ASD and extreme political beliefs

Post Reply New Topic

After looking into the topic, it turns out even Islamic countries (where cutting a shoplifter's hand off used to be the norm) rarely cut a shoplifter's hand off anymore. In other words, it's next-to-impossible to find proof either way of how effective cutting a shoplifter's hand off is.

That being said, the punishment I prefer is public execution. Not necessarily for shoplifting (unless they shoplift an extremely high dollar amount), but for certain other offenses.

If you knew you'd be publicly executed (and the person/persons publicly executing you had the full weight of the law on their side, guaranteed to never face prosecution for executing you) for committing a certain offense, you'd think twice.

Would public executions (for certain crimes) eliminate these types of crimes? Of course not. There would be a drastic reduction, however. And on the off chance a criminal committed the crime anyway, at least the victim would get the closure/satisfaction/justice of knowing the criminal got a public execution.

We have evidence which demonstrates that more humane treatment is effective, so I’m puzzled as to why you want to go with an inhumane punishment when it’s not backed by research. (More truthiness?) Apart from being unnecessarily brutal for the perpetrator, seeing an execution could cause PTSD in those who witness them or even lead to eventual desensitization to violence on a wider scale. That’s admittedly pure supposition, but I do think there are various risks which you may be failing to consider.

Many victims would not want perpetrators to experience that anyway, so it could discourage some from reporting crimes in the first place.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 31 Aug 2024, 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There was a time in American history when public executions were common (for certain offenses at least). The offenses that were punished by public execution happened at a lower rate back then.

You know what else can lead to victims being less likely to report a crime? Knowing that the perp will get little to no punishment.

I mentioned on this thread that after moving to the big city, I ended up in positions where I could have died four times in less than a year. I didn't report even one (There was no point. The criminal would have most likely fled and never gotten caught. And even if they got caught, they'd get little to no punishment. Plus, as illogical as this might sound, if a modern-day criminal sees you calling the cops, that'll only tick the criminal off into becoming even more aggressive. A surefire sign criminals don't fear cops/punishment enough).

Yeah, I'm aware that even in a society that publicly executes criminals, criminals could still run away. But there's always the idea in the back of the criminal's mind that they might get caught (even if they run away). If they knew getting caught meant getting publicly executed, most would get scared out of committing the crime in the first place.

Furthermore, in the society I envision, it wouldn't matter if the victim didn't report the crime. Anyone who witnessed the crime (and wanted justice for the victim) would get a free pass to organize a public execution.

Do you have evidence which clearly proves that certain crimes occurred less often per capita when there were public executions? It seems like it would be a difficult thing to prove due to investigators having fewer scientific resources at their disposal and such which lead to more unknown or unsolved crimes.

You’re right that public executions were common in the past. I’m glad that we no longer punish folks that way because I believe that it’s immoral along with concerns I already mentioned. There often aren’t any witnesses for certain types of crimes, so we’re still running into the fact that many victims would choose not to report if they had moral qualms about capital punishment or whatever other inhumane punishment you’re envisioning.

The criminal justice system shouldn’t be about making victims happy/satisfied/whatever. It’s about keeping people safe and, ideally, rehabilitation which, when done well (e.g. Scandinavian model), has a high success rate.

You're operating from a skewed perspective that the greatest danger to the average person are crimes committed by individuals. That's just not true. Keeping society safe has a lot more to do with providing basic needs and basic human rights, since those are what are lacking. People who don't know where their next meal is coming from, or who don't have access to proper health care, are unsafe. Crime too is much more prevalent when people are unstable and insecure in their basic needs. An authoritarian society is only likely to lead to greater instability and greater violence because people don't feel secure in their daily lives. This is backed up by evidence. In more-stable countries where punishments are less severe there is less antisocial behavior and greater life satisfaction and better life outcomes.

You seem to think that most criminals assume they'll get caught. Since your premise is wrong everything that follows is doomed to also be wrong.

Have you ever done something that was against the rules? Think about if you thought if you'd get away with it when you did it.

These are fallacies. There is no such thing as far left racist beliefs. It's not possible to be racist against white people, if that's what you're referring to. Racism is specifically tied to subjugation and doesn't apply to the dominant group. (One can be prejudiced against white people, but that's different from racism.)

There is no such thing as "far left" misandrist beliefs. Sure, there are individuals who are misandrist but it's not a legitimate view of any ideology, not of feminism and not of far left beliefs.

Also, most of what gets labeled as far left these days is ordinary centrist, not even left, belief.

In the 19th century/early 20th century (when the USA practiced public executions), there was way more poverty than there is today (and medical care, especially in the 19th century, was a joke compared to today). Not saying crime didn't exist back then (it obviously existed). Public executions, however, were a magnificent deterrent for the specific crimes that got punished by public execution back then.

