Send him to the iron maiden!

Do you think torture is acceptable under any circumstances? If so, what are those circumstances? If not, why don't you think it is acceptable? Explain!

I believe that if you desire answers from someone, sympathy and pity with physical contact work better than pain. There was an experiment down where a guy "dropped" $100 on the ground, and a stranger would pick it up. The guy would then find the stranger, and put his arm on his shoulder, crying and telling him why he "needed" the money. 9 times out of 10, the stranger gave the money back to him. Then, to contrast that, the guy did everything again, but without touching the strangers. Only 3 people gave him the money back. It was later revealed to the strangers that it had been an experiment, and that the money wasn't real.

It was the same people who sent the clown on a unicycle to a college campus to test how aware people were of their surroundings while on the phone and what not. Simple answer is: most people didn't even notice the clown.

And, just to correct you on something, the Iron Maiden was not a real torture device. In fact, it is thought to have been created in 1793 as a commercial artifact to amaze people. Simple fact of the matter is, as far as torture devices would have gone, it would have killed the prisoners outright.

What is capital punishment? Whati s the iron maiden? Both are the death penalty. It was used a lot more in ancient times, but it is now looked down upon by the majority people (cough Republicans) in America. It is seen as an extremist act, but I believe in it. If a person has done something horrible like murder many people or raped someone then they should have the choice of either life in prison or the death penalty. Right now out of the 50 states (counting the District Of Columbia), so 51, Thirteen states do not have the death penalty: Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Why should there be a death penalty, and why should there not be a death penalty?

The Death penalty fails to rehabilitate. What would it accomplish to put someone on death row? The person would not learn from their mistakes, they would not have time to think on what they had done. One of the most famous serial killers of all time, Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted of at least seventeen murders. Many wanted to see him killed, but the court ruled him for life in prison. While in prison, a preacher came to visit Dahmer, and he was converted to Christianity. Dahmer's sick view of life, all changed in prison. He was a reformed man, and was killed by his inmates later on. Dahmer was able to baptize his old way of life and now had a different perspective. Who would have changed when he got out, I don't know. Anyways, yes the death penalty gives criminals a way to think and repent of their actions but many don't do it.

The Death Penalty scares criminals and gives them an easy way out. I don't think that the death penalty is working because felons have not decreased. When you commit a felony, it is a matter of free will. No one is compelled to commit armed robbery, murder, or rape. The average citizen does not have a mind or intentions to become a killer or being falsely accused of murder. What he is worried about is being a victim. He is not worried about his repercussions. Many people do fear death however, so this may stop some crime but not much. It seems that felines have only increased in America over the years tbh. Many advocates against the death penalty say that it is the same as murder. Does an eye for an eye really make the whole world blind?

I think the death penalty should only be issued if a criminal chooses so. If they don't want to spend the rest of their life in prison and want an escape out then that should be their right. I think it would be more torture to stay in prison my entire life, than to die a quick death from the electric chair.

I might sound like a harsh person saying this, but I think the death penalty should be viable, not necessarily torture. Continuously causing suffering to an individual with the hopes of getting the idea that what they've done is unlawful is painful to imagine. Based on my personal belief, giving criminals a life sentence would essentially mean them suffering from terrible conditions for the rest of their life. What's the point? Were prisons designed to rehabilitate individuals and change their way of thinking? In the case of life sentence without possibility of parole, I don't see a point in keeping an individual there.

And then there are those convicted who get sentences that are less severe than they should be in reference to the crime they committed. I may have an unpopular opinion regarding capital punishment and the way criminals should be handled but it's based on my personal belief in ending people's suffering.

Only a select few truly deserve it, a prominent example is Dzokhar Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombers. He does not deserve any sympathy.

I believe that a prisoner condemned to death should be able to choose to either have life without parole, or a quick, painless death by bullet. The current method of capital punishment, lethal injection, can cause a drawn-out, agonizing death.

acatfrommars said:

Right now out of the 50 states (counting the District Of Columbia), so 51, Thirteen states do not have the death penalty: Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Click to expand...

You have forgotten Kansas, surprisingly they don't do it either.

Atomic Pirate said:

I believe that a prisoner condemned to death should be able to choose to either have life without parole, or a quick, painless death by bullet. The current method of capital punishment, lethal injection, can cause a drawn-out, agonizing death.

Click to expand...

As much as that sounds logical any death penalty at all is still wrong.

In my opinion, even being an officer or executioner, it still makes you a murderer if you kill someone being death penalty. It doesn't make you any better than them, plus seeing as how they are going away for killing, killing them doesn't make it right. Like people say, two wrongs don't make a right. Usually. It would only have to be logical and somewhat okay to kill someone if that person not only threatened the life of an individual, but the lives of the population. But death as a punishment AFTER killing someone sometimes months to years later is not right, it's like trying to train a pet then, it has to be consistent, and it has to be quick.
Plus there are many people that change when they are waiting for their death because it's always super slow, they could spend 20+ years in prison before they go to the chamber for the lethal-injection and that is just plain wrong. If people in there were telling the truth, they truly did change their ways, and learned from their mistakes because of the nightmares and hardship of prison but still have to DIE.
I just think it's similar to the French revolution but not as deadly so as to not provoke the human population into a riot at the states that do death penalties.

I don't think torture is viable. Western society seems to have this obsession with retribution. But if you were tortured for a long time for doing [insert crime here], do you think you would try to actually stop, or would you just accept your fate and deal with it? Psychological studies suggest the latter.

If anything, punishment should be replaced with rehabilitation, especially in the case of lesser crimes. And yeah, that's been proven to help keep readmission rates low. But yeah. Keep torturing people. Because it sooo helped last time.

I don't think torture is effective enough as a method to make up for its cruel and dehumanizing nature. I guess it's understandable sometimes, but that doesn't mean it should be defended.

daigonite said:

I don't think torture is viable. Western society seems to have this obsession with retribution. But if you were tortured for a long time for doing [insert crime here], do you think you would try to actually stop, or would you just accept your fate and deal with it? Psychological studies suggest the latter.

Click to expand...

Western society has an obsession with retribution? As opposed to eastern society? I highly doubt that the western prison system is as cruel and barbaric as the eastern prison system, even with America being as ass backwards as it is.

I'm not trying to say that the "east is better than the west" or anything, I was trying to reference the western world in general since regardless it is true. The entire concept of sending someone to prison is based extremely in retribution. I said nothing about the East, and frankly, it's irrelevant at the moment, since most of us are talking from the perspective of the western society. Please try again.

daigonite said:

I'm not trying to say that the "east is better than the west" or anything, I was trying to reference the western world in general since regardless it is true. The entire concept of sending someone to prison is based extremely in retribution. I said nothing about the East, and frankly, it's irrelevant at the moment, since most of us are talking from the perspective of the western society. Please try again.

Click to expand...

No, sending people to prison is about rehabilitation, and has been about rehabilitation for a while, at least in first world countries. If the concept was purely about righting wrongs, then victimless crimes would never be a thing, especially in its numbers.

And just because you didn't say one thing doesn't mean that another thing could have been stated. When you make a statement about one side, you are indirectly saying something else about the other side(assuming they're the only sides, which western and eastern very much are in a general sense).