Wow!
Shortly after posting the OP yesterday, I went into hiding, i.e. I turned off the internet, realizing that I had bitten off more than I can chew, so to speak. So, if any of you asked questions and did't receive a reply from me, now you know why.
First let me clear up several points that were very confusing/baffling to you:
that can of beans: 'modified' correctly identified what meaning I had intended to convey. Thank you!
Fiona and others: yes, I am aware that there is a contradiction between claiming on the one hand to have a thin skin and on the other hand proposing a brutal form of punishment! All I can offer as a response is that I am fairly sensitive (especially to criticism/rejection) and that I was am sincere in my fiercely angry attitude toward perpetrators of the most heinous crimes.
This creature Joseph Duncan, to whom I referred, is an individual who murdered a woman and her boyfriend as well as one of the woman's three young children in nearby Northern Idaho a few years ago. He then kidnapped the other two youngsters and went camping in Idaho and Western Montana with them, eventually killing the young boy, and he apparently regularly sexually abused the little girl (about 6 years old). He was finally captured while having breakfast at a
fast food establishment and he has confessed to all the murders and the sexual abuse of the girl. His trial went on seemingly forever and he finally was sentenced to death on three federal counts, then had to stand trial in Idaho state court for the remaining charges (kidnapping & murder); then apparently California authorities were able to connect this creature to an unsolved murder in that state, and they in turn are waiting for their turn to try this individual. By the time all trials will be over a period of over 2 years will have elapsed, millions of tax dollars will have been spent doing that, several attorneys will have received a considerable amount of money for their services, and then, years from now, after all appeals will have been taken care of, this creature will likely finally be executed.
This individual will have lead a relatively comfortable several years in jail, with amenities like TV, radio, telephone access, newspaper access. library access, heat, airconditioning, food prepared & provided free, likely some social interaction with other inmates, etc. So his freedom has been somewhat restricted and he can very likely expect to be executed for the four (possibly five) murders and for the kidnapping & sexual abuse of that little girl....And most of you think that THAT is enough punishment for the unfathomable horrors he inflicted on his victims and their relatives & friends? THAT is suppoed to be a civilised reaction/punishment? Does that strike you as fair?
And you wonder why on earth I virtually scream my anger and outrage at such an obcene lack of judicial proportion?
Where on earth is your empathy for the victims?
Most of you seem more intent on preserving society's image of behaving in a civilised manner!
Some of you stated that revenge serves no purpose, nobody benefits from it...What I propose is NOT intended to benefit anyone!!! We're not talking about some effing accounting problem!
No, 'tapio', I would not pay, nor should anyone pay to SEE such punishments! I'm not interested in shaming these creatures, they're far beyond any effect that such public shaming might have on them!
I want those creatures like Duncan to live until they're 99 years old! I want them to suffer every day they are alive. I would grant them just enough medical care to keep them alive! They ought not have any opportunity to 'opt out', i.e. to commit suicide!
I am convinced that there ARE many studies that have indicated/proven that punishment does not deter. My response:
other than a partial/relative restriction of an individual's freedom, what kind of 'punishment' are we talking about here as it exists now? Doesn't incarceration nowadays
not include comfortable bunks & cells, heating, air-conditioning, free preparation and provision of food, availability/access to TV, radio, newspapers, library materials, telephones, conjugal visits,
recreational activities, hot showers? Do inmates have to worry about earning enough money to afford such amenities? Do they have to worry about paying taxes, paying for utilities?
It does NOT suprise me that the studies referred to do not support the notion that punishment does not deter potential criminals!!! Hey, to some of those individuals life in prison is a heck of a lot more secure/comfortable than life on the outside.
Do you still wonder why I posted my proposal?
Gate2501-you either misunderstood what I had proposed or you intentionally made a mockery of it with your caricatures of potential reactions! I did/do not propose public spectacles.
The availability of buying a ticket to personally inflict a prescribed punishment on the Joseph Duncans would be a way of venting one's anger/outrage for the horrible crimes that such creatures have (beyond any doubt) committed.
I doubt that strapping as I propose (multiple leather straps fastened to a handle) would toughen the criminal's skin, especially if administered onto bare skin, six or seven days a week.
Darth Rotor-Yes, I complained about the cost and length of trial(s) for a creature like J.Duncan- I am outraged why such costly theatrics should be done in cases when the guilt of the criminal has already been established. Yes, a bullet would be cheaper, but you seem to not have considered that I do not think that any human being or society has the right to take another human life! And NO! I was not thinking of what George Carlin had proposed.
My proposal is indeed very crude in details and stipulations, more intelligent persons would undoubtedly be able to reach more amenable provisions.
Only a few of you seem to have understood/shared to a degree my ourage at the insufficiencies of the current state of our judicial system.
Others were more interested in proving me wrong or insane.
I myself am NOT interested in proving any of you wrong. I am NOT interested in making a mark, so to speak. I feel very strongly that the most heinous crimes fin no relatively fair and just punishments! Timothy McVeigh was responsible for the death of 169 human beings, for the injury (physical, emotional & psychological) of thousands more. He was, after lengthy legal maneuvers, executed. Does the accumulation of his horrendous crime not warrant a more severe punishment than that of Josph Duncan??? The discrepancy between those two crimes and punishments (execution) alone is reason enough to oppose the death penalty!
A human life in this country is not valued very highly. Many feel the life of an unborn human being is worth more than the life of a murderer. Each state in this country does not place the same value on a human life. I think that is outrageous and obscene!
I feel very strongly that perpetrators of the most heinous crimes should be severely punished, and that there ought to be some sort of fair gradations between punishments. The death penalty does not differentiate between someone who killed on person and somone like McVeigh. To me one method of differentiating between punishments for those most horrible crimes would be physical punishment/torture, because one CAN somewhat differentiate in that regard.
Billydkid- you are correct in pointing out that my proposal has many legal ramifications and will therefore never be adopted by society.
Praktik--if you consider the status of our legal system, especially in regard to punshments-progress, then yes! my proposal could logically be considered 'regression'!
I for one do not consider the punishments handed out for the most heinous crimes 'progress'. I have tried sincerely (and likely failed again!) to explain my reasons.
JihadJane--I don't know if you were serious with your comment;
I fully agree if you were! Those two (and others) are war criminals and ought to be tried as such!
Tricky--unlike you, I do NOT believe in the rehabilitation of perpetrators of the most heinous crimes, whether they are found to be insane or sane in the eyes of the law! And NO! I do not consider 'Schadenfreude' a motive for my proposal of torture, and I hope I have made clear why I for one consider the 'proofs' that there exists no correlation between punishment and deterrence completely wrong.
And for all of you who still cannot understand why I proposed what I did: I want the criminals of the category of McVeigh & Duncan to suffer for their horrible deeds, and do so for as many years as possible. NO! that will not undo the horrors committed. And NO! I for one do not think that society would be judged to have regressed or to be insane or uncivilised.!
When extreme criminals enjoy the same or more rights/privileges than law biding citizens,then THAT is to me a sign of a sick society.
As to my thoughts or positions, I feel that my freedom from superstition (=organised religion) allows me to reason and still consider myself an ethical human being.
This post has exhausted me, drained me emotionally.
I will return to this section tomorrow and try to digest and reply to further comments/condemnations by you.
One more time: I assure you that my thoughts/positions are sincere; they are NOT meant to offend or upset you, although they apparently have done so already!
For that I am truly sorry!
Michael
(I freely admit to being a co-developer of this program with a fellow teacher in Hillsborough County Florida in ca1982 or 3)
