3 ms·

The public execution is probably more common in human history than it's prohibition so from a human nature point of view, we are probably the odd ones. However,

The public execution is probably more common in human history than it's prohibition so from a human nature point of view, we are probably the odd ones. However, look at the popularity of clips coming out of the Ukraine war - grenade drops and such - snuff film entertainment - it's not too out of reach. Humans are fascinated by seeing death - modern squeamishness might have gone a bit too far such that we are in denial of our mortality and have a poor/immature conception of life and death. > it's clearly meant to input fear on the people I heard a Muslim who had attended these describe them. It's pretty interesting to understand there are some different concepts of justice at work. It's under control of the victim's family and various mullahs and even the executioner begs them to spare the life of the condemned. I think if you asked many people through history which was the better death - by sword or after 30 years of solitary in a supermax, most would say the the first is humane and the latter monstrous. A beheading, especially by sword was really quite prestigious and painless back in the day.

spookie 3y ago
Your last point is understandable to a degree. That is, it really depends on the nature of your "crime". I wouldn't consider stating your opinion 30 years solitary worthy. But I do agree that such a system may be less humane in some cases. In others, where your time is shorter, it allows you to have another chance. It's difficult, and interesting where one draws the line. As for the victim's family "control", are they really in control? Where they the ones condemning the victim? Concerning the war in Ukraine. Personally, I find it worrisome how easy it's for someone to dehumanise the other side. And, seeing those clips, I understand the brutality that Putin brought into that country. If anything, it's more of a reminder of the brutality of war, and how these men (from both sides) are forced into killing eachother. One side defending their country, and the other, defending the will of a madman.
- skissane 3y ago
  > As for the victim's family "control", are they really in control? Where they the ones condemning the victim? Sharia law distinguishes three types of crime – hudud, qisas, and tazir. A hudud crime is one where the penalty (whether death or some lesser punishment) is mandatory under the law, and so must be carried out (although there are various mitigating principles which can be used to justify not doing so in a particular case). A tazir crime is where the penalty is up to the discretion of the judge (and the ruler of the state as lawmaker). A qisas crime is one where the punishment is "eye for an eye" retribution, and hence the victim (or their family) has the legal right to commute the punishment. Murder (in most cases) is a qisas crime, so the family of the victim has the legal right to commute the death sentence to a lesser punishment, and no execution will be carried out without the consent of the family. This is different from hudud or tazir crimes, where the victim (if there is one) has no legal entitlement to a say in the punishment. An exception is something like a murder committed as part of a terrorist attack, which is simultaneously a crime against the victim (murder), but also a crime against the state (terrorism). Although the family of the victim still has the right to waive the death penalty for the qisas crime of murder, the state has the right to carry out the death penalty for the (tazir or hudud) crime against the state, so the offender will be executed irrespective of the family's wishes. Honestly, although I am personally opposed to the death penalty, I actually think in some ways the Saudi system is less wrong than the US system. Under the Saudi system, an ordinary murderer cannot be executed if the family unanimously opposes their execution (in cases of disagreement, I believe Saudi law follows the wishes of the identified senior next of kin); in the US system, the prosecutors/courts/government are under no legal obligation to respect the wishes of the victim's family, and a murderer can still be sentenced to death and executed even if the victim's family are unanimously opposed to that outcome. Also, although people denounce Saudi public executions as barbaric, I don't think private executions are any less barbaric than public ones. If anything, I think private executions are more barbaric, in that hiding what you are doing is a sign of a guilty conscience which knows it is really wrong. If voters can't stomach watching executions, they shouldn't be allowed to vote for them. (Saudis don't get to vote, at least not in any way that really counts–but it seems on this particular issue the Saudi government are doing the popular will–if you gave the Saudi people a free democratic vote on whether to retain the death penalty, I'm certain retention would win.)
rhaway84773 3y ago
I cannot watch those Ukrainian videos and I find them distasteful to say the least. But they’re hardly comparable to this. Those are literally videos of men in uniform with guns and battle tanks who are out there to kill the Ukrainians. There’s a huge difference between that and the killing of let’s say a serial killer who is completely under the power of the state and is incapable of harming anyone at that point. The Ukrainian equivalent would be if the military was bringing captured soldiers to Kyiv and then publicly executing them to cheering crowds. And no one is doing that as far as I’m aware. And even that would be more defensible because Ukraine is ar war which is literally a state of decivilization, where the citizens of Ukraine have spent a year and a half watching neighbors being blown up and spent half their time in subway stations so they don’t get killed in a missile attack. That’s a level of PTSD (although it isn’t even “post” but continuous and ongoing trauma) that could bring the blood thirst out in any human. And I don’t watch these videos so I don’t know, but as far as I’m aware they very rarely show any human body actually dying. It’s usually tanks being blown out or at worst I’m guessing tiny dots of humans just falling so even the gore is not visible. Finally, there is a difference between a video and watching a killing in person. A closer equivalent would be Americans gleefully watching bombs falling on Baghdad which was horrendous, but different from when the Abu Ghraib pictures were released which were widely condemned and drew outrage among most, even though they didn’t even involve killing AFAIR but they involved mistreatment of captives who were under custody and not an active threat to anybody.

