"Cruel punishment"

[BrianEtrius]

On Charlie Rose last night (if you don't know who he is, shame on you) Mohammad-Javad Larijani, a top ranking official from Iran, was talking about the political culture of Iran and how it pertains to the world today.

One question that stood out in particular was the subject of punishment in Iranian law opposed to Western law. Larijani proposed the following situation:

A man has robbed a store and is found guilty. He has two punishments he can choose, which are

1) 1 year in prison

or

2) 10 lashes administered by the government

Now, consider the following:
Option 1 is clearly what we (the West) perceive as being just and humane. But, let's look at the consequences. For one thing, the man takes up government sponsored resources taxed from the people and he spends a year without being in society. Furthermore the punishment is much more public; the press and other prisoners are now aware of his crime and he is effectively blackballed by his community.

Now about option 2. Option 2 is a version of punishment under Iranian law. Yes, surely it sounds painful and inhumane, but consider this: the punishment would take less than a half hour, only the government and perhaps the wife would know about the crime. The man now has the option of moving on with his life instead of spending a year in jail. Also government no longer has to tax as much, as the man is not taking up resources by spending time in jail.

Of course, option 2 would never happen in the United States, as it's in the Constitution. Furthermore I am not advocating for extreme measures in punishment, like what I've said above. However, it seems to me to run a more efficient government and judicial system perhaps this way is better.

The actual interview hasn't been put up yet, when it does I'll post it.

[poxpower]

At 11/28/10 02:46 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:

A man has robbed a store and is found guilty. He has two punishments he can choose, which are

He can choose?
I wasn't aware of that.

Now about option 2. Option 2 is a version of punishment under Iranian law. Yes, surely it sounds painful and inhumane, but consider this: the punishment would take less than a half hour, only the government and perhaps the wife would know about the crime.

How is that a good thing?

All you've done is take a criminal, beat him up, and send him right back from where he came. .
We send people to prison for a long time for rehabilitation purposes where's there's social and educational programs.

Great, you lashed him, now he's just angrier and he knows he can be back on the streets within the day if he ever gets caught again.

Anyway, I don't think we have anything to envy to Iran's "justice" system.

[BrianEtrius]

At 11/28/10 03:35 AM, poxpower wrote: He can choose?
I wasn't aware of that.

For the sake of comparison, there's the two choices.

All you've done is take a criminal, beat him up, and send him right back from where he came. .
We send people to prison for a long time for rehabilitation purposes where's there's social and educational programs.

I'm not doubting that, I'm saying for minor crimes and misdemeanors we take a more direct approach instead of longer indirect government funded approach.

Great, you lashed him, now he's just angrier and he knows he can be back on the streets within the day if he ever gets caught again.

Did I say this type of punishment repeats? No. This is only for the first crime.

Or take the other option. Now we have an angry guy who's wasted a year of his life with no reform. Furthermore, if he commits another crime he knows he'll have government funded penal system to support him.

[HibiscusKazeneko]

At 11/28/10 02:46 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:
Now about option 2. Option 2 is a version of punishment under Iranian law. Yes, surely it sounds painful and inhumane, but consider this: the punishment would take less than a half hour, only the government and perhaps the wife would know about the crime. The man now has the option of moving on with his life instead of spending a year in jail. Also government no longer has to tax as much, as the man is not taking up resources by spending time in jail.

Actually, more than just the man, the government and his wife would know.
Judicial lashes are extremely painful and most importantly, they draw blood and leave permanent scars as a reminder of the crime. If anyone like a doctor saw those scars, they'd know what crime the man committed.

Of course, option 2 would never happen in the United States, as it's in the Constitution.

Technically speaking, it could happen.
The Eighth Amendment guards against "cruel and unusual" punishments, and flagellation is cruel but not unusual, so in theory it could be allowed.

However, it seems to me to run a more efficient government and judicial system perhaps this way is better.

Sad, but true. I remember Proteas ragging on a while back about how Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world because they use judicial caning. He may be right.

[satanbrain]

10 lashes? that's supposed to be intimidating? if it was 1 lash for 10 days, then it might have been useful.

[Korriken]

At 11/28/10 03:35 AM, poxpower wrote:

All you've done is take a criminal, beat him up, and send him right back from where he came. .
We send people to prison for a long time for rehabilitation purposes where's there's social and educational programs.

you ever been hit by a whip? I have, and it wasn't even one designed for hitting people, it was a freaking decoration and the pain was almost unbearable. I can only imagine what 10 lashes administered by a professional whipper using a professionally and specially made whip JUST for whipping people would feel like. I sure as hell would do my damnedest to avoid doing anything that would get me whipped again.

