Castration, amputation, tattooing, oh, my!

[argent_paladin]

For the sake of argument (this is the debate table after all), I would like to put forth the proposition that it is morally acceptable to maim criminals (this thread was inspired by the one about executing pedophiles). Specifically, I am defending the practice of amputating the hands or feet of criminals rather than incarcerating them, tattooing criminals with identifying marks, castration and even blinding criminals.

1. It would seem unreasonable to say that the State has the right and perhaps the obligation to execute criminals but not to harm them. Amputation is far preferable to death for the criminal.

2. If amputation is an affront to human dignity, then isn't imprisonment also? And it isn't only depriving them of freedom. They are exposed to the danger of rape, to drugs, possibly forced to join gangs, etc. Amputation may seem barbaric, but compared to the reality of prison life in America, it may be positively civilized.

3. Amputations would greatly decrease the probability of commiting the crime again. If an armed robber, murderer or rapist, had his right hand and left foot amputated, even with prosthetics attatched it would be harder to run, to fire a weapon or to fight back. Of course, blinding someone would make it virtually certain that they couldn't commit another crime. And as horrible as those fates are, I think most people would choose amputation, tattooing and perhaps blindness to a 25 year prison sentence.

3. And the government would save billions of dollars, that could be put to education, defense, crime prevention, or returned to the taxpayer.

Thoughts?

[track2004]

I think it's cruel and unusual. I can't think of any civilized, modernized country who does this to it's citizens. Jail is one thing. You go in, stuff happens, and when you get out not everyone knows that you were there. Joe Schmo walking down the street can't tell just by looking at you. This is a good thing because it gives people who are ex-cons the ability to become part of society again without thier criminal record being announced to the world.

On another hand, what about people who are actually physically disabled. Suddenly they would not be trusted because convicts are made to be amputees or blind. Would society ever trust a ligetimately bling person ever again? No, they wouldn't. Doing this to inmates would make the disabled also suspect.

Jail might be bad. Okay jail is bad. And it costs the government money. And it's full of bad people. But that's the best we can do right now. When people commit felonies, they are aware of where they are going if/when they get caught. At least when they get out they will probably be in better shape, be used to a structured schedule, and probably have a better education. The prison system in this country is about rehabilitation, not vigilante justice.

[franciscan13]

dont do the crime if you cant do the time. i dont think we need to go as far as cutting limbs off or tattoos but the punishment should fit crime

[Paphnutius]

I also think that as Christians we ought to foster an enviroment of forgiveness. Something permanent as such would be very counter-forgiveness. We are in no place to put such a permanent mark on someone.

[DemonSlayer]

You're actually serious?

[argent_paladin]

Ok, then what about offering it as an alternative to those who are sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. They serve 10 years in prison, and then, if they choose, they can have their right hand and left leg amputated and be set free.

Is it really better to lock people in prison for 40 or 50 years until they die, or to let them choose to leave, after amputation? I think it is less cruel than a lifetime in prison. At least the criminal could return to his family and live out his life. And yes, there is a stigma, but there is already a stigma: felons can't vote, have difficulty getting a job, often have prison tattoos, etc.


The question is: is amputation or castration more cruel than a lifetime in prison?

[Paphnutius]

Right now with all of the benefits and "plush" (I use that word loosley) that they have, yes it is crueler than a liftetime in prison.

[Jaime]

"Oh you lost your hand in Iraq? Suuuuuure you did!!"


Its a bad idea

[Paphnutius]

Just a quick random thought: I do not want to get into a debate about tatooing, that is not the purpose...

Do you really want to mutilate another person's temple?

[MichaelFilo]

Just to throw on some MichaelFilo on this lousy track :

Giving a choice doesn't really make the new option devoid of it's harm. People have the choice to kill their children, and it is used. This is a cruel right. So is being able to chop off a limb because you don't want to go through the prison system.

