cultural immunity

duszek · **Posted:** Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:22 pm

There is no cruelty: you become weaker and weaker, faint and die.
I did fasting for health reasons for about four days and stopped because I felt that I was starving (I have BMI of 17).

What is terrible is the death sentence by the guillotine as described by Albert Camus in "The Stranger".

A humane death penalty by starvation accomplishes that the murderer does not get a second chance to murder someone.

John · **Posted:** Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:43 pm

I think the death penalty in any form is inhumane but if you are committed to it I can't see what is humane about prolonging the process in this way. I would doubt that the pain associated with organ failure let alone excessive hunger and thirst is not painful anyway.

But yes, the person doesn't get a second chance to kill. Neither do they get a second chance to present new evidence to a jury.

duszek · **Posted:** Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:51 pm

If there is doubt we have the principle: in dubio pro reo.

We have DNA proof today.

Gustaf · **Joined:** Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:03 am **Posts:** 1041

Wootah wrote:

Quote:

Please explain what you mean by "justice" here.

Person A does something wrong to person B and we want a means of redress for that wrong. This is called justice.

Why is it important to have redress for a wrong? I am not being facetious here, I think it is important to have an answer to that question to understand what is meant by justice.

Arising_uk · **Joined:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am **Posts:** 10396

duszek wrote:

This is an ugly joke. ...

Maybe, but funny in English :lol:

Quote:

I meant that you should do a proper operation, an amputation using an anasthetic.

Why do you think this will stop the person. Do you assume that they rape purely for sex? As many sexual attacks involve instruments so why would this person not transfer to attacks with such things, especially since, I guess, they're going to feel prety bad about being castrated no matter how nicely its done. Is the eunuch a less cruel or less violent person? Just asking.

Gustaf · **Joined:** Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:03 am **Posts:** 1041

Arising_uk wrote:

Is the eunuch a less cruel or less violent person? Just asking.

This would depend on the extent to which testosterone production is taken over by the adrenal gland.

duszek · **Posted:** Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:09 pm

A man without testicles is much less enterprising, as far as I know.
Look at an ox who pulls a plough and a bull in a Spanish arena.
Or a stallion and a castrated horse.

I am not an endocrynologist though.
I know it is a very harsh treatment. So I would use it only in very harsh cases, like Michael Ross and others like him.

John · **Posted:** Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:21 pm

duszek wrote:

If there is doubt we have the principle: in dubio pro reo.

We have DNA proof today.

There is often more doubt that we sometimes imagine. Anyone convicted of a crime and subsequently exonerated should have, when first convicted, been considered to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

DNA evidence is actually better at excluding suspects but even if we accept that it's infallible it's not impossible for samples to become contaminated, DNA planted and in the case of a rape case it only verifies whether two people had sex. It doesn't say anything about whether the sex was consensual.

I consider the point moot though. Even if there was absolutely no doubt I'd still be against the death penalty.

Gustaf · **Joined:** Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:03 am **Posts:** 1041

duszek wrote:

A man without testicles is much less enterprising, as far as I know.

Read a bit of Chinese or Ottoman history. Court eunuchs were very enterprising, especially if it came to gaining more power.

Gustaf · **Joined:** Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:03 am **Posts:** 1041

duszek wrote:

A man without testicles is much less enterprising, as far as I know.

Read a bit of Chinese or Ottoman history. Court eunuchs could be very enterprising.

i blame blame · **Posted:** Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:52 pm

ala1993 wrote:

This is a link to a story, on the BBC website, about a Saudi man who after having paralysed another man in a fight is possibly due to be 'medically paralysed' himself as a punishment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11045848

My questions are: to what extent should a nation be able to decide, independently of global opinion and influence, what constitutes an appropriate punishment within the law. It would seem that the concept of universal human rights is incompatible with that of national sovreignty (apologies if that's misspelt, by the way!) but can the two be reconciled? Is it possible to argue that the law in certain nations is 'barbaric' or 'medieval' without bringing along notions of imperialism and euro-centrism? Lastly, what should we do - if anything - as regards to this specific case (linked above)?

Is medically paralyzing, blinding more barbaric or medieval than medically killing someone, as is practised by some world powers?

Philosophy Now Forum

cultural immunity

Who is online