Great, you lashed him, now he's just angrier and he knows he can be back on the streets within the day if he ever gets caught again.

true, but if its 10 lashes this time, what is it the next time? 20? 30? 100? death?

Anyway, I don't think we have anything to envy to Iran's "justice" system.

not too much, but you can't just pass off ideas as bad without trying them. and with that *grabs whip* let's rehab a couple of petty criminals and see what happens.

[Lithium-I]

At 11/28/10 03:47 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: I'm not doubting that, I'm saying for minor crimes and misdemeanors we take a more direct approach instead of longer indirect government funded approach.

Well for most minor crimes and misdemeanors, for first offenses anyway, the government wouldn't throw you in prison for a year, most punishments for those crimes usually occur in fines that the government perhaps makes a little moolah off of. Paying a fine seems to much more practical than facing 10 lashes.

[kamil-fucker]

I think 10 lashes vs 1 year in prison is a fairly obvious choice for the offender.
10 lashes: painful for a few weeks maybe.
1 year in prison: cut off from society for a whole year? Yeah...

Also from a government's point of view is a lot better: less tax money goes to waste on maintaining prison and it's inhabitants and the offender can go back to work, or atleast do something useful a days after the lashings.

It's a well-known fact that petty criminals can grow into hardend murderers in jail.

So despite that fact I hate Iran, I think they got a good point here.

[Lithium-I]

At 11/28/10 01:07 PM, kamil-fucker wrote: So despite that fact I hate Iran, I think they got a good point here.

I can't believe people actually think lashings are good idea of punishment. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Punishing with pain is barbarian, a throwback to societies built on military might, slavery and the treatment of criminals as humans without any rights. The mark of civilized society is that it behaves better than its criminals. Prison is necessary as a method of punishment, prevention and rehabilitation, but it does not (or at least should not) stoop to cruelty; which is why the UN Declaration of Human Rights forbids "torture or... cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

[poxpower]

At 11/28/10 11:47 AM, Korriken wrote:

I sure as hell would do my damnedest to avoid doing anything that would get me whipped again.

But you would.. go to prison?
??

I love these "prison is so nice, people would rather go to it than be free and work a job" arguments. It's the same as the "people on welfare are just lazy, why pay them?".

The point of prison is not PUNISHMENT, it's REHAB and TAKING A CRIMINAL ELEMENT OUT OF SOCIETY.

Yes, I know how it helps THE CRIMINAL ( in the short term ) to put him back on the street with his buds after a day, but how does it help ME?

Iran whips people FOR ANYTHING btw. They have a "moral police". And they do have prisons, where more whipping occurs. They also have stoning and the death penalty.

true, but if its 10 lashes this time, what is it the next time? 20? 30? 100? death?

Apparently it's just for the first offense!
So if you get caught once, you get lashed, but THEN you go to prison!

How many repeat offenders do you think you'll have with whips vs education?

not too much, but you can't just pass off ideas as bad without trying them.

Sure you can, that's why I never ate my own poo.

[Warforger]

At 11/28/10 01:20 PM, Lithium-I wrote:

At 11/28/10 01:07 PM, kamil-fucker wrote: So despite that fact I hate Iran, I think they got a good point here.

I can't believe people actually think lashings are good idea of punishment. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Punishing with pain is barbarian, a throwback to societies built on military might, slavery and the treatment of criminals as humans without any rights. The mark of civilized society is that it behaves better than its criminals. Prison is necessary as a method of punishment, prevention and rehabilitation, but it does not (or at least should not) stoop to cruelty; which is why the UN Declaration of Human Rights forbids "torture or... cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Humans are animals, humans then associate pain with bad, if they do something bad then receive pain they know that its bad. This is something kids understand, they don't however understand being locked away for a while if they aren't told what they did or just find out its not that bad and do it again, so the good parent would hit their child as you can't punish a child all the time by locking them in a room.

This is common sense, if lashings are painful then good, they're not supposed to feel good. I don't see how this is cruel, its quick and effective. I also don't see how stoning is cruel and unusual either, if your going to execute someone they're going to die anyway so why be so strict in the means they do it.

[Lithium-I]

At 11/28/10 01:35 PM, Warforger wrote: Humans are animals, humans then associate pain with bad, if they do something bad then receive pain they know that its bad. This is something kids understand, they don't however understand being locked away for a while if they aren't told what they did or just find out its not that bad and do it again, so the good parent would hit their child as you can't punish a child all the time by locking them in a room.

