[casenmgreen]

> For drunk driving, sexual assault, and grand theft the appropriate punishment for the first offense is a public beating where they stop half way through and give you a chance to admit guilt and apologize on camera or they keep going.

This is obscene. It is torture. If you torture people, they usually confess, regardless of innocence or guilt.

[Viliam1234]

I wouldn't mind public torture for violent crimes (hey, if it is acceptable to torture the victim, what is it unacceptable to torture the criminal?), but the part that when they apologize they get a 50% discount is stupid.

Either the punishment is appropriate, or not. If it is inappropriate, change it. If it is appropriate, don't give a 50% discount for saying "sorry" when told to. First, it means nothing; no one reasonable will think that the "sorry" was sincere. Second, if once in a while an innocent person is incorrectly sentenced, you insist that they either apologize for something they didn't do, or get 2x the punishment an actually guilty criminal would get.

[casenmgreen]

What if you're got the wrong man?

What is the police force isn't completely honest and has a tendency to incriminate say black men?

What if the police force isn't particularly competent?

What if the man was framed?

Cruel and unusual punishment is regarded as sadistic; and how and who decides what is okay or not? I would not be wholly surprised to find the definition of "violent crime" becoming a political football.

What happens if you get an Islamic Government in? cutting off hands is okay?

What about also when people find themselves in desperate situations through no fault or their own and turn to crime to survive? we should torture them?

[colechristensen]

It isn't at the trial, it's after they're found guilty.

And yes, call it what you want but yes I'm advocating for pain in exchange for serious crime.