However, there is a validity to this arguement. Because of the nature of the prison system and how it reforms the individual as it is right now, it is nearly impossible to get a criminal to change. When the spiritual aspect is removed from the reform of the individual, all you have is a waste of time. Faith-based prisons don't exist anywhere but Florida, I believe, and we only have one. Even then, how effective can they be with those athiestic liberals pushing against any Faith in anything, seeking their damnation by that course of action?

But it maybe easier to look at this from a "why" point of view. Why do we resort to the death penalty for certain criminals? Because they are a threat to society that can only be nullified with the extermination of the problem. The problem is, so is the life and any hope of reconciliation. Amupation would make the problem nullified, but the life is allowed to live on. However, this arguement only holds water when talking about amputation vs death penalty. So, I would support amputation as a choice, if not the prefered method, for those facing the death penalty.



Side note: It seems this thread is reeking of an attitude that is counter-productive to the reality of sins and forgiveness. Being tattooed, and thus forever set-apart as a criminal even after you convert and repent is not truely bad. Sins have consequences, both temporal and spiritual. The criminal who is truely reformed and is made a new man will let his actions lead the way, and his tattoo showing he is a man who was once set on the worldy, but now is set on the eteranal. Needless to say (but I will say so anyways since it seems this has been over looked) many saints made public confessions of their sins and failing. The most notable was St.Augustine, who in his book confessions allowed all who can read to know of his past life. This surely was a badge similiar to that tattoo. Paul allowed all the Christian communities to know his persecution of the Christians, and again it was another "tattoo" that he wore. I would say these two men were two of the most holy men to walk this earth. So, it is not contraforgiving to post a tattoo on someone or make it visiable that someone is a sinner, but instead it is a sign of change and of humility in that person.

God bless,
Mikey

[Carrie]

A bit harsh I think.

[MichaelFilo]

I don't think it is a matter of opinion but the question of whether it is logically and morally an acceptable alternative.

God bless,
Mikey

[MichaelFilo]

It seems to pass the logical test as a possible alternative to the death penalty, although the death penalty maybe more humane and much more useful for a conversion. Oh well, in the States this wouldn't fly by liberals who believe punishments are wrong and you should just let everyone dow hat they want. Just don't let them touch the trees or the animals...

::sigh:: That went off into a rant, I'll try to go back to my point.

Even if morally and logically superior, it would not pass as the death penalty doesn't receive the 100% from conservatives.

God bless,
Mikey

[argent_paladin]

I agree with you that this will never happen, precisely because people see it as barbaric, cruel, etc. Actually, one of my big concerns is with prison reform. I brought up this point because I think that life imprisionmen and the death penalty are just as or perhaps more cruel and barbaric than maiming. I think it is difficult to logically argue otherwise. If you were a father of, say, three young children and a husband, and the son of two loving parents and you committed a heinous crime, such as murder don't you think that it is*more* cruel to be separated for the rest of your life in prison rather than to lose a hand? At least then you could see your children grow up, care for your parents as they get older, love and support your wife, etc. And that is just in an ideal world. In the real world, prison is more than separation and isolation. It is a world of drugs, violence, rape, gangs, etc. "If your right hand offend thee, cut it off!" I think it is better to lose a hand than to be cast into the hell that is prison, for life. Yes, there would be social stigmas, but I don't that is necesarily wrong. Which has more stigma: to have a 25-40 year gap in your resume because you were in prison, or to be missing a hand?
1 in 135 Americans are in prison right now. And that number is rising rapidly. That is an unacceptable burden on society and destroys milions of lives (not just the prisoner but the loved ones as well). How many children are growing up without fathers because of prison? And the chances are greatly increased that they will become criminals as well because they have no role model, and no one to tell them not to go. I think we should look at all alternatives: implantable GPS, house arrests, exile, amputation, tatooing, fines, etc. The central problem in our society is an absence of morality and prisons are not helping us to be more moral.