so yesterday I was assaulted... by a lawyer.

[Rastus]

Frank might be on to something...

[Solus]

I believe public executions were a crime deterrent. If we had them televised it might get through to the people who need to be shown that actions have consequences, and serious actions have serious consequences.

Might not be a bad thing....  No one will be force to watch...easily avoided, as opposed to and execution in the town square..

And I see another positive..at least in my point of view...

I have felt that our Judge, Jury and Executor system leaves no one feeling responsible for the execution.... Juror:  I just voted as I thought the evidience indicated.  Judge: I just sentenced him for the crime the jury found him guilty of.   Executioner:  Just doing my job..all I to is pull the switch.  ....  I think that if you are so convinced that the person is guilty and should die, you should also believe so to the extent you would perform the execution...and I know there are lots of problems with this...folks would vote Not Guilty to avoid blood on their hands....but...

The televised execution would tend to bring that responsibility home.

[crusader rabbit]

To continue the thought...

How about very public executions in the town square.  Guilty party is placed in  stocks.  Populace is allowed to purchase rock for public stoning.  A few dollars would buy a few small rocks.  A large donation would purchase something more hefty.  The general populace would be encouraged to participate.  The guilty party is made to pay the ultimate price at the hands of the offended public.  And, rocks are cheap.  If the majority finds the bad guy (or girl) not worthy of death, maybe only a few rocks get thrown. If the puke has molested a child, the profit margin could be enormous.

Just a thought,

Crusader Rabbit

[Big Frank]

To continue the thought...

How about very public executions in the town square.  Guilty party is placed in  stocks.  Populace is allowed to purchase rock for public stoning.  A few dollars would buy a few small rocks.  A large donation would purchase something more hefty.  The general populace would be encouraged to participate.  The guilty party is made to pay the ultimate price at the hands of the offended public.  And, rocks are cheap.  If the majority finds the bad guy (or girl) not worthy of death, maybe only a few rocks get thrown. If the puke has molested a child, the profit margin could be enormous.

Just a thought,

Crusader Rabbit

I feel that bringing money into the equation could corrupt the process. After all, rock sellers might do anything to stay in business. Plus I've seen a video of a person being stoned to death and you'd have to be a very bad person to deserve that kind of death. I also think mob justice isn't justice at all. Every person who wasn't a victim but is still throwing stones is guilty of contributing that person's death without just cause. It's the same as African mob justice that usually ends up with a necklacing after beating and stoning. That side of human behavior shouldn't be encouraged.

Another thought I just had was about when the hero in the first Starship Troopers movie was whipped. He took his prescribed number of lashes and when it was over everyone went about their business as usual. His crime wasn't held against him after he was punished. I don't think whipping is a good idea but something about their attitude afterward was appealing, like they all forgave and forgot. He screwed up, got punished, and soldiered on.

[Solus]

I don't like the "rocks" or any group execution.

The execution should not be done out of rage or revenge...but the need to eliminate a person who is evil.

I also might limit crimes to those that have a clear and intended victim. 

I look at it as being similar to eliminating a rabid dog.  There is no need to hate the dog, just the need to put it down.

[Sponsor]

[Big Frank]

I don't like the "rocks" or any group execution.

The execution should not be done out of rage or revenge...but the need to eliminate a person who is evil.

I also might limit crimes to those that have a clear and intended victim. 

I look at it as being similar to eliminating a rabid dog.  There is need to hate the dog, just the need to put it down.

+1. Mad dogs need to be put down, but only for the more serious crimes like murder, terrorism, some but not all rapes, etc.

I can't wait to find out what punishment is meted out to this lawyer. Since lawyers should know better than anyone when they're breaking the law, I hope it's the maximum, and not something like a few days of community service or anything like that.

[crusader rabbit]

I did not suggest that any but the most serious crimes should result in public stoning.  That should be reserved for the most heinous.

But, there are I think, some strong arguments for public stoning. 

After the first publicized stoning, the punishment would serve as a strong deterrent.  In my opinion, it is not possible to witness something like that and say to yourself the crime is probably worth the risk.

It provides the survivors and relatives with a measure of revenge in the biblical sense of an eye for an eye fashion.  Similarly, it provides final closure for the aggrieved. 

It also brings into sharp focus the heinous nature of the death penalty.  For those who are strongly pro-death penalty, seeing something like a stoning would give them cause for pause.  Death sentences would be reserved for only the most deserving. 

Bringing the public into the final phase of the judicial system would be one heckuva good civics lesson.

Finally, selling the stones and rocks could offset the costs of incarceration and execution.

