Is it too harsh?

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Aragorn1: Even if i did agree, the method is savage, not only did they whip him i suspect the hanging was not done with a fatal knot which breaks th neck was the English practice but by suffocation. Even the guilotine, firing squad etc offered a quick death as a punishment not an agnizing one as punishment. (God, i'm sounding like a liberal)

Oh, we of European descent have our own savagery to deal with. Quartering, drawing, impalement. And, let's not think our religion avoids it either -- iron maidens, thumb screws, racks, hot pokers, all part of the "trial by ordeal" arsenal of slow and painful death that was part of the Holy Roman Inquisition for hundreds of years. I mean, it takes a creative sort of barbarism to dream up the "quartered and drawn" combination, not to mention the choreographical talent needed to coordinate 4 horses and one disentrailer. [/QUOTE]Our religion? We're protestant over here, pope's the anti-christ and all that. (I told you before, we're not all the same [img]smile.gif[/img] ) And we abandoned those practices a long while ago. My point is that they are still being used and i think it wrong. While i accept the death penalty is defensable, I refuse to believe there can be any justification for such cruel and unusual punishment.

[shamrock_uk]

We have had a few hundred more years to grow out of it [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-31-2005, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: [QB] Our religion? We're protestant over here, pope's the anti-christ and all that. (I told you before, we're not all the same [img]smile.gif[/img] )

Splitting hairs. Besides, I'm sure we can trot out some interesting protestant-specific acts. Um... come to think of it, quartering and drawing and impalement was probably done by protestants. Weren't the Salem witch trials done by protestants?

And we abandoned those practices a long while ago.

I'm just pointing out that there's plenty of guilt to go around on the issue. All of our cultures have evidenced savagery in the past, and a couple of hundred years ain't but a blink of the eye, really.

My point is that they are still being used and i think it wrong. While i accept the death penalty is defensable, I refuse to believe there can be any justification for such cruel and unusual punishment.

Agreeable statements, of course. [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

[Larry_OHF]

I suppose it would only be too harsh if he would not have expected such a reception upon the chance of being caught. Since he knew that where he lives constitutes such punishments...he knew what such actions would bring him in his own land...and still he did what he did...then he showed that he ACCEPTED the possibility/risk of dying in such a manner. If he would not have known the full extent of punishment for his actions, then that would be considered cruel, I guess.

I suppose this raises an interesting question...if we were to promise/threaten all citizens of the USA that upon being charged for a severe crime, they would be inflicted with severe torture at the mercy of the victim's family maybe...how many would-be criminals would decide that the risk was not worth it? I guess the answer would be that they would try harder "not" to get caught...but maybe that is beside the point.

[ 03-31-2005, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: I suppose it would only be too harsh if he would not have expected such a reception upon the chance of being caught. Since he knew that where he lives constitutes such punishments...he knew what such actions would bring him in his own land...and still he did what he did...then he showed that he ACCEPTED the possibility/risk of dying in such a manner. If he would not have known the full extent of punishment for his actions, then that would be considered cruel, I guess.

Oh, so ignorance will be rewarded? I believe that parts of the "social contract" we participate in by being citizens can in fact be too harsh, even if we all know them. For instance, a law ordering that the punishment for sneezing is amputation of the nose would certainly be unfair, even if we all knew about it beforehand. I use an extreme example, but the holes in your logic are highlighted by it, I think.

I suppose this raises an interesting question...if we were to promise/threaten all citizens of the USA that upon being charged for a severe crime, they would be inflicted with severe torture at the mercy of the victim's family maybe...how many would-be criminals would decide that the risk was not worth it? I guess the answer would be that they would try harder "not" to get caught...but maybe that is beside the point.

That would be punishing them before guilt was determined. It's EASY to charge somebody. You, Larry, are responsible for Schaivo's death today. You have the right to remain silent. See, that was easy.

Assuming you really meant "convicted," then what you have suggested has been done before, I believe. The Viking's Allthing would permit aggrieved parties to exact self-help remedies. For instance, if you killed my son, I could take my case to the annual Allthing and present it to the community. If I won, I would be allowed to kill your son at some point in the future. It's similar, but not exactly the same as what you suggest. I google around for some other similar examples and see what I find.

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: I suppose this raises an interesting question...if we were to promise/threaten all citizens of the USA that upon being charged for a severe crime, they would be inflicted with severe torture at the mercy of the victim's family maybe...how many would-be criminals would decide that the risk was not worth it? I guess the answer would be that they would try harder "not" to get caught...but maybe that is beside the point.

Research has shown that it is not punishmen per se that is the main deterrant factor but the risk of being caught. Therefore it may not make too much of a difference

TL: an eye for an eye would illustarte your point would it not?

[ 03-31-2005, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]

[Darlon]

Originally posted by Ziroc: quote: Originally posted by Darlon: quote: Originally posted by Ziroc: They NEED to do this here in the USA. Nasty sick people. god....

Good Heavens! NO!!


I do agree with putting the murderers to death, but the flogging/hanging method is too savage to be deemed legal in a civilised society (note: I am NOT saying the Iranians are uncivilised, just to clear any misunderstandings).


now back on topic:


Was it too harsh? yes, IMO


I can just imagine the trauma the murderers family must be going though . [/QUOTE]And you would still feel this way if it was YOUR child that was the victim? [/QUOTE]If such a thing did happen to me (and it won't because I'm staying single), it still wouldn't change my mind, I'm not going to go out of my way just for revenge.

[ 03-31-2005, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Darlon ]

[Larry_OHF]

Thank you Timber Loftis!

That was both refreshing and educational.

[Jorath Calar]

By the way Timber, not all Vikings had Althing, just the Icelandic ones... but you were right about the rest, in fact if you read Njáls saga it's whole plot revolves around that type of revenge. It's main characters just sink deeper and deeper into bloodlust and hate until they have nothing left except exile. It is thought to be the first Icelandic fiction (at least the oldest one that survived the ages) and be written to critize the "revenge system"... maybe the author was sort of a Viking Micheal moore... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-31-2005, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Jorath Calar ]

[Timber Loftis]

Yes, Jorath, I knew that the Althing was an Icelandic thing -- sorry I didn't mention it. It's interesting to note that most of the Western World is Viking in one form or another. The Vikings conquered most of England, and had mixed with the native population (and adopted an agrarian lifestyle) in the couple of centuries prior to the Norman Invasion of 1066. Interestingly, said Norman Invasion was also comprised largely of Viking descendants resulting from their conquest of that part of Europe. As I understand it, they were able to take their flatbottomed, easily carried boats down most of the rivers of Europe, conquering as they went. And, of course they were the first to really discover the Americas.

All that said, thanks for the link. I have read blurbs about that particular saga, but it's been ages past. To quote Larry, your post was both refreshing and educational.