Why NOT amputation for theft?

Post Reply New Topic

How did I miss this?

There are crimes where because of the criminals social or economic conditions fines, jail, and loss of status mean little or nothing. In these cases a good sound Singapore style thrashing would be the best deterrent.

I wrote a poem about the guillotine.

The guillotine
The guillotine
The guillotine
It's a beheading machine!
Chop chop off goes the top!

Focusing on what motivates crime...

That pretty much says it all. Hey give us a Marxist utopia and you've got no crime.

What say you about the truly evil mfs like Tedd Bundy and John Wayne Gacy? Would a Marxist utopia stop Jeffry Dahmer from making fried human biceps on his stove top? Don't you think a quick execution would be preferable to imprisoning these monsters forever at tax payer expense?

I don't believe the state ever has the authority to murder.

Killing in war, for self defense, and in execution of a judicial sentence is by definition not murder.

BTW this buy nothing on black friday stuff is old news, it or something like it has been around since at least 1992.

I've been aware of Buy Nothing Day for as long as I've been aware of Black Friday.
It just seems like more people are becoming aware of it, which seems like a positive development.

That tends to be how the state defines it but they do have a conflict of interest in that regard.

Looks like more malcontents who hate holidays white people like just because they like them. Did you know Kwanzza was made up by a convict from his prison cell?

For my mentality, amputation of a hand for theft (especially not-so-large theft) looks very vile and unjust, cruel, utterly barbaric, "idiotic"... It may even looks as less just than capital punishment (which might be allowed only in really severe crimes).

I have "internal war" in my mentality between "lenient", "turbo-universalistic" monotheistic beliefs (which are not supported by books from antiquity and medieval times) and harsh abrahamic monotheism which are based for example on Quran or Torah. "Turbo-universalism" "calls" abrahamic religions the most diabolical ones despite the fact that they are usually monotheistic. But for "turbo-universalism" having monotheism in set of beliefs is one of things that make severe religions based on Bible, Quran, Torah, Book of Enoch so successful and so dangerous and, according to "turbo-universalistic" position, so evil. Monotheism is logical for me, severe punishments (especially for "small" crimes") look as a form of evil to my "mentality". My "mentality" "knows that there is only one deity, but it does not know which set of monotheistic beliefs is true" (the "mentality" supposes that it would be better when any of the abrahamic religions would be true because it wants pleasure and comfort without end even for the most "perverted" sentient creatures).

I think a just society doesn't decide to kill people just because keeping them alive is more expensive.

In Canada, the death penalty was abolished in large part because of the recognition that the occasional error is inevitable, and the decision that executing an innocent person is so morally abhorrent that we shouldn't execute anyone, just in case. A big part of this was the case of Steven Truscott, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment (in large part because he was a juvenile), and later revealed to have been innocent of the murder he almost got killed over.

I also believe that redemption, while unlikely for some people, can't be definitely known to be impossible as long as a person remains alive. While lifelong imprisonment may be necessary to prevent harm to other people, we should leave open the possibility for redemption as much as possible. And even behind bars, it's possible to make choices to have a more positive impact on people than you've had in the past.

There's also some neuroscience research raising questions about the nature of free will and psychopathology, which makes me wonder how to reconcile these findings with a justice system predicated on the idea of punishing people for freely-chosen acts. For example, someone who's been abused by every significant adult in their life so far, including having an abusive parent force them to abuse their sibling - how responsible is that person, really, if they abuse more people when they're out of that environment? How could they have learned to act in any other way? There's also evidence that the relationship between abuse victimization and violence perpetration is influenced by genetics - ie, people with certain genes are more likely to become violent if abused - and genetics certainly aren't a choice. It raises concerns for me about the whole concept of punishment, and especially capital punishment.

I say bring the miscreants before this wonderful man.



Here's a guy who loved his job and would never go for a fake sick day or any garbage like that. Just strap the criminals naked to a frame and let him go hog wild.