Judicial Punishment 2 (56)

This post is on the SM/Bondage/Fetish web board.

Mon 8 Feb 10, 9:13 AM
rubberroy
UK(TN), 4 yrs

To carry on from the full up thread, I don't think many of us here get much pleasure from watching that sort of treatment. To watch or not to watch is personal choice and most of us have made that choice.
As others have said, the recipient KNEW what the possible punishment could be when he committed a crime, and he's had to pay for that misdemeanour.
Quite why someone would want to film and publish the proceedings I know not; maybe the authorities in that country want to show they mean business, like the film of Sadam Hussein being executed was filmed. No doubt some peeps would be turned on by that, others may have rejoiced at his demise, a bit like the reported crowds used to gather at Newgate or Tyburn to watch public hangings.
As for the criminal's rights, I don't believe he should have any, having deprived someone else of their rights without consent. Maybe he mugged an old lady. Reports suggest he was a drug dealer, and therefore fucked up others lives, maybe with their consent. After all, no-one forces anyone to take drugs, but that's another argument.
If you're into judicial punishement as part of your kink, that's fine by me, having administered a few over the last couple of years top consenting adults. As long as no-one is forcing you to give or receive it.
Mind you, the filming of it is a bit like the youtube clip of the guy on top of the train in India who got a 25kV electric shock and got fried and killed. Now THAT ought to be shown to schoolkids here to show them not to mess with the electric railway!
Rubber Roy

8 Feb 10, 9:38 AM
Grownup_Frankie
UK, 2 yrs

Perhaps when posting clips in future it might be useful, and considerate, for the poster to give a brief description of the content. As I've said on the other thread, I never look on the once bitten twice shy presumption that I might not like what I see but it would be too late then.
Now, I might be doing myself out of seeing something I'd like, by being a bit of a whimp.
A description would help me.
For instance: Man wearing vintage 1950s apron having his penis swatted with a luminous plastic flyswat, whilst crying out 'oo-aaa, oooo-aaaaa, OOOOOO, AAAAAAA!' and alternatively giggling.
Now, if I knew the clip was going to be a carry-on like that, I'd probably have a look.
Hell, it would probably be me IN the clip.

8 Feb 10, 9:47 AM
lima_pink_tigress
UK(G), 17 mths

rubberroy wrote:
Reports suggest he was a drug dealer, and therefore fucked up others lives, maybe with their consent. After all, no-one forces anyone to take drugs, but that's another argument.

I don't want to derail this thread any but people are often given drugs non-consensually (or under the age of consent) which starts them down that rocky road. It's 'good business' for drug dealers to prey on the young and vulnerable.
Anyway, back to the topic .....
The thing that really pissed me off in the origonal thread was the poster who got a bee in her bonnet about the *supposed* 'non consnsuality' of a criminal being punished for commiting a crime and went on to compare that to the non consensuality of someone being raped. That, to my mind, and I'm sure most other people with an ounce of common sense who sit and really think about it would agree, is complete and utter bollocks! There simply is no comparison.
With regards to the filming and publishing of it, I've no idea (obviously) the reasons behind that but I think it's safe to say that it would probably be a bit more of a deterant to other would be offenders than the promise of six months bed and board at Her Majesties, with all mod cons.
In order to know virtue, we must first aquaint ourselves with vice - Marquis De Sade

8 Feb 10, 9:59 AM
wonderer
UK, 3 yrs

I'm not sure this thread is going to stay within the criteria for the board, but anyway ...
I don;t think a person found guilty of a crime (rightly or possibly erroneously) can meaningfully be said to have "consented" to all the possible punishments which might be carried out. They may have taken the risk; that isn't the same. (Compare with the level of care typically seen in a BDSM scene for ongoing consent).
I also think prisoners do have some basic human rights. If they have none, think of all the possible consequences.
And thirdly I don;t think a prison sentnce is as cushy as some are suggesting.
Relaly sorry to disagree, but ther eit is.
Love and peace to all
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/226772/

8 Feb 10, 10:04 AM
SheilaBlyge
UK, 22 mths
Short point, I seem to remember reading that the video was made simply to demonstrate the process in that country, possibly to remove myth and misunderstanding in other nations' governments, I don't know.
Why it is out on public access I have no idea, but so many things that were created for one purpose end up being used for another in this day of 'tinterweb supremacy.

8 Feb 10, 10:12 AM
lima_pink_tigress
UK(G), 17 mths

wonderer wrote:
I'm not sure this thread is going to stay within the criteria for the board, but anyway ...
I don;t think a person found guilty of a crime (rightly or possibly erroneously) can meaningfully be said to have "consented" to all the possible punishments which might be carried out. They may have taken the risk; that isn't the same. (Compare with the level of care typically seen in a BDSM scene for ongoing consent).

The point is though that it's not BDSM. And while I agree it's not directy saying "I consent to you stripping the skin off my arse with a cane", knowing the punishment that falls upon one who is found to be perpetrating a particular crime and going ahead and commiting that crime anyway, is ignoring (or accepting) the risk and is enough consent to recieve that punishment IMO.

wonderer wrote:
I also think prisoners do have some basic human rights. If they have none, think of all the possible consequences.

Agreed, prisoners should have some human rights (as should any human being), that's why most civilised societies don't have the death sentence any more. But I'll fight for the rights of law abiding citizens to be protected and to have justice over those of a criminal any day of the week.

wonderer wrote:
And thirdly I don;t think a prison sentnce is as cushy as some are suggesting.

Again, I agree, I'm painting a much rosier picture than exists in prison but they do have a better deal thatn people living on the streets, children living on the poverty line .... and it doesn't seem to be that much of a deterant.

wonderer wrote:
Relaly sorry to disagree, but ther eit is.

sensible, adult disagreeement and debate is good

wonderer wrote:
Love and peace to all
Edited to fix quotes.