This is common sense, if lashings are painful then good, they're not supposed to feel good. I don't see how this is cruel, its quick and effective. I also don't see how stoning is cruel and unusual either, if your going to execute someone they're going to die anyway so why be so strict in the means they do it.

Sure, humans are animals. But no civilized country treats them as such, they treat them as humans, separate from the animal kingdom. And yeah, the whole "this shit hurts, I'm not doing that again" holds up too, but only since it's a smaller part of "fuck, punishment sucks, I'm not doing that again." Prison works fine as a crime deterrent, why add a violation of the eight amendment?

Also, a good parent would NOT physical abuse their children. Do you know how much long lasting mental harm that does? Far more than any physical harm.

[SolInvictus]

false dichotomies are fun!

[LordJaric]

At 11/28/10 01:56 PM, Lithium-I wrote: Also, a good parent would NOT physical abuse their children. Do you know how much long lasting mental harm that does? Far more than any physical harm.

Ever heard of spanking, it's not going to cause mental problems for kids, when they get spanked for doing something wrong then they learn that what they did is wrong and avoid doing it again.

[kamil-fucker]

At 11/28/10 02:17 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 11/28/10 01:56 PM, Lithium-I wrote: Also, a good parent would NOT physical abuse their children. Do you know how much long lasting mental harm that does? Far more than any physical harm.

Ever heard of spanking, it's not going to cause mental problems for kids, when they get spanked for doing something wrong then they learn that what they did is wrong and avoid doing it again.

The same goes for criminals, if they receive 10 lashes for stealing something, they'll go: "Fuck, take this good-looking TV and risk another shitload of lashes, don't think so"

As where you put a thief in prison, the tough prison culture forces him to become more violent and agressive then he normally would be, because he has to survive between murderers, rapists, drug dealers etc...

One might argue, that in the light of this, it's more humane to lash some-one, then to put him with even bigger criminals then himself.

For example, if you have a violent dog, and you want this behavior to end, would you put him between even more violent dogs? Or would you place him with good-behaving dogs, to show him the proper example? Clear choice it seems to me.

[Lithium-I]

At 11/28/10 02:17 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 11/28/10 01:56 PM, Lithium-I wrote: Also, a good parent would NOT physical abuse their children. Do you know how much long lasting mental harm that does? Far more than any physical harm.

Ever heard of spanking, it's not going to cause mental problems for kids, when they get spanked for doing something wrong then they learn that what they did is wrong and avoid doing it again.

"The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults." Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cg i/content/full/101/4/723

[Lithium-I]

At 11/28/10 03:13 PM, kamil-fucker wrote: The same goes for criminals, if they receive 10 lashes for stealing something, they'll go: "Fuck, take this good-looking TV and risk another shitload of lashes, don't think so"

As where you put a thief in prison, the tough prison culture forces him to become more violent and agressive then he normally would be, because he has to survive between murderers, rapists, drug dealers etc...

One might argue, that in the light of this, it's more humane to lash some-one, then to put him with even bigger criminals then himself.

For example, if you have a violent dog, and you want this behavior to end, would you put him between even more violent dogs? Or would you place him with good-behaving dogs, to show him the proper example? Clear choice it seems to me.

There are always alternative punishments that can be used in prison: solitary confinement, the removal of privileges, extension of sentence and so on. Mistreatment of prisoners is particularly open to excessive abuse from prison supervisors who seek to maintain order through a climate of fear.

Furthermore, look at the crime rates of countries that employ than those that don't. That alone should point out what is more effective as a deterrent.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 11/28/10 02:17 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 11/28/10 01:56 PM, Lithium-I wrote:

when they get spanked for doing something wrong then they learn that what they did is wrong and avoid doing it again.

Nah, the kid doesn't learn shit outside of "pain sucks." Now, if you mean EXPLAINING to them why it was wrong after you've gone over and slapped their shit, well then that's a whole different story.

[Korriken]

At 11/28/10 01:22 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/28/10 11:47 AM, Korriken wrote:

I sure as hell would do my damnedest to avoid doing anything that would get me whipped again.

But you would.. go to prison?
??

I already avoid prison like the plague. however if the only option was a beating, a lot of people would avoid it.

I love these "prison is so nice, people would rather go to it than be free and work a job" arguments. It's the same as the "people on welfare are just lazy, why pay them?".

who said that? not me. Prison sucks, no doubt about it. However, locking people up for every minor thing isn't solving our problems.

