Should the violent offender be flogged

[Blue sapphire]

Should the violent offender be flogged with a rod or whip?

I ask this for our society in the west....and I live in Australia....is becoming increasingly violent and disrespectful.

Current policies for deterring crime and in particular voilent crime have failed the community. People should not have to live in fear of going out.....to certain places...in fear of being robbed in their own homes.

We live in a democratic society.....where we can have input into who governs us. Should we not ask our politicans to change the laws that deter violent crime. If the offender received a lashing and he felt it......he may well think twice about his actions next time.....or do we just put up with it?

 

[KCKID]

Should the violent offender be flogged with a rod or whip?

I ask this for our society in the west....and I live in Australia....is becoming increasingly violent and disrespectful.

Current policies for deterring crime and in particular voilent crime have failed the community. People should not have to live in fear of going out.....to certain places...in fear of being robbed in their own homes.

We live in a democratic society.....where we can have input into who governs us. Should we not ask our politicans to change the laws that deter violent crime. If the offender received a lashing and he felt it......he may well think twice about his actions next time.....or do we just put up with it?

Would not 'the flogger' be just as guilty of violence as the offender? If not, why not? And what kind of a human being could partake of such a task?

 

[The Penitent Man]

The corporal punishents used in the Middle East would not work in the West. Western culture is too enamoured of the criminal, the outlaw, for that to ever be tolerated. For crying out loud, we have a video game called Grand Theft Auto where you can steal cars and kill hookers. It is a celebration of everything we (supposedly) fight against here in the West.

The Muslim world is tough on criminals. I admiire that about them.

The Western world empowers criminals, coddles them. I do not admire that at all.

I want simpler, more effective justice that sends a clear message to everybody. Say what you will about public hangings, they sure did send a clear message to the people...

 

[Autumnleaf]

Don't they give naughty people the boot in Australia?

 

[soul_biscuit]

The corporal punishents used in the Middle East would not work in the West. Western culture is too enamoured of the criminal, the outlaw, for that to ever be tolerated. For crying out loud, we have a video game called Grand Theft Auto where you can steal cars and kill hookers. It is a celebration of everything we (supposedly) fight against here in the West.

The Muslim world is tough on criminals. I admiire that about them.

The Western world empowers criminals, coddles them. I do not admire that at all.

I want simpler, more effective justice that sends a clear message to everybody. Say what you will about public hangings, they sure did send a clear message to the people...

At least in America, we have this document called the Constitution. You may have heard of it. It prevents the institution of cruel and unusual punishments. Like, say, lashing. Or public hanging.

You ADMIRE the way the Muslim world handles criminals? Like stoning them to death? You think that's a perfectly respectable way to handle crime in a civil society, do you?

And what about appeal? I'm sure you know that a large number of the convicts executed in Texas were found later to have been innocent. With violent punishment there is no appeals process. You can't unlash someone. It should be the interest of society to leave avenues open for the innocent to be recompensed for wrongful punishment.

 

[The Penitent Man]

We do not have a civil society anywhere on this earth, sir.

 

[soul_biscuit]

We do not have a civil society anywhere on this earth, sir.

Please justify that statement.

I note also that you make no effort to answer my other points. What of the Constitution? What of the other charters of human rights that every Western country has now?

 

[Blue sapphire]

Would not 'the flogger' be just as guilty of violence as the offender? If not, why not? And what kind of a human being could partake of such a task?

So you are saying we should just put up with it.

 

[Blue sapphire]

The corporal punishents used in the Middle East would not work in the West. Western culture is too enamoured of the criminal, the outlaw, for that to ever be tolerated. For crying out loud, we have a video game called Grand Theft Auto where you can steal cars and kill hookers. It is a celebration of everything we (supposedly) fight against here in the West.

The Muslim world is tough on criminals. I admiire that about them.

The Western world empowers criminals, coddles them. I do not admire that at all.

I want simpler, more effective justice that sends a clear message to everybody. Say what you will about public hangings, they sure did send a clear message to the people...

So The Penitent Man.....what punishments would you enact for violent crime.

 

[KCKID]

So you are saying we should just put up with it.

Huh?

Please just answer the questions. They were simple enough.

 

[Blue sapphire]

soul_biscuit;53727376]At least in America, we have this document called the Constitution. You may have heard of it. It prevents the institution of cruel and unusual punishments. Like, say, lashing. Or public hanging.

Doesn't America have capital punishment?

What of the violence inflicted on the victim......does he/she deserve the cruel treatment.....an innocent party. Is there justice for him/her.


You ADMIRE the way the Muslim world handles criminals? Like stoning them to death? You think that's a perfectly respectable way to handle crime in a civil society, do you?