In order to know virtue, we must first aquaint ourselves with vice - Marquis De Sade
Edited 8 Feb 10, 10:14 AM by lima_pink_tigress

8 Feb 10, 10:36 AM
Praxilla
US, 2 yrs
It's absurd to argue that someone legally found guilty of a crime consented to a caning when they committed the crime.
The first fallacy is in the assumption that they actually did what they have been found guilty of. The second fallacy is in assuming they knew the law and the likely punishment. Will those of you who want to argue the man consented to the caning also argue that women who are stoned to death for adultery consented to their "punishment?"
The greater issue is one of simple human rights. There is simply no justification for brutality in any judicial system. People, by their nature just don't consent to being brutalized because they have done something the society they live in doesn't approve of. Yes, some crimes are heinous and there should be a fair and firm judicial system in place to address those crimes in a way that seeks to protect victims and lower recidivism. But there is simply no way that any of us can assume the man in that video did something - anything - that warrants a punishment such as he received.
To submit to a caning of that nature consensually is completely separate and different to receiving it in a judicial environment. I think that we should be the last group of people defending judicial canings and the first to clearly separate it from what we do with clear and informed consent.
love the brave but avoid cowards, knowing the gratitude of cowards is small ~Praxilla of Sicyon

8 Feb 10, 11:27 AM
lima_pink_tigress
UK(G), 17 mths

Praxilla wrote:
It's absurd to argue that someone legally found guilty of a crime consented to a caning when they committed the crime.
The first fallacy is in the assumption that they actually did what they have been found guilty of.
True, but miscarraiges of justcie occur all the time whatever the punishment. In this case yes, there is an assumption that he commited the crime. And, yes the points I've made rely on that. If, he has been wrongly found guilty then the argument changes completely, therefore I feel in this instance it's irrelevant to the argument of consent.

Praxilla wrote:
The second fallacy is in assuming they knew the law and the likely punishment.

Again, yes an assumption but I think al pretty fair one. If I lived in a country or visited a country and was considering commiting any criminal act, I'd make damn sure I foudn out what was likely to happen to me should i be caught and prosecuted.

Praxilla wrote:
Will those of you who want to argue the man consented to the caning also argue that women who are stoned to death for adultery consented to their "punishment?"

I think I see what you're getting at with this (please correct me if I'm wrong). the argument I'm putting forward is one of consent/accepting a risk witht he knowledge that there is a punishment to be faced for commiting a crime. I've never said that the punishment always fits the crime or that I agree with any particular type of punishment. The purpose of any punishment as far as I'm concerned, is twofold - as a deterant and as rehabilitation/to prevent repeat offences. Whether it's humane or relevant to a particular crime, again isn't the point I was making. I have in none of my replies said that I agree with the type of punishment or that I thought it was justified.

In order to know virtue, we must first aquaint ourselves with vice - Marquis De Sade

8 Feb 10, 12:36 PM
wonderer
UK, 3 yrs

lima_pink_tigress wrote:
The point is though that it's not BDSM.
{and lots of other good stuff}

Thank you for a reasoned and balanced response. I really didn't want a fight with someone I like and respect. We may not fully agree but that's no problem, so long as we do it in a courteous and mutually respectful way.
Apologies too for all my abysmal typos in that hurried posting.
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/226772/

8 Feb 10, 12:42 PM
Praxilla
US, 2 yrs

lima_pink_tigress wrote:
The purpose of any punishment as far as I'm concerned, is twofold - as a deterant and as rehabilitation/to prevent repeat offences. Whether it's humane or relevant to a particular crime, again isn't the point I was making. I have in none of my replies said that I agree with the type of punishment or that I thought it was justified.
First, please allow me to say that my post was a general response to a number of posts in both threads and was in no way intended to specifically address anything you've said.
But if I may address what you've said now, while I understand that you weren't discussing the appropriateness of the punishment to the crime, I'm not sure that I think we can address presumed consent without consideration for the appropriateness of the punishment. In Malaysia, some of the crimes for which people are caned include drinking a beer and having sex with a boyfriend or girlfriend. In Singapore, if you overstay your visa, you can be caned. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that two adults who succumb to the natural, human urge to have sex with one another are not by extension consenting to being caned for doing so - even if they are fully aware that it is a potential consequence of their decision.
I think the whole premise of consent is that it should not be ambiguous nor presumed. I'm going to go further out on a limb and suggest that mutual consent is the lynchpin of the BDSM "society." We are practitioners of activities deemed to be unhealthy, dangerous and/or depraved, but consent is the standard by which we judge and defend our own behavior. If we allow for a morally convenient presumption of consent or conditional ambiguity, I think we are headed into a pit of murky complacency.

love the brave but avoid cowards, knowing the gratitude of cowards is small ~Praxilla of Sicyon

8 Feb 10, 12:45 PM
lima_pink_tigress
UK(G), 17 mths

wonderer wrote:

lima_pink_tigress wrote:
The point is though that it's not BDSM.
{and lots of other good stuff}

Thank you for a reasoned and balanced response. I really didn't want a fight with someone I like and respect. We may not fully agree but that's no problem, so long as we do it in a courteous and mutually respectful way.
Apologies too for all my abysmal typos in that hurried posting.
I think this is something that many of us will never agree on. Particularly as the type of punishment (which isn't what I'm arguing for) involved in the particular clip is so emotive.
But I have a suspision that IC would be a very different (less fun and definitely less informative) place if we all agreed on everything. Variety is ......
Oh and I'm glad you don't want to fight . I hate violence and was always a fast runner rather than a good fighter
xx

In order to know virtue, we must first aquaint ourselves with vice - Marquis De Sade

Next page


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent