• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Apotympanismos - An Execution Like Crucifixion In Antiquity

Go to CruxDreams.com
" ... I thus conclude that the death penalty should be abrogated." (Robespierre)

Yes, we have seen like he was sticking to his words ...

But certainly that the question is difficult !
I've not a real opinion about it: sometimes, regarding the monstrosity of some persons, it could seem human to say : to death !
Why, during the wars, people are authorized to kill their ennemies ?
Human being stays a predator, in fact , and a predator is always in conflict with the other'one ...

So, can we give to the society the right to eliminate those who are predators ?
I dont know , but I think that human'justice will be never totally fair : death'punishment or not, it will never avoid, in my opinion, that some people will stay monsters ...
How can we cure those people ? Are they even curable ?
Those who have the right respons are very lucky ...
For me, I've not ...:(
 
Robespierre, is a bit of a bad choice for a durable argument against death punishment.
Only one year later after 1791, he was already calling for an execution, of the King. The argumentation is comparable to the situation I tried to describe. Whether it was justifiable to execute the king remains a challenging question I find.
But then, he became bringer of Terror. In its culmination, enabling execution in only the presence of suspicion - no trial.

From the same site as quoted above, you will find his quotes "Justification of the Use of Terror". https://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/robespierre/1794/terror.htm

If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs.
- Robespierre
​
Wragg134 said:
So, if we had the same situation again today (God forbid), would we expect the present day Nazi's to be executed for their war crimes?
Click to expand...
Actually I would expect there to be much less respect for proper procedure of justice.
Saddam Hussein had a court trial. Gaddafi, not really. Today we must fear they were actually lesser monsters, than what was unleashed after their downfall. History is not progress.
 
messaline said:
I dont know , but I think that human'justice will be never totally fair : death'punishment or not, it will never avoid, in my opinion, that some people will stay monsters ...
How can we cure those people ? Are they even curable ?
Those who have the right respons are very lucky ...
For me, I've not ...:(
Click to expand...

This is a gigantic question!

I have the impression sometimes, that our "judicial experts" sometimes believe they have the understanding of human nature, and can produce with some psychologists, "expertise" in court, that will predict whether a person is a danger to others, and can be released, or not.

This psychological expertise is usually rubbish. After all, it could only work if they have solved the ancient issues, that the greatest philosphers have not succeeded to lay to rest...

What is, evil, at its root, and where does it come from? What is free will?

And of course, when we say "monsters", what we are saying is: These people have set themselves apart of what we accept as human. They are beyond someone who kills out of anger or other comprehensible situation. And whenever we use words like "monster", we make them not human, and suddenly it seems much easier to talk of the death punishment - we are just destroying a monster, which out of only its existence, threatens our own existence... and must therefore be banished

This seems easy when you look at an Adolf Eichmann or Andrei Cikatilo but where to draw the border, what is a monster and what a common criminal...?
 
messaline said:
...and, Zephyros, malins, Phlebas and Eul , are you favorable to the death'punishment or not ?
Click to expand...

Tough question.
For me it is a little like the smacking debate in English speaking countries. When I was a parent of young children I believed that I should have the right to smack, but I chose not to exercise that right, it was not necessary and it was against my nature.
The death penalty is not something I support, but sometimes a crime is so awful, or the risk of reoffending is so high, we must wonder whether it should be an option.
And death is always an option.
The State sanctions death in various situations; war, police action, these are unavoidable state sanctioned killings. Violence and death are the ultimate forms of enforcing power, after all.
Execution is different, it is not unavoidable, it is a deliberate choice. It harms us to sanction such a calculated taking of life, and I feel that the potential for abuse is very high.

My concern is not punitive. I don't want to punish the offender so much as keep society safe from them.
 
Dear all,

i just arrived - coming home from a short business trip and read this growing discussion about »death punishment« ...
Very interesting, indeed, and it is, to be honest, a discussion full of emotions that i fear when i have similar discussions with my students.

I just wonder if e.g. Drakon (624 B.C.E.) and Kleisthenes of Sikyon (about 570 B.C.E.) had any idea of the arguments above when considering about apotympanismos? I hardly believe ...
 
messaline said:
...and, Zephyros, malins, Phlebas and Eul , are you favorable to the death'punishment or not ?
Click to expand...

messaline, to be honest, i don't have really an answer to this question and in general i will follow malins words:

»For a practically existing society, I consider the potential for judicial error, systematic prejudice, and politically directed misuse to be too great« (malins, post: 190614 ... thanks to malins!).

But i would like to outline some ideas - or better: questions - concerning the ethic of death punishment ... taken from discussions with and by my students ...

  • Is imprisonment for 20, 40 oder more years or for the rest of live a human alternative to death punishment?
  • Will be e.g. a child-molester or a raper be re-socialised and well-educated when leaving prison 25 or 40 years later?
  • Can we imagine that some evildoer would prefer being judged by his/her god/goddess? E.g. a young mother (with Christian context) had done infanticide (we do not know the reason) ... can we imagine she prefers being judged by St. Maria then being judged by a (human) court?
  • Can we imagine what is running in the head of an evildoer when he/she gets in mind what he/she had really done?
  • What about the relations of the evildoer? Is it better for them to see e.g. their child / husbands / wives in prison and always be asked by neighbors: »Are you the husband /wife .... Are youth parents of the so called monster?« Or is it better to quit the juristic case and to give the relations the chance to end the enduring discussion of the monster and to give peace to all including the »monster«?

