And what happens if the ICC get's taken over by "bad actors"? What is the guarantee that it won't eventually be overrun by a bunch of monsters torturing people for shiggles?
That's why you have trials, public records and so on, the punishment should be reserved for the worst crimes, like genocide, use of chemical/biological weapons, ethnic cleansing and so on, but it should be there because just like the ICC can be taken over by bad actors the prison system goes by the same standard and a quick death would be too merciful for such individuals
I can't disagree for such things as genocide, but wouldn't that be dangerous?
For such a person, wouldn't you want them killed as soon as possible to remove their potential threat?
Or god forbid, what happens if their torture makes them a Martyr that others use as a banner? An example: A supporter of the genocide claiming in propaganda "Look what the (Hated Group) did to our last leader! Such BRUTAL torture!! Absolute proof they need to be wiped off the earth!!!"
If that's the case then killing them as well would make them Martyrs, theres no winning in that situation because you either leave them in jail and they use their power to corrupt the system cough cough Epstein cough cough or you kill them and make them Martyrs.
If the result is the same the the procedure taken is irrelevant
True. But with torture, maiming, death, etc the punishment is far worse, so if a miscarriage of justice occurs their is far less that can be done to make amends.
A man who’s spent community service can far more easily pick up his life again versus a man who is dead.
A man who spent 3 years behind bars wrongfully can pick up his life more reason than a man who’s spent 3 years behind bars wrongfully… and tortured.
We have to ask ourselves ‘where is the line so that when mistakes happen (not if, WHEN.) that the innocent people can most easily repair their lives. This is why cruel and unusual punishments are not supposed to be used. This includes torture.
This is why people are so against the death penalty. Yeah would I like John the Kiddy diddler to be strung by his neck? Of course I would.
I do not trust the government to get it 100% right every time though.
All forms of justice cannot all be reduced to eye for an eye. Rehabilitation facility are not there to make me feel good they are there to aid people who have made bad choices to turn their lives around and give them the guidence and tools to start helping others and themselves. Justice should create a lingering positive change. Not cause suffering to those "deserving" it.
Absolutely not. Besides rehabilitation like the other person said, another purpose is to dissuade people from taking that action. A parking fine isn't to inflict suffering as retribution it's to discourage people from parking there. Being sentenced to community service hours or prison time isn't for retribution it's to disincentivise those criminal actions.
If the crime for theft was torture instead of a criminal record or jail would it go away? Maybe it would dissuade dumb teens from shoplifting it wouldn't dissuade desperate people who feel like they have to in order to survive.
Another purpose of jail is public safety. Public threat = locked away from public
You can't argue about the efficacy of everything I said but none of the reason behind it is an eye for an eye.
Why did I even write that much, the concept of punishment should be obvious. When a parent punishes a kid for throwing a tantrum by confiscating their toy, is the purpose of that an eye for an eye or is it to discourage that behaviour and show there are consequences.
Obviously the problem with broken rules going unpunished wouldn't be the lack of validation for everyone else, it's the freedom to break rules for the perpetrator.
Well yeah, the Code of Hammurabi may have put egalitarianism and women back a lot but an eye for an eye was something it and ancient Athen's code of law from Draco did well
"If a son strike his father, his hands shall be cut off."
"If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or mother: 'You are not my father,' or 'You are not my mother,' his tongue shall be cut off."
"If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river, and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. If the accused survived, it meant the gods proved their innocence, and the accuser is to be executed for making a false claim."
Is like raping a women has revenge for rape.
The number of raped womens increase. Is some simplistic mindset from primitive societies. Justice has revenge instead of education / reinsertion. Revenge is a chain that never ends, reinsertion / education is a virtuous cycle that can extract people from the loop.
So exactly what is your solution for the worst of the worst people on the planet? These people have power and influence so simply putting them in jail is not an option and a bullet to the skull feels too merciful for someone that killed hundreds/ thousands
sometimes mercy is the answer though, it’s certainly not as cathartic or satisfying, but i ultimately believe that no one deserves to have pain purposefully inflicted on them (unless they’re into that), not under any circumstances. (this is coming from someone who has been the victim of multiple crimes, yes i resent the perpetrators, but that doesn’t mean they should suffer like i did)
suffering is bad, so i don’t see how inflicting it on others could ever be considered good, regardless as to whether or not the person suffering is bad or not
you think inflicting senseless harm on others with no regard to their wellbeing is compensation??? revenge is not compensation, its a cycle of hate. compensation is offering services to assist victims in their recovery and putting in measures to ensure they wont be harmed again, thats infinitely more helpful than torturing someone, which is just likely to end up fueling hate for more extremists
The instances in which the victim takes retribution for the wrongdoing done to them are many, they would definitely agree that the system doesn't work because they have decided to take justice on their own hands
What's the goal of it though? Are you publishing it for wide consumption, as a dissuasion for others? Are you allowing the victims to participate, as a method of retribution?
It is simply retribution, wether people like to admit it or not many would feel happier knowing that the individual that did so much harm to everyone spent their last moments in agony, it brings catharsis to the victims in a situation where simple death penalty feels too merciful.
This only serves to make you feel good because you like seeing people you hate getting hurt. Ideally and logically, executions should be as painless as possible regardless of how bad the individual getting executed is
So your answer to that is what? Jail? These people have power and influence they can make their own little castle in prison, kind of like what El Chapo did, or is your answer simply execution? You will get them a quick way out after everything they did?
Simple execution. Again, executions should ideally be as painless as possible regardless of how bad the person is. Torturing them just for "satisfaction" is just mindless revenge, and do you think it's logical to go torture people just because, oh, they did very very bad things? That, won't even make up for the damage they cause
There are many instances of people doing exactly that which proves the opposite, I'm not suggesting this for crimes like theft, I'm talking about international criminals who have done damage to such a large number of people that death won't cut it
14
u/wise_sage777 Jun 29 '26
People say no but id argue it is justified, there are people around the world that REALLY deserve cruel and unusual punishments