spookie 3y ago

Your last point is understandable to a degree. That is, it really depends on the nature of your "crime". I wouldn't consider stating your opinion 30 years solitary worthy. But I do agree that such a system may be less humane in some cases. In others, where your time is shorter, it allows you to have another chance. It's difficult, and interesting where one draws the line. As for the victim's family "control", are they really in control? Where they the ones condemning the victim? Concerning the war in Ukraine. Personally, I find it worrisome how easy it's for someone to dehumanise the other side. And, seeing those clips, I understand the brutality that Putin brought into that country. If anything, it's more of a reminder of the brutality of war, and how these men (from both sides) are forced into killing eachother. One side defending their country, and the other, defending the will of a madman.

skissane 3y ago
> As for the victim's family "control", are they really in control? Where they the ones condemning the victim? Sharia law distinguishes three types of crime – hudud, qisas, and tazir. A hudud crime is one where the penalty (whether death or some lesser punishment) is mandatory under the law, and so must be carried out (although there are various mitigating principles which can be used to justify not doing so in a particular case). A tazir crime is where the penalty is up to the discretion of the judge (and the ruler of the state as lawmaker). A qisas crime is one where the punishment is "eye for an eye" retribution, and hence the victim (or their family) has the legal right to commute the punishment. Murder (in most cases) is a qisas crime, so the family of the victim has the legal right to commute the death sentence to a lesser punishment, and no execution will be carried out without the consent of the family. This is different from hudud or tazir crimes, where the victim (if there is one) has no legal entitlement to a say in the punishment. An exception is something like a murder committed as part of a terrorist attack, which is simultaneously a crime against the victim (murder), but also a crime against the state (terrorism). Although the family of the victim still has the right to waive the death penalty for the qisas crime of murder, the state has the right to carry out the death penalty for the (tazir or hudud) crime against the state, so the offender will be executed irrespective of the family's wishes. Honestly, although I am personally opposed to the death penalty, I actually think in some ways the Saudi system is less wrong than the US system. Under the Saudi system, an ordinary murderer cannot be executed if the family unanimously opposes their execution (in cases of disagreement, I believe Saudi law follows the wishes of the identified senior next of kin); in the US system, the prosecutors/courts/government are under no legal obligation to respect the wishes of the victim's family, and a murderer can still be sentenced to death and executed even if the victim's family are unanimously opposed to that outcome. Also, although people denounce Saudi public executions as barbaric, I don't think private executions are any less barbaric than public ones. If anything, I think private executions are more barbaric, in that hiding what you are doing is a sign of a guilty conscience which knows it is really wrong. If voters can't stomach watching executions, they shouldn't be allowed to vote for them. (Saudis don't get to vote, at least not in any way that really counts–but it seems on this particular issue the Saudi government are doing the popular will–if you gave the Saudi people a free democratic vote on whether to retain the death penalty, I'm certain retention would win.)

rhaway84773 3y ago

I cannot watch those Ukrainian videos and I find them distasteful to say the least. But they’re hardly comparable to this. Those are literally videos of men in uniform with guns and battle tanks who are out there to kill the Ukrainians. There’s a huge difference between that and the killing of let’s say a serial killer who is completely under the power of the state and is incapable of harming anyone at that point. The Ukrainian equivalent would be if the military was bringing captured soldiers to Kyiv and then publicly executing them to cheering crowds. And no one is doing that as far as I’m aware. And even that would be more defensible because Ukraine is ar war which is literally a state of decivilization, where the citizens of Ukraine have spent a year and a half watching neighbors being blown up and spent half their time in subway stations so they don’t get killed in a missile attack. That’s a level of PTSD (although it isn’t even “post” but continuous and ongoing trauma) that could bring the blood thirst out in any human. And I don’t watch these videos so I don’t know, but as far as I’m aware they very rarely show any human body actually dying. It’s usually tanks being blown out or at worst I’m guessing tiny dots of humans just falling so even the gore is not visible. Finally, there is a difference between a video and watching a killing in person. A closer equivalent would be Americans gleefully watching bombs falling on Baghdad which was horrendous, but different from when the Abu Ghraib pictures were released which were widely condemned and drew outrage among most, even though they didn’t even involve killing AFAIR but they involved mistreatment of captives who were under custody and not an active threat to anybody.