I DO NOT have any answer to each of these questions - i only know that the »ancient ancestors« had not really problems with death punishment ...

Sorry ... is this ok for you, messaline?
 
messaline said:
" ... I thus conclude that the death penalty should be abrogated." (Robespierre)

Yes, we have seen like he was sticking to his words ...

But certainly that the question is difficult !
I've not a real opinion about it: sometimes, regarding the monstrosity of some persons, it could seem human to say : to death !
Why, during the wars, people are authorized to kill their ennemies ?
Human being stays a predator, in fact , and a predator is always in conflict with the other'one ...

So, can we give to the society the right to eliminate those who are predators ?
I dont know , but I think that human'justice will be never totally fair : death'punishment or not, it will never avoid, in my opinion, that some people will stay monsters ...
How can we cure those people ? Are they even curable ?
Those who have the right respons are very lucky ...
For me, I've not
Click to expand...

The point is, to my opinion, that a nation state has the duty to protect its citizens, by rule of Law. Conversely, citizens of that state, delegate a monoply of violence to that state. This means taht the state has even the right to force its citizens to go to war and kill other people (and to put its citizens in the risk of getting killed).

The basics of this state is nevertheless the individual. But what if this individual is an uncurable criminal? The state must protect all other citizens againts this individual. Death penalty then seems to be an easy and attractive solution. But is it? And is imprisonment for life the solution?

Up to the 18th century, thieves were convicted to death. Some people then said : do not execute them, but put them in prison for several years. The people who proposed that in the 18th century, were probably deemed stupid by others (once a thief...). Today, the 'humane' character of long term prison sentences is often questionned. But relasing someone from prison risks to put others into harm.

Another interesting point is the evolution of thinking about capital punishment, as discussed in this thread. Execution methods developed from slow, to quick and humane. But curiously, I once read that some people consider the guillotine as unethic, just because its swift way of execution deprives both the condemned and the onlookers from an agony...

The idea still exists that a condemned to death should not only taken away his or her life, but also has to suffer for a while, and getting deliberately confronted with nearing death.
 
Loxuru said:
The idea still exists that a condemned to death should not only taken away his or her life, but also has to suffer for a while, and getting deliberately confronted with nearing death.
Click to expand...

It's why CruxForums was invented ........:D

No, a very bad reply !!!! blonde4.gif
 
messaline said:
Yes, but in reality, it's not a thing that I should see re-coming : wheel'supplice, crucifixion, impalement
Click to expand...
I agree. There is also the problem of the irriversibility of an execution viz. the possibility of judicial error.

But nevertheless, as shows this forum, the agony aspect of an execution has a strange dark attraction, both for onlookers as for being subjected to it.
 
Loxuru said:
the agony aspect of an execution has a strange dark attraction
Click to expand...

Indeed, until when we could be comfronted to it : I'm not sure that the real view of a crucifixion could be seen by us, members of CF !
In the ancient times, cruelty and sufferings were current things that people were easier admitting : wars, barbarians'invasions, ilnesses ....
without speaking of Circus'games ...:eek:
 
for me, it's quite an important part of my fantasies here
that the crucified victims are not (whatever Tree may say :p)
guilty of any real crimes - they are suffering simply for being who they are,
beautiful and innocent, targets of jealousy and malice.
 
Loxuru said:
Citizens of that state, delegate a monoply of violence to that state
Click to expand...
Another difficult theme.
We learn most everywhere, that monopoly is bad, bringing abuse almost by definition. Despite this we are to give of all things, monopoly of violence to the State, which so easily becomes an engine of dehumanization and destruction, as it abstracts itself from the individual, and tries to create its new man, or perfect world, ...

Eulalia said:
it's quite an important part of my fantasies here that the crucified victims are not guilty of any real crimes
Click to expand...

I agree, crime/punishment is not so much my thing... for certain, the victim might have violated some unjust law instated by whim of a tyrant, some arbitrary decree designed only to increase the harvest of the condemned...
 
Eulalia said:
for me, it's quite an important part of my fantasies here
that the crucified victims are not (whatever Tree may say :p)
guilty of any real crimes - they are suffering simply for being who they are,
beautiful and innocent, targets of jealousy and malice.
Click to expand...
How do I get dragged into things:cool:. Tree is a defense attorney, not a judge or prosecutor. And they all say they are innocent!!!

As for capital punishment I support it in very limited circumstances. In Colorado some kid shot up a movie theater, was caught with (literally) his smoking guns and his attorney (not me) never disputed he did it but that he was insane. To that I say 'no kidding, fry his ass'.

In Missouri the last man executed appealed his execution (not his guilt) for a gruesome rape and brutal murder of a young woman because he might feel pain. I say 'let's hope so'.

If I were on a jury I would have to weigh how hard is the evidence before sentencing someone to death...

Tree

(at CF I really don't care...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom