Hacker News Reader

Comment by hirvi74 | Hacker News Reader

I do not care what crime one commits. No one deserves treatment like this. Though, I suppose that is hard for many to fathom considering cruelty is the point of the US Judicial/Justice System.

View on HN

The purpose definitively isn't rehabilitation.

That statute (18 U.S. Code § 3582 - Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment) that authorizes imposing a sentence explicitly states this in section A:

(a)Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Term of Imprisonment.— The court, in determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment, and, if a term of imprisonment is to be imposed, in determining the length of the term, shall consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3582

Edit: if you think this language is used to dissuade imprisonment and promote rehabilitation read the case law and how it is used.

It is hard to fathom. People who murder others have done harm to society that can never be undone. Why do I care what happens to a man who stalked and killed a woman/women/men?

We have to be better. We have to break the cycle.

I am not saying these criminals do not deserve punishment. However, it should not be cruel nor unusual per our constitution.

Also, by torturing/killings these individuals we are no better than them. We have come a long ways away from Hammurabi's Code. No need to return.

It is Old Testament, and not the slightest bit New Testament.

Where US culture is concerned, I would associate approval of “maximum suffering for sinners” with the “fire and brimstone hell” ideology that is thoroughly rooted in the imagery of the New Testament.

Whereas Judaism, for all the smiting G-d does, doesn't have a hell. Though to be fair to the NT, forgiveness is Jesus's whole schtick, but the penal system hardly seems forgiving. Maybe because of the deleterious legacy of Puritanism, and Calvanist predestination, with the idea that some people are born saved and others deserve their scarlet letters.

> doesn't have a hell

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzoah_Rotachat

I concede, though I think this is a later innovation of the Rabbinate; Gehenna is an actual place, an ancient garbage dump, on the outskirts of Jerusalem. It is not referenced as a spiritual plane in the Torah like the Lake of Fire (Hell) in Christianity or Islam. It likely gained that interpretation under the influence of Platonism. I am not (yet) a Jew so I can't speak authoritatively to Jewish eschatology, but I think there's more room for give and take in the Talmud and Zohar (where Gehinnom is referenced) as it's the recorded wisdom of rabbis rather than Law itself. This is just my understanding based on my studies thus far.

I once heard a Rabbi explain how Judaism has no hell and then later he described how Jesus is boiling in excrement.

It's a pretty common idea, I don't understand why people have it but most people seem to.

It doesn't have hell for gentiles I guess? That's the best argument I see, like they are answering from my perspective when I ask.

That Jesus story comes from Rabbi Onkelos, a Roman convert who performed necromancy (!) to summon Jesus and ask questions about the afterlife. Apparently Gehinnom as described by the conjured spirit was indeed reserved for Jews who sinned; I think the unrighteous gentiles (not the Noahide) simply stop existing. They also got Shabbat and Yom Kippur off (I wonder if the summoning ate into Yeshua's break time.)

The Talmud is fascinating but pretty wacky.

> and not the slightest bit New Testament.

I don't know about "slightest"

The part where the state severely beats an innocent man and nails him to a couple of pieces of wood, and the guards hang around waiting for him to die in agony is a pretty central part of the New Testament.

And it turns out there are two other guys also undergoing the same fate. The one guy says - hey use your power and fight against the state and get us out of this mess. He is seen as a villain.

The other guy says, me and the other guy deserve what the state is doing to us, but you don't, but please just remember me in the afterlife. This guy is seen as a good guy.

So yes, there are some hints of this in the New Testament as well.

I'm not well versed in ancient Middle Eastern mythology, but what point are you trying to make? If these ideas were New Testament would it be more acceptable or less likely to occur or what?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com