The point of prison is not PUNISHMENT, it's REHAB and TAKING A CRIMINAL ELEMENT OUT OF SOCIETY.

or, taking a criminal and putting him in a criminal society, where he can learn even more from more experienced criminals, and to be traumatized by the other inmates, including being raped.

Yes, I know how it helps THE CRIMINAL ( in the short term ) to put him back on the street with his buds after a day, but how does it help ME?

how does locking someone away, placing with them other criminals for a few years help you?

Iran whips people FOR ANYTHING btw. They have a "moral police". And they do have prisons, where more whipping occurs. They also have stoning and the death penalty.

good for them. Also, the only country who executes more people is china.

true, but if its 10 lashes this time, what is it the next time? 20? 30? 100? death?

Apparently it's just for the first offense!
So if you get caught once, you get lashed, but THEN you go to prison!

meh they're doing it wrong. We could start with a single lash to show the petty criminal a taste of what's to come if they keep fucking up. 2nd time, 2 lashes, then add 1 more for each repeat offense. he'll either knock that shit off or be whipped to death eventually.

How many repeat offenders do you think you'll have with whips vs education?

depends on how good the whipper can tear flesh. Also, education doesn't seem to be working all that well. I say we beat a few petty crooks and see what happens. also, if whipping people is considered too brutal, we could also go for a caning across the ass. and since americans are such pussies, we can devise some form of small pad so prevent serious bruising and bleeding.

not too much, but you can't just pass off ideas as bad without trying them.

Sure you can, that's why I never ate my own poo.

well eating your own poo can cause all kinds of illnesses. but popping someone with a good piece of leather will only cause blood loss, intense pain, and infection if not treated with a little antiseptic afterward.

[Warforger]

At 11/28/10 01:56 PM, Lithium-I wrote: Sure, humans are animals. But no civilized country treats them as such, they treat them as humans, separate from the animal kingdom. And yeah, the whole "this shit hurts, I'm not doing that again" holds up too, but only since it's a smaller part of "fuck, punishment sucks, I'm not doing that again." Prison works fine as a crime deterrent, why add a violation of the eight amendment?

Up until they don't care, I mean they only live in them for so long before they're out again, even then when they form prison gangs it isn't even as bad anymore.

Also, a good parent would NOT physical abuse their children. Do you know how much long lasting mental harm that does? Far more than any physical harm.

.......Bullshit. Thats the parent going too far, beating isn't necessarily the same as spanking or hitting, when I was a kid my dad would hit me but that didn't mentally harm me. I do the same thing to my cats when they do something wrong, peck them on the head, it hurts them but they know not to do what they did again and they're mentally stable.

[yurgenburgen]

Yeah that's just stupid. It basically means that people who have come from tough backgrounds who know how to take a beating are going to be able to go out and steal, and be back on the streets within a day if they get caught.

Giving the criminal that option just suggests to them that the government doesn't really want them to go to jail, presumably economic reasons. It's giving the criminal the upper hand.

[Korriken]

At 11/29/10 02:04 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: Yeah that's just stupid. It basically means that people who have come from tough backgrounds who know how to take a beating are going to be able to go out and steal, and be back on the streets within a day if they get caught.

Giving the criminal that option just suggests to them that the government doesn't really want them to go to jail, presumably economic reasons. It's giving the criminal the upper hand.

you've obviously never been struck on our back or ass with an object hard enough to rip flesh. there's no such thing as being "tough enough" to take that kind of beating. even a hardened criminal would be squealing like a stuck pig when the leather hits his back a few times.

[SolInvictus]

At 11/29/10 09:06 AM, Korriken wrote: even a hardened criminal would be squealing like a stuck pig when the leather hits his back a few times.

even those who put up with the non-consentual butt-sex when they get sent to jail, and who still return to a life of crime afterwards? you'd think the double wammy of confinement and aggressive cell mates would make people realise crime doesn't pay, its just a pain in the butt. *zing!*

[BrianEtrius]

Here is the interview I am referring to.The bit in which this thread is based on is around the 18 minute mark.

[Korriken]

At 11/29/10 12:55 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

even those who put up with the non-consentual butt-sex when they get sent to jail, and who still return to a life of crime afterwards? you'd think the double wammy of confinement and aggressive cell mates would make people realise crime doesn't pay, its just a pain in the butt. *zing!*

being struck on the back with a hard piece of leather or thin rattan cane is something that very very few men could handle more than 2 or 3 hits from.

tell ya what, go find a good real leather belt, find someone with a decent build. wet your back and have that person strike you on your bare back with the belt as hard as they can.

multiply that by about 20. that's what being hit a whip feels like. tell me how many people you know would go do some kind of petty crime if that's what's gonna happen to them.

