Crucifixion is one of the worst ways to die...

Crucifixion is one of the worst ways to die, left tied to a cross with nails through your wrists and feet to die from exposure to the elements.

Sometimes they would take mercy and break the legs of the condemned and that way they would only slowly suffocate to death under the weight of their own body as they could no longer push themselves up to take a breath.

What people deserved crucifixion Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

proselytizing jews

Is that a thing? I thought thought Jews didn't want anyone outside of the Jewish ethnicity to join their faith?

>profligates
>degenerates
>Benny

The guy that posts the log memes

No one, as the purpose of justice is to protect society, not get revenge.

>or to provide intense enough punishments in order to protect society
>that's what it was idiot

Retard. Cruxificion died from suffocation. Feet were not suspended.

Learn your history, Trump...

My ex wife. Id have emt standby, so i could cut the slag down, man the defib, then start over.

> batten screws
> acts of fiction \ fantasy
> def a fantasy
> added to my list of what should be done.

Miss my kids. Miss my simple life. Miss having nothing left once that scum takes $1k a week and i still have all the joint liabilities years later.

> dont just trust any scum guys & girls. Might be simple and easy now, but later on it could be the greatest regret of your life.
> cant anhero, she would gain $1m from insurance due to twisted old law in aus, plus it would mean she wins more, and the kids would prob think it their fault.
> mfw
> mfw

Death by torture doesn't grant any additional protection to society than painless death does.

it's a deterrent. Would you be more scared to commit a crime if the punishment was crucifixion , or if the leader was someone like you and was going to grant you a quick painless death if caught? why do you seem confident in your answer?

>implying that setting a public example to discourage law-breaking & removing people w/ criminal tendencies from the gene-pool isn't protecting society

We need to bring back public crucifixions, it'll do us all some good.

>it's a deterrent.
No, it isn't.
>Would you be more scared to commit a crime if the punishment was crucifixion , or if the leader was someone like you and was going to grant you a quick painless death if caught?
There is no change. People who commit crimes that can receive the death penalty are either convinced that they won't get caught, are not thinking when they commit the crimes (i.e. crimes of passion), or (rarely) are so devoted to carrying out the crime that the punishment doesn't matter (extremist).
>why do you seem confident in your answer?
Because this has been studied. The death penalty itself isn't even effective as a deterrent.

>to discourage law-breaking
It doesn't though.

It does though.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

But it provides more satisfaction.

That's vengeance, not justice.

>but not even the death penalty is a deterrent
>even
no, it's not. it's swift and painless. im not scared of it. are you? I am scared of being crucified. is this decent bait?

This

We achieve societal justice through individual vengeance.

No, we don't.

I present a contender, "Brazen Bull"

Those studies are absolute bullshit done by radicals with an agenda. It's fucking obvious that people take penalties into account when considering crimes. If killing someone could get you crucified (all other things held constant) then you could bet your sweet ass that the murder rate would plummet. No bullshit "study" is going to convince me (or anyone else with a bit of sense) otherwise.

Yes, we do.

>I reject reality because I prefer to live in my fantasy
You're free to do that if you want.

...

what is your motivation to try to believe that and convince others of it? a sense of righteousness?

Not injecting her with HIB tainted blood with a small needle during a hectic event so the prick goes unnoticed.

Learn to revenge dumbass

1. I care about the truth.
2. Believing falsehoods in this case results in unnecessary suffering, potentially including the suffering of innocents. Even if you believe that torture of the guilty is somehow justified, torture of the innocent is not.

...

falsehoods imply that you are told them. which is what you are doing. telling. saying "studies". When the other side of the argument is not something that we have been told. it is common sense and inherent fear of punishment. I feel like im being taken for a fucking ride here.

>statistical manipulation = 'reality'
right back at you big guy

Argument from common sense is a fallacy, and no, falsehoods don't imply that someone told you them. You can make them up yourself.

...

>common sense is a fallacy.
I guess you can't lose like that lol. I guess I still get trolled once a year. peace

Trolling with the truth is one of the most effective forms of trolling.

How can justice be real if morals are subjective?

Justice is a concept.

So is religion. You have the burden of proof. Your entire argument is based off of justice served. And studies that you have yet to provide. You are an anonymous poster on a Tibetan basket weaving forum. You need to borrow credentials otherwise you are just a shitposter.

>So is religion.
Correct. And? What exactly are you asking?
>And studies that you have yet to provide.
Example:
deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf

Here's another contender.

>What people deserved crucifixion Sup Forums?

Those who defied the Roman Empire, of course.

Crucifixion is pretty small time considering the shit the Medieval Europeans and ancient Chinese were doing to each other.

>heir results indicated that each execution resulted in five fewer
homicides, and each commutation27 of a death sentence to a long or life
prison term resulted in five additional homicides.28 Further, each additional
removal from death row—primarily occurring when appellate courts vacate
death sentences that were imposed with various improprieties by trial
courts—resulted in one additional homicide.29
Cool. And if you take out Texas, the sample size was not big enough to matter.

Keep reading
At least two prominent criminologists have found serious flaws in the
Mocan-Gittings work. Richard Berk noted that the execution figures by
state by year for the 1977 to 1997 period were highly skewed.30 Berk
specifically noted that most states—accounting for 859 of the 1,000
observations31—had zero executions in a given year, and only a few states
had more than a handful in a few years (n=11), with most of these being
from Texas.32 He used a straightforward procedure to assess the
implications of this skewed measure: using Mocan and Gittings’s original
data set, he removed the Texas data and ran the model exactly as the
original authors did, albeit only for the other forty-nine states.33 The
deterrent effect of executions disappeared.34