Follow
If Jurors could vote super guilty instead of regilar guilty what would you imagibe the difference would be?
Maybe beat them to within an inch of their life, letting them bleed on the ground until they're almost unconscious and then executing them in front of a mirror so that the last thing their eyes see is them dying.
Hang them in front of a mirror, make sure the rope is taut enough not to twist. Make them watch themselves die slowly, not by a drop but by elevating them so no cervical vertebrae break.
Our ancestors were very creative about this sort of thing. We should seek to emulate them.
If the jurors vote super guilty then they get dibs on the defendant's estate and the defendant's children get nothing
I think a very important part of this was the fact that it was a large public spectacle. Because everybody in the back of their minds is telling themselves "I'm definitely not gonna be like that motherfucker" and all of the sudden like magic the level of heinous crime goes down dramatically...
The criminal hanging process also served as a means of eugenics by making sure dysgenic criminal genetics wouldn't be passed down and if they already were, wouldn't be propagated further and their stupid now-bastard children got the message. "Ignore the calling of your alleles or you're next."
@Owl @caekislove @shortstories @cjd The "sanitization" of justice done in the 19th century was a great crime perpetuated upon society.
Justice isn't supposed to be pretty, it's supposed to do a job. If it is not doing that job for society, it is not justice.
Love seeing more people judge moral frameworks on their social utility. This Is The Way...
The purpose of doing anything related to legality should be for it to serve the people. People are best served by the just execution of those who would harm the people. If morality does not serve the social fabric and better the individual, then your morality is no good.
@Owl @caekislove @shortstories @cjd If your legal system does not serve the intrinsic moral benefit of society your legal system is wrong. There are many areas of public behavior where no real objective answer is to be found, only particular and arbitrary social ones. But this doesn't invalidate objective morality, only restricts it to real moral issues. Midwit philosophers take the existence of the arbitrary to paint all as arbitrary and reduce morality to human emotion and thus punishment of criminals that involves suffering is immoral to them.
People have been taught en-masse that murder is a relative social harm and that the well-being of those who would inflict evil upon the innocent is equal to said innocent. This needs to be corrected in a visceral manner.
People have been taught en-masse that murder is a relative social harm and that the well-being of those who would inflict evil upon the innocent is equal to said innocent. This needs to be corrected in a visceral manner.
Judiciary has been infiltrated. Any violence will be against an ideology who is against them.
All communist think this way.
All communist think this way.
So collective punishment actually does work - too bad that has been corporatized into a blown out nigger booty hole prison pipeline.
Just keep it simple to stockades in the town square.
Just keep it simple to stockades in the town square.
@caekislove @shortstories @Owl technically, if you're careful enough you can skin someone alive while they remain consious with todays technology tho you probably gonna have to stuff them into a sauna at some point so they dont die of hipotermia 
"Very careful," you're going to send them into shock very quickly regardless, it's not a bloodless affair no matter how slowly or carefully you work.
@Owl @caekislove @shortstories we could use adrenaline to kinda offset such effects
sure it may take a while
but isnt that kinda the point too?
sure it may take a while
but isnt that kinda the point too?
