like. Serial killers don't. What makes you think they'll act like most people? Scientifically you CANNOT draw this conclusion, there's not enough evidence, nor theory to support such a hypothesis. — Agustino
Unless they are able to identify what they have done as wrong, agreed. But to identify an action as wrong merely requires the association of pain to someone else - or suffering, combined with the idea of them undergoing the respective action. I identify putting fire on a child's lap as wrong because I associate pain and suffering with the idea of putting fire on their lap, and I associate their pain and suffering with my own. It's a mixture of Hume's theory of ideas and Schopenhauer's compassion (fellow-feeling) as the basis of morality.Torture won't make most people feel genuine remorse, just an urgent need to stop the pain — csalisbury
I think many of them do not understand and cannot associate the suffering of others with their own suffering - hence no empathy. Also, many of them have remarkably high pain tolerance. So - if they could be hurt so much, they could begin to understand what others feel and how others suffer, and since they don't like their own suffering, especially to such high intensity, they could begin to form the idea that just like they are suffering in those moments, so too have their victims suffered - and just like they don't like it, neither do their victims like it. Hence they would repent.But since serial killers aren't like most people, and don't feel remorse for satisfying their heinous desires and easing their torturous pain, then.....maybe, unlike other people, under torture they'll feel genuine remorse instead of merely wanting to stop the pain? — csalisbury
This is actually not true. Most people who have awful and painful childhoods (in most cases these are intense emotional pains, not physical as well - rejection and the like) do not turn into serial killers or sociopaths. A large percentage of serial killers (close to 50%) have also had normal childhoods by all standards, and seem to be your average Joe. They generally display higher than normal intelligence, high tolerance to pain, lack of empathy, arrogance and pride (even if masked), repeatedly killing or beating animals, and are unwilling to recognise or admit to mistakes or wrong-doing <- this later one is key.From my understanding, a lot of serial killers and sociopath had really awful painful childhoods. — csalisbury
My worst suffering was a very serious intestinal infection which lasted me about 2 weeks and I had fever every night, the pain was continuous, and I couldn't even sleep because of the pain. I remember falling asleep and waking up with the pain - it was so bad at one point that I could barely keep my eyes open, but I still couldn't fall asleep because of the pain. It was a hellish experience while I was experiencing it. Looking back, it's of course not as bad as it felt while I lived it.Have you been in intense pain before, Agustino? — csalisbury
No, because that is just disgusting and inhuman for the one who has to do it - the punishment giver. Tortured, again depending on the gravity of the offence. If he raped someone, but he is very sorry about it, cries, etc. then I would say normal punishment, no torture.Do you think it would also be just for the perpetrators to be raped, as they themselves raped? — csalisbury
Also this is a very "Western" view, and recent evidence is actually starting to question this a lot. Also, physical violence generally plays an important role in the growth and development of children. For example, when children fight amongst each other, they learn out of that experience - they learn what it means to suffer, how they can make others suffer, how others can make them suffer, and so forth. Out of this they learn morality. They learn to respect others, not be exceedingly harsh, be courageous, value justice, etc.From my understanding, a lot of serial killers and sociopath had really awful painful childhoods. — csalisbury
Should unrelenting torture of the worst kind be a punishment for such a person UNTIL and IF they repent and feel sorry for what they have done? Why or why not? — Agustino
Why would you think so? Also what do you think about the argument I have put forth?"When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations VII, 65.
No doubt he would say the same about acting towards them. Sound advice from The Man. — WhiskeyWhiskers
If they feign it, they will still get the normal punishment not the torture. The torture still fulfills its role, even if they feign remorse to escape it. The thing is the mockery of justice that they make otherwise, and the mockery of the victim's family, and humiliation they subject them to - that is all prevent, and the law is uphold!I think it's not past a criminals capacity to lie to save their own skin (perhaps literally in your justice system), or for the kind of psychopaths we are talking about to feign sorrow and regret convincingly. — WhiskeyWhiskers
These people are beasts, they are worse than beasts. — Agustino
Why? You treat others humanely because they are human. If they give up their humanity by committing such atrocities, why treat them humanly?For me it's a matter of logical consistency, of hypocrisy. Treating the inhumane as they treat others makes one inhumane also. That much is clear to me. Second, I would feel no satisfaction seeing a broken human being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. I'm not sure that constitutes justice. Civilised nations have long given up on barbarism in pursuit of better ideals, and I don't find your arguments convincing enough to regress. — WhiskeyWhiskers
I'm unsure what exactly you are asking by this, but I will tentatively answer no.Do you suppose people pop out of the womb with identical clean slates, and that somehow some mystical metaphysical soul has the capability of choosing without constraint from causality? — darthbarracuda
Yes but we must do this in order to uphold our social standards and the integrity/legitimacy of our societies. Some values are sacred - like justice - they cannot be mocked.I would argue that by doing so we are simply reassuring ourselves that we live in a rational, just world when we in reality do not. — darthbarracuda
Exactly! This is exactly why we must step down on it in the harshest way imaginable.A psychopath laughing about killing people for fun threatens the very foundation of our society. It shakes us to the core, and is therefore a prime target for the media. We feel inexplicably drawn to this menace in order to try to figure out why the psychopath is laughing and how this can fit in our view about a rational, coherent world. — darthbarracuda
No I don't want to assimilate them back necessarily. I want to ensure that society as a whole survives - and to survive it must either crush them or assimilate them back.By punishing someone you are trying to get them to repent and assimilate back into society, back into the submerged group-think. — darthbarracuda
So if the guy mocks the family and laughs about his actions we can be wrong? -_-More pragmatically, though, I am against torture and death penalties because we might be wrong in our judgement. — darthbarracuda
