Good to see the Quebecois have found an alternative to Canada's restrictions on firearms...
-----------------------------------------
A knee jerk reaction as to proper punishment does not always work. In general, in a European context, swift and sure execution does a fair job - whether it acts as a deterrent to others or not, it insures THAT individual no longer carries on behaving badly. Among Europeans, it does tend to have a deterrent effect barring mental instability in the actor. It won't deter the mentally unstable, but it WILL keep that individual from becoming recidivist.
In other cultures, it may paradoxically have the opposite effect to deterrence - it may actually spur on further bad behavior. Radical Islam is a case in point - the objective for them is to become a martyr for Allah, and facilitating that can actually have a potentiating effect.
SO - to arrive at a proper punishment, we have to factor in cultural and mental factors. In mental cases, I think swift execution is the answer. It won't deter further mental cases generally, but it removes that actor from circulation in a society he or she is clearly unfit to move in, thereby defending said society from further depredations by that person.
In the cultural case, the punishment must fit the crime, and serve as a deterrent to further criminal actions. Using Radical Islam again as the example, the old punishment against the Moros in the Philippines is a good template - wrap them in pig skin, dump 'em in a hole in the ground, cover them with pig entrails, and then dump the dirt back in. That ended Moro attacks on the US forces for decades.
Other Death Cultures would require other inventive punishments for deterrence, operating against their own cultural norms. Know your enemy.
.
-----------------------------------------
A knee jerk reaction as to proper punishment does not always work. In general, in a European context, swift and sure execution does a fair job - whether it acts as a deterrent to others or not, it insures THAT individual no longer carries on behaving badly. Among Europeans, it does tend to have a deterrent effect barring mental instability in the actor. It won't deter the mentally unstable, but it WILL keep that individual from becoming recidivist.
In other cultures, it may paradoxically have the opposite effect to deterrence - it may actually spur on further bad behavior. Radical Islam is a case in point - the objective for them is to become a martyr for Allah, and facilitating that can actually have a potentiating effect.
SO - to arrive at a proper punishment, we have to factor in cultural and mental factors. In mental cases, I think swift execution is the answer. It won't deter further mental cases generally, but it removes that actor from circulation in a society he or she is clearly unfit to move in, thereby defending said society from further depredations by that person.
In the cultural case, the punishment must fit the crime, and serve as a deterrent to further criminal actions. Using Radical Islam again as the example, the old punishment against the Moros in the Philippines is a good template - wrap them in pig skin, dump 'em in a hole in the ground, cover them with pig entrails, and then dump the dirt back in. That ended Moro attacks on the US forces for decades.
Other Death Cultures would require other inventive punishments for deterrence, operating against their own cultural norms. Know your enemy.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’