Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:
We don't like making a mess. At some point we decided we were happy to kill people, but it was only civilised to do it with no blood.

I figure if we're going to have execution, let it be death by explosion. Might as well be honest about what's happening.

If I were a death-row convict, I'd be willing to press the button myself if this is how it would be done; with a giant-ass explosion.

Relapse wrote:
It appears the North Koreans do some executions that way:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/24/north-korean-army-minister-reportedly-executed-for-drinking-during-mourning/?test=latestnews

Holy gak, that's amazing. I mean, you know, utterly awful for the guy to do over something so trivial, but execution by mortar shell? fething hell.

Thanks for that.

I would wager that if we could go back in time to when it was an everyday occurence to watch a Hanging the crime rate for serious crimes was much lower then it is today.

Actually when it comes to murder and assault Europe and America are at the lowest point in history for crime rates. Murder and assault seems to be a cultural thing more than anything else. Just look at Iceland and Newfoundland.

Also, I support Capital Punishment, but it defenately needs some kinks worked out of it. As for this case in particular however, why don't they just drug him asleep and then get a machine to strangle him?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe if the Execution was less humane, more public, and more common it would be more effective no?

I would wager that if we could go back in time to when it was an everyday occurence to watch a Hanging the crime rate for serious crimes was much lower then it is today.

You would lose that wager terribly. Crime rates have been dropping consistantly for centuries. Something about broadening the education base, greater material wealth, improved policing techniques and all that stuff that makes people a lot less likely to be criminals.

Perhaps the Death Penelty doesn't work today because its too distant. It doesn't seem real enough.

We don't get to witness the consequence of the action. Instead its hidden behind closed doors to avoid offending people's sensibilities.

The kind of weirdos that'd turn up to watch a stranger get killed are not the kind of people who'd be likely to get scared straight by the image.

You have to understand the time in which public executions were acceptable were also the times when they'd burn a cat to death for fun. People have, for the most part, gotten a hell of a lot less cruel, and the result is less criminal brutality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, the whole 'humane' thing really does seem to be as much about the people watching as the person going through it. Otherwise we'd just sit them down on a good sized surplus artillery shell and set the thing off. No fuss, no worry about his size, it'd be instant red mist.

Also, we like to convince ourselves that it is a civilised act. That means no blood, even if it'd be less painful for the executed.

That's why I like death by explosion. Killing someone isn't a civilised act. Don't pretend otherwise. Just say when it comes to stuff like what that sick bastard did, our response isn't civilised. Kaboom.

whembly wrote:I actually don't favor execution...

I don't think it serves enough deterance.

I'd re-institute chain-gangs and put them to work. Make their existence miserable AND publicize it so that it's not only transparent to the public, but serves as a true deterance...

And then you have a work force which represents a massive conflict of interest, as it will take exactly zero minutes before someone figures out that they can profit from a free labour force.

This is actually the current state of your prison-industrial complex: a new slave-labour economy has been created, that is fed by a shift away from rehabilitation and instead actively tries to keep people in the system.

And this problem only gets compounded by elements of corruption that will fill you with rage.

I consider it to be arguably the most depressing element of American society.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:I actually don't favor execution...

I don't think it serves enough deterance.

I'd re-institute chain-gangs and put them to work. Make their existence miserable AND publicize it so that it's not only transparent to the public, but serves as a true deterance...

And then you have a work force which represents a massive conflict of interest, as it will take exactly zero minutes before someone figures out that they can profit from a free labour force.

This is actually the current state of your prison-industrial complex: a new slave-labour economy has been created, that is fed by a shift away from rehabilitation and instead actively tries to keep people in the system.

And this problem only gets compounded by elements of corruption that will fill you with rage.

I consider it to be arguably the most depressing element of American society.

I would agree.... buuuut Snooki exists so it's not the bottom of the barrel. What needs to happen if you want to use prisoners as a work force is to not let private companies run the prisons, have some very strict over sight and work it as rehabilitation, not just brute labor. It should also be payed. In the sense that their room and board in prison is payed for by their labor, maybe a little extra cash so their family can stop having to mail them cartons of marlboro. Not enough to make it nice in prison. I'm all for humanity, but it's prison. Your life should rightly suck balls. Bad mattress, gak food, minimal amenities beyond indoor plumbing, but the reminder that with good behavior and putting your back to it, you have a chance to make a decent life for yourself and never have to come back.