Leaving your door unlocked was common back then (yet unheard of today, except in maybe the most remote of rural areas).

An authoritarian society doesn't automatically mean the masses will be poor by the way. Singapore is simultaneously authoritarian and prosperous.

Criminals don't necessarily assume they'll get caught. In the age of no cash bail, however, criminals know even if they get caught, they'll be released within mere hours of getting arrested (sometimes for offenses they would have been publicly executed for a century ago).

When the justice system is that lenient on criminals, obviously criminals will become more emboldened.

Plus, most crime is committed by repeat offenders. Executing the criminal on the first offense is a surefire way to make sure they never reoffend.

Also, "getting caught" has a varying definition depending on the circumstances. Under the status quo, if you sucker punch someone, run away, and never get apprehended by the cops, that means you didn't get caught. In the society I envision, however, bystanders would have the right to publicly execute you on the spot if they were ticked off by witnessing the sucker punch. It wouldn't matter if the cops didn't catch you. The bystanders caught you (and would have a free pass to end your life).

To answer your question of whether I've ever done anything against the rules (and wondered if I'd get caught), I generally only do that if I know I most likely won't get caught. As an example, I had a past job where my boss bought snacks for the break room with his own money. There was an honor system where we were supposed to put money in a jar if we ate a snack. I never put money in the jar. I knew the odds of getting caught were slim.

If getting caught meant getting publicly executed, however, I would have put money in that jar (Because no matter how unlikely I'd be to get caught, I wouldn't want to risk a public execution)

Racism against whites (which, for the record, exists) is a type of far left racism. There are other types of far left racism too.

As for your claim that a lot of what gets called far left is really centrist, it goes both ways. A lot of what gets called far right was viewed as mainstream a mere 2-3 generations ago.

There's a lot I could say to rebut your claim of racism against whites being nonexistent. Unfortunately, a lot of my rebuttals would get removed. So all I'm going to say is:

-It's no surprise someone who thinks we could solve crime if only everyone knew where their next meal was coming from thinks racism against whites doesn't exist.

-When liberalism claims racism against whites doesn't exist, don't be surprised when more and more whites end up leaving liberalism upon facing racism (I say this as a one time Bernie Sanders voter who ended up becoming a Trump voter. Why would we want to remain in a political party that downplays/denies the racism we've faced?)

Folks often mistake growing equality for all as discrimination when they are in a privileged demographic. That appears to be what’s going on most of the time when white people claim that they are experiencing racism. It’s just extremely transparent. I’m saying that as a white person. I’ve observed a fair amount of racism in my life, but it wasn’t directed at white people.

https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism

I'm sure that's an emotionally satisfying thing to believe, but colour me unpersuaded by your appeal to emotion.



That seems like a great way to see grossly disproportionate punishments become the norm for minor offences.



Because encouraging vigilante violence won't result in a lot more violent crime.



You don't think that would a bit of an excessive punishment? Don't you think one would get used to managing that risk if it was as widely present as you seem to desire?

Repeating a claim doesn't strengthen it.



Yes, the Overton window shifts over time.



It's almost like you know they're going to rely on racist dog whistles.

The way humans have increasingly been using politics to identify themselves and basing their entire lives around it is just sickening. Especially American politics. The same goes for religion.

Non-human animals don't have politics in their lives. Or religion. Which is why animals rule and humans drool. Except humans who are kind and helpful to animals.

As I said, if I were to give a full rebuttal, my post would undoubtedly get removed.

Here's an abbreviated rebuttal that (I'm pretty sure) will be allowed to stay up:

I mentioned getting put in 4 positions where I could have died in a span of less than a year after moving to the big city. Two of those were for no reason other than the color of my skin. The perps never even got arrested (and to make matters worse, I even get told to check my privilege if I complain).

One, this totally disproves the liberal narrative that minorities are petrified they'll get gunned down if they upset a white person even slightly.

Two, this isn't equality. If I were to put minorities in positions where they could die (for no reason other than their skin color), I'd get the book thrown at me. In other words, there is inequality in terms of the punishment different races get when committing racial crimes (but the inequality goes in the opposite direction of what the liberal narrative claims).

Equality would be a society where everyone gets the same punishment when committing a racial crime.

I'd like murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault to get punished by public execution. I wouldn't call those minor offenses.

If you view vigilante executions as a crime, then yeah, my society would lead to a lot of violent crime. I, however, view vigilante executions as justice (not crimes).

Yeah, public execution would be excessive for "stealing" snacks from your boss. I never said I support public execution for stealing snacks. I was simply using a real example from my past to answer your question about whether I've ever done anything against the rules.

No, I don't think the masses would get used to managing the risk if public executions were to become widespread. They'd get scared into behaving.