In many situations it would be better to impose a punishment of torture than imprisonment. The fact that the U.S. justice system rejects torture as a punishment is the result of an anti-torture bias.
I'd like to underline that the impersonal nature of imprisonment (as opposed, particularly, to the torture-by-vicitm scenario) is a partof the message..it signals that a crime is a crime against society...
" Yet our society considers it barbaric for a criminal justice system to deliberately torture criminals in ways that may well impose less physical and emotional costs than rape does.
How about climbing *up* the slippery slope, by no longer tolerating prison rape?
If you want a form of judicial torture whic, unlioke prison violence, is just and measured, you will have to have someone to oeversee the torture, and assure that it is not excessive, and that is a professional class of torturers, the second removes
"..it's an accidental and perhaps unavoidable byproduct..."
Perhaps if everyone stops thinking its unavoidable, it can be avoided.
"When you commit criminal acts against society you forfeit all rights as a human being"
Says who? And where's the bar? Can I have your liver if you drop litter?
"After conviction, throw the judge out of the courtroom and let the victim or survivors select the punishment from among the options permitted by law.
THAT is GUARANTEED to have a deterrent effect! That will get criminals thinking about how the victims feel as it will now be coupled to what the criminal risks if caught."
You can get criminals to undertand how victimes feel by arranging meetings with victims.
Your scheme for a vengeance-based jusstice system tacitly assumes that nobody will want to exact revenge in turn. Everybody sees themselves as being in the right, which is why vendettas run and run.
If brutal punishment were effective puishment, the US would have a low rate of crime instead of high one.
I see the victims or their survivors being the torturers.
This avoids the creation of a professional class of torturers, though probably state employed professionals would 'set the scene,' e. g. with prisoner tied to post for flogging. Some victims might need help due to incapacity. But these more ancillary functions could be spread around, preferably to private related parties, and not create a 'torturer' class.
Some victims would punish the miscreant, some would do it with relish. Others would puke halfway through. Still others would refuse to do any such thing.
But if anyone knows what justice is in that situation, it is the victim.
Deterrence isn't medieval. It's something all sane people seek.
The only way to guarantee no rapes, infections, and beatings is to keep all prisoners in solitary. This is generally considered inhumane and is also quite expensive.
We do NOT want bureaucracies to benefit from torture or it will get out of control in no time.
I view justice for victims as more along the lines of implementing a little Sharia. Who knows what is justice better than the victim or their family and friends?
After conviction, throw the judge out of the courtroom and let the victim or survivors select the punishment from among the options permitted by law.
THAT is GUARANTEED to have a deterrent effect! That will get criminals thinking about how the victims feel as it will now be coupled to what the criminal risks if caught.
E. g. rape a teen-age girl? Better hope her, her father and her brothers are forgiving turn the other cheek Christian types so they don't vote for life without parole plus 50,000 years in solitary with occasional blasts from a rock-salt loaded shotgun.
This proposal may not protect priests and nuns and Quakers adequately so perhaps the judge would need the authority to set a minimum punishment that would come into play if the victim were too lenient (or were intimidated by criminals).
If you add the prospect of torture as a punishment crimes that create victims will come to a screeching halt. Is a pissed off ex husband really going to sock his former wife if she and her mother are offered their choice of horsewhips or cats'o'nine tails while he's tied to a post?
Being a crime victim is often torture, always traumatic, and unlike being a criminal, the victim usually did nothing to deserve the punishment they got. Thus if we can prevent future crimes by torturing some criminals the total amount of torture people experience is NOT increased, and at least more of it goes to people who deserve some sort of consequence.
He doesn't agree it is any more serious crime against humanity than imprisonment.
You're upset because you were tortured for no good reason. You'd be just as upset if you were imprisoned for no good reason. If you had any significant amount of money and property and the state took it all, you'd be upset too.
Criminals are always upset when they get punished, because they don't think the crime was wrong - they wouldn't have committed it if they did.
So the legitimate question is what are the permissible ways of imposing a negative consequence on the perpetrator that will protect society, not whether imposing the consequence on innocent bystanders for fun is appropriate.
incentivizes pharmaceutical companies to imprison innocents.
people who are imprisoned for drug possession, are people, not animals. "if you go to prison for breaking the law you're evil" assumes both "you really did break the law" and "the law is a good law".
also, you're a felonhttp://www.killercop.com/pe...
prison is torture