A good example is that there's several programs here in Colorado, another in New Mexico... and one or two more where the convicts (good behavior, etc) are allowed to apply and be trained to break and train wild mustangs from the BLM. These horses can go for upwards of $3000 and apparently inmates do usually get placed with a ranch after their sentences are complete.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17163894

They're even doing work for the U.S. Government now.

All that said, that's just for your average criminal scum. Higher quality criminal scum needs to either be bumped off or locked in a dark hole never to see the light of day again. I like the idea of an international prison for the worst quality scum, pedos, serial killers, the type of people who do get locked up forever (if they aren't being hanged), in Antarctica. You can escape if you want. Good luck on the ice.

All that said, that's just for your average criminal scum. Higher quality criminal scum needs to either be bumped off or locked in a dark hole never to see the light of day again. I like the idea of an international prison for the worst quality scum, pedos, serial killers, the type of people who do get locked up forever (if they aren't being hanged), in Antarctica. You can escape if you want. Good luck on the ice.

You see at that point I don't understand why killing them is considered a worse option. I mean, if you're dead set on them not sharing space with society why don't you just put them in a medical coma until they die.....

 Ratbarf wrote:

All that said, that's just for your average criminal scum. Higher quality criminal scum needs to either be bumped off or locked in a dark hole never to see the light of day again. I like the idea of an international prison for the worst quality scum, pedos, serial killers, the type of people who do get locked up forever (if they aren't being hanged), in Antarctica. You can escape if you want. Good luck on the ice.

You see at that point I don't understand why killing them is considered a worse option. I mean, if you're dead set on them not sharing space with society why don't you just put them in a medical coma until they die.....

If you're going to the trouble of putting them to sleep until they die, why not just hasten the dying part along a bit...

 Ratbarf wrote:

All that said, that's just for your average criminal scum. Higher quality criminal scum needs to either be bumped off or locked in a dark hole never to see the light of day again. I like the idea of an international prison for the worst quality scum, pedos, serial killers, the type of people who do get locked up forever (if they aren't being hanged), in Antarctica. You can escape if you want. Good luck on the ice.

You see at that point I don't understand why killing them is considered a worse option. I mean, if you're dead set on them not sharing space with society why don't you just put them in a medical coma until they die.....

Life in prison (with no option for parole) is an acceptable compromise for me. I say hang the

Thats a well train crew to nail the guy with one shot with a mortar round

 sebster wrote:
No matter what happens, there's at least two lives and a gak ton of public money wasted. Seems to me the only way to stop it from being anything than an ugly situation is to look at what happens to cause people to commit abhorrent crimes in the first place. And yet we don't do that, and instead spend a whole lot of time debating whether we should kill the perpetrator or leave him in prison until he dies of old age.

That's probably because they're related but separate questions. Unless operating on the illusion that all crime can be eliminated forever, we accept that the justice system has two primary goals: deterrent (a necessary sub-question of this being to understand why crime occurs in the first place) and punishment. How to effectively achieve both are worthy questions for discussion, though I agree the question of reducing criminal activity is glossed over by the response: "He knows what we do to people who break the law. *washes hands*."

 Jihadin wrote:
Thats a well train crew to nail the guy with one shot with a mortar round

I'm thinking it's all marked off as opposed to a "cold" shoot. Plant the tube on the x, plant the prisoner on the other x, adjust to this angle, and thwump, boom.

The purpose of an execution is to satiate the blood-lust of law-abiding citizens.

I'm not even convinced we should be executing porpoises at all, actually. Not one bit.

 Albatross wrote:
I'm not even convinced we should be executing porpoises at all, actually. Not one bit.

Because they're a poor man's dolphin?

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe if the Execution was less humane, more public, and more common it would be more effective no?

I would wager that if we could go back in time to when it was an everyday occurence to watch a Hanging the crime rate for serious crimes was much lower then it is today.

You would lose that wager terribly. Crime rates have been dropping consistantly for centuries. Something about broadening the education base, greater material wealth, improved policing techniques and all that stuff that makes people a lot less likely to be criminals.

Do we actually have reliable crime statistics going back 400-500 years?

I highly doubt it.

We have tax records going back past the fall of rome, but that's about it for solid information.

Check the coliseum records.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Do we actually have reliable crime statistics going back 400-500 years?

I highly doubt it.

...

Yeah... Because inevitably, a place with no police force, rampant illiteracy, unreliable employment, and "omg we're starving to death poverty" are bound to keep crime at the same rates they are at now if not better.

Don't be silly.

I think the results would be skewed because Death was up for alot more things, and there were more people that were desperate enough to actually risk the Death penelty to survive.