[SolInvictus]

At 11/29/10 10:38 PM, Korriken wrote: multiply that by about 20. that's what being hit a whip feels like. tell me how many people you know would go do some kind of petty crime if that's what's gonna happen to them.

cool, but making a joke about jail rape doesn't mean i was attempting to represent whipping/caning as a less than barbaric practice.

nor is getting sexually assaulted for that matter... but we aren't exactly discussing that in this thread...
although how common that is in the prisons housing low-risk inmates might be relevant

[Korriken]

At 11/29/10 10:57 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

cool, but making a joke about jail rape doesn't mean i was attempting to represent whipping/caning as a less than barbaric practice.

nor is getting sexually assaulted for that matter... but we aren't exactly discussing that in this thread...
although how common that is in the prisons housing low-risk inmates might be relevant

and putting someone in a cage isn't barbaric? the problem with people today is they lack a spine. they see things as "barbaric" when its unpleasant. Canings and executions seem to be working well in Singapore, which is one of the safest countries in the world. Petty crimes often find you on the business end of a Rattan cane, drug smuggling find you on the business end of a length of rope and the forces of gravity.

then in America, we got spineless cowards afraid to punish wrongdoers and our crime rate? horrible.

Of course, some subcultures of the people living in America doesn't help. There is a reason why certain groups of people end up in jail more often than others.

[SolInvictus]

At 11/29/10 11:09 PM, Korriken wrote: and putting someone in a cage isn't barbaric?

could be; imprisonment is a pretty new concept, and we like to think our fancy, modern solutions to crime are without fault.
the problem with simple "which is better" comparisons is that while we can look at the pros and cons for each, as well as which is more effective, it tends to limit how we look at things, i.e. we're pointing out how neither is particularly enlightened or without harm to the individual (although that could be a negative for some), yet we don't seem interested in seeking other solutions to the issue.

restorative justice would be an example of another means of dealing with crime, though i have no idea how effective it is against reoffense [can't imagine it being anymore so than incarceration]

[poxpower]

At 11/29/10 12:52 AM, Korriken wrote:

I already avoid prison like the plague. however if the only option was a beating, a lot of people would avoid it.

Yes people will avoid both the beating and the prison.

who said that? not me. Prison sucks, no doubt about it. However, locking people up for every minor thing isn't solving our problems.

change the law?

or, taking a criminal and putting him in a criminal society, where he can learn even more from more experienced criminals, and to be traumatized by the other inmates, including being raped.

Well whippings don't solve how badly prison are run.
Eventually you can't just empty the prisons and whip everyone to death, you'll have to put some of them in prison and then you're no better off except you've whipped a bunch of dudes.

how does locking someone away, placing with them other criminals for a few years help you?

It removes them from society.

meh they're doing it wrong. We could start with a single lash to show the petty criminal a taste of what's to come if they keep fucking up. 2nd time, 2 lashes, then add 1 more for each repeat offense. he'll either knock that shit off or be whipped to death eventually.

Right and just for fun, are you going to do that with rapists? Murderers?
How about pregnant women? Or people with hemophilia?
What if you cause permanent scars with your lashing? What if you cause permanent nerve damage?
What about old people?

What bout people like Bernie Madoff? No one gives a fuck if he gets whipped, we just want him to give the money back and not ever do it again. Seems like locking him up is the best way to make sure of that, not beating the shit out of him and putting him back on the circuit with his millions of dollars.

depends on how good the whipper can tear flesh. Also, education doesn't seem to be working all that well.

Well the US does have one of the shittiest prison systems on the face of this earth, along with the stupidest laws for putting people in prison.
Compare it to Canada for instance: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/foru m/e053/e053h-eng.shtml

Though I'll admit it's still pretty high.

Maybe we should whip people for the SECOND offense. I like that system better. The first time we catch you, we put you in and try to rehabilitate you, but if you come back, then it's whipping time.

Though, as you have already said, if people are being raped in prison and yet go back anyway, what makes you think whipping is going to make a difference??
Especially given that you admit more people would probably rather be whipped than jailed.

So if you're making the sentence less harsh, why do you expect recidivism to go down?

[satanbrain]

the idea of prison is to deter potential ciminals and make the criminals caught suffer, it is not a therapy reward given to one who violates the law.