As you may have gleaned, I offer some of these suggestions somewhat tongue in cheek. But the truth of the matter is that long delayed death sentences do nothing to curb crime.  Some of the little pukes purposefully shoot the clerk when robbing a convenience store to eliminate a witness, but also because they know they will be out of prison in 10 to 14 years and they will have additional street creds with their homeys.  Prison has a way of dealing with child molesters and the like, but it's never guaranteed.

Anyhow, I offer these thoughts to stimulate discourse and reflection.  And I apologize for deflecting the thread.

Crusader Rabbit

[Solus]

I did not suggest that any but the most serious crimes should result in public stoning.  That should be reserved for the most heinous.

But, there are I think, some strong arguments for public stoning. 

After the first publicized stoning, the punishment would serve as a strong deterrent.  In my opinion, it is not possible to witness something like that and say to yourself the crime is probably worth the risk.

It provides the survivors and relatives with a measure of revenge in the biblical sense of an eye for an eye fashion.  Similarly, it provides final closure for the aggrieved. 

It also brings into sharp focus the heinous nature of the death penalty.  For those who are strongly pro-death penalty, seeing something like a stoning would give them cause for pause.  Death sentences would be reserved for only the most deserving. 

Bringing the public into the final phase of the judicial system would be one heckuva good civics lesson.

Finally, selling the stones and rocks could offset the costs of incarceration and execution.

As you may have gleaned, I offer some of these suggestions somewhat tongue in cheek. But the truth of the matter is that long delayed death sentences do nothing to curb crime.  Some of the little pukes purposefully shoot the clerk when robbing a convenience store to eliminate a witness, but also because they know they will be out of prison in 10 to 14 years and they will have additional street creds with their homeys.  Prison has a way of dealing with child molesters and the like, but it's never guaranteed.

Anyhow, I offer these thoughts to stimulate discourse and reflection.  And I apologize for deflecting the thread.

Crusader Rabbit

Well, shoot..maybe we should stick hot irons in their orifices;  chop off appendages;  skin them alive; and finish by slow roasting them over an open fire...what a great deterrent.

I worry about what even stoning will do to the "souls" of the stoners....to me, the Guillotine would be preferable to use for execution.....to me, even justified killing done in hate, rage or revenge, other then when  under direct physical attack, is to be avoided....I don't think I'd have trouble silting their throat while they are restrained...but it would be done cold, like putting down that rabid dog...and perhaps with a bit of sadness ...not that it was being done, but that it needed to be done.

[Big Frank]

I did not suggest that any but the most serious crimes should result in public stoning.  That should be reserved for the most heinous.

But, there are I think, some strong arguments for public stoning. 

After the first publicized stoning, the punishment would serve as a strong deterrent.  In my opinion, it is not possible to witness something like that and say to yourself the crime is probably worth the risk.

It provides the survivors and relatives with a measure of revenge in the biblical sense of an eye for an eye fashion.  Similarly, it provides final closure for the aggrieved. 

It also brings into sharp focus the heinous nature of the death penalty.  For those who are strongly pro-death penalty, seeing something like a stoning would give them cause for pause.  Death sentences would be reserved for only the most deserving. 

Bringing the public into the final phase of the judicial system would be one heckuva good civics lesson.

Finally, selling the stones and rocks could offset the costs of incarceration and execution.

As you may have gleaned, I offer some of these suggestions somewhat tongue in cheek. But the truth of the matter is that long delayed death sentences do nothing to curb crime.  Some of the little pukes purposefully shoot the clerk when robbing a convenience store to eliminate a witness, but also because they know they will be out of prison in 10 to 14 years and they will have additional street creds with their homeys.  Prison has a way of dealing with child molesters and the like, but it's never guaranteed.

Anyhow, I offer these thoughts to stimulate discourse and reflection.  And I apologize for deflecting the thread.

Crusader Rabbit

Should punishment be about justice, or about getting revenge? I want revenge against those who've wronged me and understand why other crime victims would want revenge, but would it be right? Should I be allowed to attempt to kill someone who tried to kill me? As much as I'd like to I'm not sure it would be the right thing to do.

[PegLeg45]

Should punishment be about justice, or about getting revenge? I want revenge against those who've wronged me and understand why other crime victims would want revenge, but would it be right? Should I be allowed to attempt to kill someone who tried to kill me? As much as I'd like to I'm not sure it would be the right thing to do.

Indeed it should be about justice.
I tend to look at things from a biblical point of view, and the Bible says to leave vengeance to the Lord.
That is a hard thing to do, being human and imperfect. If someone harmed one of my children or grandchildren, I don't know that you guys wouldn't read of me in the news.
I pray I never have to be faced with the choice.