by Bodwyn Wook
Tiamatnico responded to Dr Tamm-Clattuc thus, in the other day’s posting on free will:
“…. Lost me at the death penalty piece, although clever, not everyone/not every victim chooses or would choose to use revenge as a catharsis. Save me from myself….”
Here is Dr Tamm-Clattuc’s reply:
Hi, Tiamatnico, as I said,
I am no fan of the death-penalty either. What I wrote is that “failing to execute some is, perhaps, to cheat them out the meaning of their life.”
And I see now that I should have been similarly careful to qualify the position of the victims, I think.
So, as to actual punishment, the real art would be (from the point of view of revenge) to decide mythically what was at stake, what the criminal’s unconscious was really after — and then absolutely to impose the opposite.
For after all if I am “meant” to die, if that is my inner fate of course, then to be imprisoned and asked tormenting questions by one gang after the other of psychologists for thirty years would be just pure sadism! Especially imagine for yourself just how many treatment-fads would go by in that time, and you too will see expressly the exquiisite cruelty of it.
Naturally, the lawyers who now argue that execution is “cruel and unusual,” in light of these new facts, will have to now stand on the other leg….
[Emmett R Smith all rights reserved 9 July 2008]