And what about appeal? I'm sure you know that a large number of the convicts executed in Texas were found later to have been innocent. With violent punishment there is no appeals process. You can't unlash someone. It should be the interest of society to leave avenues open for the innocent to be recompensed for wrongful punishment.

By all means appeals should exist.....

.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Please justify that statement.

I note also that you make no effort to answer my other points. What of the Constitution? What of the other charters of human rights that every Western country has now?

First, let me apologize if I insulted you as an American. Documents like the US Constitution suffer from the generally debased human character. If the human character is fundamentally rotten (which it is), the noblest of enshrined ideals will not serve as a remedy. Not the Constitution, not the Sermon on the Mount, not anything. Do you agree?

 

[The Nihilist]

Should the violent offender be flogged with a rod or whip?

I ask this for our society in the west....and I live in Australia....is becoming increasingly violent and disrespectful.

Current policies for deterring crime and in particular voilent crime have failed the community. People should not have to live in fear of going out.....to certain places...in fear of being robbed in their own homes.

We live in a democratic society.....where we can have input into who governs us. Should we not ask our politicans to change the laws that deter violent crime. If the offender received a lashing and he felt it......he may well think twice about his actions next time.....or do we just put up with it?

For violent crime, prison is preferable. The worst parts of all of us may take joy in public beatings, but prison keeps them off the streets. Additionally, whatever drives these men and women to violence, whether it's anger, an inability or unwillingness to identify with the suffering of others, or just having been brought up wrong, it seems to me that public beatings are only going to intensify those causes.

On the other hand, I always thought it made more sense for white collar criminals. For them, the benefit of what they're doing can seem to outweigh the cost of 8 or 10 years in a minimum security prison. I bet they'd feel differently about being publicly stripped naked and whipped. Not that I'd advocate this, it's just a thought.

 

[The Nihilist]

First, let me apologize if I insulted you as an American. Documents like the US Constitution suffer from the generally debased human character. If the human character is fundamentally rotten (which it is), the noblest of enshrined ideals will not serve as a remedy. Not the Constitution, not the Sermon on the Mount, not anything. Do you agree?

Are you saying you would ignore the Constitution between other people are terrible? This seems to be your position, but it's utterly nonsensical. Or is your position that you'd ignore the Constitution because you're terrible?

 

[The Penitent Man]

To be honest, I don't know if floggiing violent offenders would deter them from future violence or not. It's less severe than the death penalty, quicker than a prison-sentence ...

Would the average violent offender fear the whip?

 

[soul_biscuit]

Doesn't America have capital punishment?

Most states do. It remains a very charged debate. I personally find it a violation of the portion of the Constitution I cited earlier, and also because it make appeal impossible. You can't un-execute someone.

What of the violence inflicted on the victim......does he/she deserve the cruel treatment.....an innocent party. Is there justice for him/her.

Of course there is. The criminal goes to jail, often for the rest of her life. She is simultaneously separated from the possibility of doing more harm, and deprived of her freedom.

If by "justice" you mean the satisfaction of seeing the criminal brutally killed, the word you're looking for may actually be "revenge."

 

[soul_biscuit]

First, let me apologize if I insulted you as an American.

Not at all. The Constitution isn't sacred, after all.

Documents like the US Constitution suffer from the generally debased human character.

How so?

If the human character is fundamentally rotten (which it is),

I do not believe that for a moment. If humans are capable of great foolishness, and great cruelty, it is because we are imperfect products of evolution, not because we are flawed somehow.

the noblest of enshrined ideals will not serve as a remedy. Not the Constitution, not the Sermon on the Mount, not anything. Do you agree?

If I accepted the premise, being that humans are fundamentally flawed (flawed when compared to what, I wonder?) then I would agree. I reject the premise, however. The Constitution, and the Universal Charter of Human Rights, represent our best attempts to create a system of law that respects the freedom of all humans to live their ways the way they think is best. (And they do a much better job of it than the Sermon on the Mount, in my opinion.)

 

[KCKID]

"What did you do today at work, daddy?"

"I beat a man with a whip until he bled."

"Oh daddy, I'm so proud of you!"

 

[The Penitent Man]

If humans are capable of great foolishness, and great cruelty, it is because we are imperfect products of evolution, not because we are flawed somehow

How could evolution produce something imperfectly?



We are flawed.

 

[soul_biscuit]

How could evolution produce something imperfectly?

To use awkward phrasing, evolution can't not produce imperfect objects. Evolution doesn't have foresight. It doesn't plan for the future. It merely selects for those organisms best adapted to life in their local environments. Our brains evolved primarily on the savanna in Africa. They are very good at what they do, but they are prone to mistakes.

We are flawed.

I see.

Do you have any basis for substantiating that statement? Why do you see we are flawed. Flawed with respect to what?