We'd have to cut out all the no longer applicable crimes, such as a slave running away, or people resorting to crimes punishable by death because their only other alternative was comperable(so that the chance of not getting caught was worth the risk)


Nobody is commiting a crime that is punishable by death because they have absolutly no choice. Where its die/have a life so utterly not worth living, or risk getting caught and put to death with a chance of getting away with it and surviving.

I'd like to think nobody in a developed nation is desperate to the point where premeditated Murder is the only thing that would help them survive.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think the results would be skewed because Death was up for alot more things, and there were more people that were desperate enough to actually risk the Death penelty to survive.

We'd have to cut out all the no longer applicable crimes, such as a slave running away, or people resorting to crimes punishable by death because their only other alternative was comperable(so that the chance of not getting caught was worth the risk)


Nobody is commiting a crime that is punishable by death because they have absolutly no choice. Where its die/have a life so utterly not worth living, or risk getting caught and put to death with a chance of getting away with it and surviving.

I'd like to think nobody in a developed nation is desperate to the point where premeditated Murder is the only thing that would help them survive.

So your point is that, public execution isn't as much a deterrent to crime as improved living conditions is a limiting factor? Improvements like assured rule of law, a more available food supply, and better job availability? It's almost like that's exactly what Sebster was trying to say...

Also, crime is crime. Stealing an apple because your starving to death is still stealing. We just forgive it, like how we forgive murder when its done to prevent another murder? You know. Justifiability being what it is.

 LordofHats wrote:

 sebster wrote:
No matter what happens, there's at least two lives and a gak ton of public money wasted. Seems to me the only way to stop it from being anything than an ugly situation is to look at what happens to cause people to commit abhorrent crimes in the first place. And yet we don't do that, and instead spend a whole lot of time debating whether we should kill the perpetrator or leave him in prison until he dies of old age.

That's probably because they're related but separate questions. Unless operating on the illusion that all crime can be eliminated forever, we accept that the justice system has two primary goals: deterrent (a necessary sub-question of this being to understand why crime occurs in the first place) and punishment. How to effectively achieve both are worthy questions for discussion, though I agree the question of reducing criminal activity is glossed over by the response: "He knows what we do to people who break the law. *washes hands*."

You forgot one more thing, rehabilitation.

 Cheesecat wrote:
You forgot one more thing, rehabilitation.

Seeing as most criminals commit crimes again, usually because the Justice system puts them right back into the same situations that lead to crime in the first place, if not a worse situation than they were in before, no. The Justice system is not about rehabilitation. Maybe it likes to think it is, but I don't agree.

But yes, I see your point. We'll add rehabilitation to the list for completeness is nothing else XD

 LordofHats wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
You forgot one more thing, rehabilitation.

Seeing as most criminals commit crimes again, usually because the Justice system puts them right back into the same situations that lead to crime in the first place, if not a worse situation than they were in before, no. The Justice system is not about rehabilitation. Maybe it likes to think it is, but I don't agree.

But yes, I see your point. We'll add rehabilitation to the list for completeness is nothing else XD

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think the results would be skewed because Death was up for alot more things, and there were more people that were desperate enough to actually risk the Death penelty to survive.

We'd have to cut out all the no longer applicable crimes, such as a slave running away, or people resorting to crimes punishable by death because their only other alternative was comperable(so that the chance of not getting caught was worth the risk)


Nobody is commiting a crime that is punishable by death because they have absolutly no choice. Where its die/have a life so utterly not worth living, or risk getting caught and put to death with a chance of getting away with it and surviving.

I'd like to think nobody in a developed nation is desperate to the point where premeditated Murder is the only thing that would help them survive.

So your point is that, public execution isn't as much a deterrent to crime as improved living conditions is a limiting factor? Improvements like assured rule of law, a more available food supply, and better job availability? It's almost like that's exactly what Sebster was trying to say...

Also, crime is crime. Stealing an apple because your starving to death is still stealing. We just forgive it, like how we forgive murder when its done to prevent another murder? You know. Justifiability being what it is.

Maybe I misunderstood him.

My point was that, yes crime was more serious back in the middle ages, but that might be because there were more crimes. Back then it was a crime to say anything bad about your social superiors and they could really punish you as they saw fit.

Once we have proper legal systems and a decent quality of life for everyone like we do today, the Death penelty becomes a deterrent. Simply because the risk/reward for a criminal action the Death penelty is attached to is not worth it. Therefore a logical person will never commit murder.