And by the way - I doubt that MA was referring to this kind of inhumanity. This is almost beyond inhuman. It's inhuman to slaughter undefended children in war. That's an inhuman action. It's inhuman to slaughter them while making a game out of it in war, yes. But to do so in society and not even admit that it is a wrong?? That is - no words for it..."When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations VII, 65. — WhiskeyWhiskers
So if the guy mocks the family and laughs about his actions we can be wrong? -_- — Agustino
Exactly! This is exactly why we must step down on it in the harshest way imaginable. — Agustino
If somebody mocks your family by raping and brutally murdering someone from your family after having subjected them to the worst kinds of suffering imaginable, and then feeling proud of it, then you sure as hell kill them, even if the law were absurdly to refuse to punish them. This question is of a transcendental nature now, regardless of the earthly law. Why do you think that many people, when done grave injustices, resort to taking matters into their own hands, and some of them are even willing to go to the end of the earth and to sacrifice their own lives to ensure that justice is done? There is something in the human spirit which pushes them to do this - it's apparent in much of our literature, where such cases are best exemplified.You don't usually kill someone for mocking your family. — darthbarracuda
I provided a mechanism via which they could learn from the torture. Do you disagree, and if so why? Second of all, in the case that they just refuse to repent, killing them in a brutal way will provide, as you say, the catharsis necessary for our social institutions, for our justice, for our safety, etc. to maintain their value and sacredness in our eyes - a thing which is required for us to have a society at all.We certainly can't allow this behavior to continue. But we shouldn't stoop to their level and execute or torture them. This doesn't do anything but provide a catharsis. The psychopath isn't going to learn by torture, and she can't repent after she's dead. — darthbarracuda
This is false. I think many people would enjoy torturing such a person. I for one would. Do you think I'm a psychopath? I think there is ample evidence that human beings have a sense of justice, which they are willing to go to their own death to ensure that it is not violated. I wouldn't enjoy harming or torturing or anything even close to that a normal, regular criminal. In fact, punishment for such criminals should not really be or be called punishment, it should be rehabilitation. But when it is one of those extreme and hideous crimes, that's an entirely different story.Interestingly enough, it is easy to condemn someone to death, but far more difficult to actually do it. You either have to be a psychopath yourself to enjoy torturing or killing the guilty, or you end up with a lot of guilt, remorse, and suicidal thoughts. — darthbarracuda
I would do it... I would feel glad and proud for helping maintain the order and stability of my society, and doing justice to the poor victims who have unlawfully suffered such a tragic fate. I could at least ensure them that the person who did this to them has received what they deserved, even though I cannot bring back their loved one, or undo what they've had to go through.Just knowing that a person "got away" pisses us off. It's not fair. It's not how we want things to be. But I wonder if you would be willing to kill someone yourself to restore order. You might walk away from the kill wondering if you just made things worse. — darthbarracuda
whether the criminal feels sorry or not for the actions he has done, and apologises or doesn't for them - you think that plays no role? — Agustino
If somebody mocks your family by raping and brutally murdering someone from your family after having subjected them to the worst kinds of suffering imaginable, and then feeling proud of it, then you sure as hell kill them, even if the law were absurdly to refuse to punish them. — Agustino
Why do you think that many people, when done grave injustices, resort to taking matters into their own hands, and some of them are even willing to go to the end of the earth and to sacrifice their own lives to ensure that justice is done? There is something in the human spirit which pushes them to do this - it's apparent in much of our literature, where such cases are best exemplified. — Agustino
This is false. I think many people would enjoy torturing such a person. I for one would. Do you think I'm a psychopath? I think there is ample evidence that human beings have a sense of justice, which they are willing to go to their own death to ensure that it is not violated. I wouldn't enjoy harming or torturing or anything even close to that a normal, regular criminal. In fact, punishment for such criminals should not really be or be called punishment, it should be rehabilitation. But when it is one of those extreme and hideous crimes, that's an entirely different story. — Agustino
I do find that satisfactory, at least they won't mock the family, and humiliate them even more, and mock the entirety of the justice system as well - that alone, in that is preserves the sacredness of justice, and the dignity of the victim's family is enough. Even if they fake their repentance - that's still much better than the abomination of defying the justice, and maintaining in words that there's nothing wrong with what they've done. Also, if they avoid torture, it doesn't mean that they will avoid the prison sentence that happens anyway.So, I think it's likely the threat of torture would merely compel the convicted to "repent" whether they were remorseful or not, and I doubt that is something you'd find satisfactory. — Ciceronianus the White
Again - if they admit to the crime, and laugh at the justice, and mock the family... how can we possibly be wrong?The murderer wouldn't go unpunished. But they wouldn't be killed or tortured, either. Sooner or later you are going to end up torturing or killing an innocent person. It's happened before and it will happen again if we continue to allow it to. — darthbarracuda
In some cases - in other cases, not fighting for justice is seen as weakly and cowardly, or even worse, immoral.Our inability to make peace with others and swallow our desire for justice and vengeance creates even more conflict. — darthbarracuda
Simple. If they show remorse during the torture, then they will be put in prison and will undergo the usual punishment. If they don't, then they will be killed.How do you determine when someone is able to be rehabilitated vs when they ought to be slaughtered like the dogs they are? Your gut feeling? Your (biased) desire for justice? — darthbarracuda
Yes - many times because the guards were not aware who they killed, or because they were forced to kill innocent people, and such reasons. But there are also many stories from war, with people who have killed hundreds of other people, who feel little or no remorse, especially when they knew they were fighting for a just cause.There are ample stories of functionally normal people in guard positions in prison who executed those on death row and later live lives of severe depression and guilt, or guards who just couldn't do it and were replaced by those who apparently could. — darthbarracuda
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.