Re: Let’s Talk
I see what you're saying but we no longer use the “eye for an eye” method. The term eye for an eye was literally based off of previous societies when.. literally.. if someone poked out your eye (for example) you were given every right to personally go and poke out their eye. Similarly if they stabbed you in the arm you were to stab them back in the arm. They were societies based off of personal retaliation.
Today that method is outdated, illegal and impractical both economically and due to the fact that many people who commit crimes are not caught.
Punishments cannot be inhumane no matter what the crime is that is committed as the criminals are still humans. They have rights just like you and me. Also, you must take into account mental wellness and mens rea which is “the guilty mind.” Murder is not always murder if an individual's intentions were not so. If there is no mens rea, there is usually no conviction.
I will give you real life examples. (If you don't like hearing about violence, stop reading now and continue reading after the asterics: ***).
Example 1: There was a man who had only one eye because he gouged out and ate his other eye. This man later murdered his entire family. When the police found him, he had the hearts of his family members in his pockets. He was given the death sentence. While in prison waiting for his day of dying, he gouged out and ate his only remaining good eye. The courts decided that he was mentally ill and maybe the death penalty was not appropriate after all. They were considering alternative punishments that would maybe help this man because clearly, he's not well.
I didn't follow up on the case to see if they ended up executing him or if he is now in an asylum… but you see now how far the legal system goes. If this man had been in his right mind, there would have been no waver in his initial sentencing.
Example 2: A woman was at a party passed out on a couch. She awoke to a man having his way with her. She screamed, the man fell off of her seemingly startled. He turned himself in for rape. Upon further investigation it was found out that he suffers from a medically validated condition known as sexsomnia. He got away with raping the woman because he was asleep while it was happening and therefore there was no mens rea.
When I read the case study for this I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I had ever read… how can someone do something like that and be asleep? Low and be hold there are other situations in which someone has murdered while being asleep. These people had no intentions of committing the acts they committed. The courts recognize this and attempt to treat them rather than physically punish them back. It does leave very little closure for the victims and that is a problem that has been recognized.
“these punishments would put extreme fear into a criminal. and immediately you would see a 50%+ drop in crime.”
Absolutely invalid comment. Based on deterrence studies there are 4 prime factors to look at when wanting to deter crime in a society.
Two relevant variables:
– Certainty of punishment: The probability you will be punished. Is it likely or not?
– Severity of punishment: I will give you an example.
If you're writing an exam and your professor tells you “If you cheat on this exam I will KILL you but I won't be watching as you write the exam.” You probably think to yourself.. wtf, right? VS. The prof saying “If you cheat, you will fail the course. I will be watching and I will have other people watching”
For which scenario are you less likely to cheat?
Types of deterrence:
– Absolute: this refers to the very major changes to the criminal justice system.
i.e. If the police force goes on stike and does nothing. This would be scary. Chaos would no doubt arise. Thus dramatic change is significant change.
– Marginal: This involves playing with small percentages that the average criminal does not perceive.
i.e. Up the police force by 3%, or buid a new prison = no effect on the risk of getting caught.
Thus absolute deterrence coupled with certainty of punishment IS working. It's been proven. It's more effective.
Is margincal deterrence working? Likely not.
Does severity of punishment work to deter? Not really as it happens in isolated cases. People don't recognize this as something plausible. They say “yeah well it happened to him, but it won't happen to me.”
This has all been validated.
Also, publicly televising punishments is in my opinion, not necessary. Whatever happened to censorship? Based on your example… how are you any better for feeling joy from watching another man be brutally murdered the way he brutally murdered another. If murderers are sick for killing, then are we not just as sick for killing? No matter what tag of “justice” has been applied. Do you see what I mean?