This reduces the occurence of murder(which is punishable by death) to where it only happens in cases of people acting in an illogical manner, or people that attempt to skew the odds in favor of them getting away with it. And it may make someone contemplating skewing the odds(IE: covering up the murder) to reconsider doing it.

 Jihadin wrote:
Thats a well train crew to nail the guy with one shot with a mortar round

Nothing sharpens the skills like the thought you might join the condemned if you miss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It appears the North Koreans do some executions that way:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/24/north-korean-army-minister-reportedly-executed-for-drinking-during-mourning/?test=latestnews

Holy gak, that's amazing. I mean, you know, utterly awful for the guy to do over something so trivial, but execution by mortar shell? fething hell.

Thanks for that.

I thought you'd get a kick out of that after talking of death by explosion.

 LordofHats wrote:
That's probably because they're related but separate questions. Unless operating on the illusion that all crime can be eliminated forever, we accept that the justice system has two primary goals: deterrent (a necessary sub-question of this being to understand why crime occurs in the first place) and punishment. How to effectively achieve both are worthy questions for discussion, though I agree the question of reducing criminal activity is glossed over by the response: "He knows what we do to people who break the law. *washes hands*."

Absolutely, the justice system needs to be there, and needs to succeed as much as possible in punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation (where rehabilitation is a plausible goal).

My point is just that we focus greatly on that, especially punishment and deterrence, and spend little time at all worrying about how to stop this happening again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Do we actually have reliable crime statistics going back 400-500 years?

I highly doubt it.

Yes, we do. It's amazing what historians can uncover and produce.

Here's the figures for England going back to 1200;

http://akinokure.blogspot.com.au/2009/05/homicide-rates-over-past-800-years.html

And if you're genuinely interested here's a PDF that gives you all sorts of figures and trends with explanations of the sources of each figure.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/postgraduate/ma_studies/mamodules/hi971/topics/interpersonal/long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
We have tax records going back past the fall of rome, but that's about it for solid information.

There's a whole field of history called 'history of crime'. They use all manner of sources. We have a wealth of government records from the middle ages, such as court records, and prison logs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think the results would be skewed because Death was up for alot more things, and there were more people that were desperate enough to actually risk the Death penelty to survive.

You can't just think whatever you'd like to think without actually looking at the data sourced. We know how many crimes of murder there were. Not people given death for other things... but how many people were murdered.

This isn't a thing you can debate. We fething know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'd like to think nobody in a developed nation is desperate to the point where premeditated Murder is the only thing that would help them survive.

Which is one of the causes I mentioned originally - material wealth now is much greater, and that is a significant downward pressure on the murder rate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Seeing as most criminals commit crimes again, usually because the Justice system puts them right back into the same situations that lead to crime in the first place, if not a worse situation than they were in before, no. The Justice system is not about rehabilitation. Maybe it likes to think it is, but I don't agree.

But yes, I see your point. We'll add rehabilitation to the list for completeness is nothing else XD

Actually, repeat offence depends largely on the crime, with more serious crimes being way less likely to see re-offence. Repeat offence for murder is about 3%. Shoplifting is more like 80%.

And as you somewhat recognise in your answer, the programs available to criminals greatly impact their chance of re-offence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood him.

My point was that, yes crime was more serious back in the middle ages, but that might be because there were more crimes. Back then it was a crime to say anything bad about your social superiors and they could really punish you as they saw fit.

Once we have proper legal systems and a decent quality of life for everyone like we do today, the Death penelty becomes a deterrent. Simply because the risk/reward for a criminal action the Death penelty is attached to is not worth it. Therefore a logical person will never commit murder.

You said you thought crimes rates were lower when public hangings existed. I said they weren't, because there are factors that lower crimes rates way more than any kind of public deterrence - material wealth, effective policing, education.

And that's really what matters. If you want to lower the crime rates then improve public education, and expand the economy and make sure everyone gets enough, and make sure police have enough resources that their completion rates on crimes are very high. Then you'll have very low crime rates whether you broadcast the criminals dismemberment on free to air TV or just lock him away for the rest of his life.

But if you have a large economic underclass, poor education, and a police force which is unable to solve most crimes, well then nothing will work as a deterrent, you'll have high crime rates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I thought you'd get a kick out of that after talking of death by explosion.

fething brilliant. I mean North Korea is just the gift that keeps on giving. Sucks for the people that live there, of course, but for anyone that likes reading about the macabre it's better than Stalinist Russia.