Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Punishment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Is there any kind of physical injury or indignity that hasn't been used as a punishment at some time or other?
    No, at least none that my depraved mind can think of. One thing we as a species excel at is finding ways to disfigure, harm, humiliate and kill each other. It's second to opposable thumbs for why we are the dominant species.
    I’m often irrelevant. It confuses people.

    Comment


    • #32
      There have been some pretty disgusting punishments. One of the worst was the oubliette - throw someone in a windowless subterranean cell and just leave them there while they try to subsist on dampness seeping through the walls and beetles scuttling on the floor.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Robert View Post
        There have been some pretty disgusting punishments. One of the worst was the oubliette - throw someone in a windowless subterranean cell and just leave them there while they try to subsist on dampness seeping through the walls and beetles scuttling on the floor.
        I dunno, drawing seems so... I mean you're getting your intestines pulled out through your anus by a rusty hook. Like I literally can't even imagine what that feels like.
        The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          No Pierre

          quartering was part of the punishment, it was done so that body parts could be displayed around the country to deter others.

          It was not further mutilation as you are suggesting, and had nothing to do with disfiguring of the face.:

          "further mutilations / further mutilations (face / ears / etc).
          "
          It really is remarkable that you can never admit mistakes.

          regards
          No, Steve. It is you who do not understand. Point 6 and 4 is giving an interpretation of the elements in the two types of punishments. And quartering is interpreted as "further mutilations" (apart from disembowelling). Such further mutilations (of different types) was found on the victims of this particular serialist.

          Firstly, you were not able to understand the principle of interpretation here and secondly, you are trying to say that I did some mistake when it was you who dit it. But since I am an honest person and donīt blame people for nothing (!), I would not blame you for not being able to admit mistakes, as you have blamed me.

          You should consider the fact that your belief that others make mistakes could perhaps be explained by the fact that you sometimes donīt understand what others say.

          Regards, Pierre

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Errata View Post
            I dunno, drawing seems so... I mean you're getting your intestines pulled out through your anus by a rusty hook. Like I literally can't even imagine what that feels like.
            I know some people who I think would enjoy is
            G U T

            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

            Comment


            • #36
              I cannot remember where I heard it, or who the poor devil was, but one of the medieval 'plotters' who was subjected to hanging, drawing and quartering exhibited some very strange behaviour on the day of execution. When he was shown the instruments that would be used and the brazier wherein his private parts would be burned before his own eyes, he showed intense interest.

              Comment


              • #37
                The only Canonical that was treated with obvious anger was Mary Kelly, the facial slashing is indicative of that emotion. Whether that translates to punishment, I cant say, but if she was killed by a lover, then what happened in that room might be considered punishment. Erased her facial features and took her heart.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • #38
                  [QUOTE=Michael W Richards;373709]The only Canonical that was treated with obvious anger was Mary Kelly,

                  So he was not angry when he cut the face of Eddowes? What do you mean?

                  the facial slashing is indicative of that emotion.

                  Do you have any research for that?

                  Whether that translates to punishment, I cant say, but if she was killed by a lover, then what happened in that room might be considered punishment. Erased her facial features and took her heart
                  That is a rather common idea, isnīt it, but it does not explain the other murders.

                  Regards, Pierre

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by GUT View Post
                    I know some people who I think would enjoy is
                    Just wondering... Am I the only one whose going to be watching Hellraiser after reading all this?
                    I’m often irrelevant. It confuses people.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Going way back to your first post Pierre, it seems to me that you were trying to explore the possibility of your suspect as judge, jury and executioner to his victims, in his role as a senior police official. To this end you provided examples of the way the law treated those that had disobeyed its laws.

                      You provided examples of disembowelling and hanging, drawing and quartering in cases which you appear to have believed occurred in the 19th century, and therefore a senior policeman would have known about them, if not seen them himself. Not true, and in fact there are still English statutes that remain in law dating from the 13th century and earlier but have never been repealed.

                      I don't think we shall ever know Jack's motivations for what he did to these women. I don't believe punishment of them played a part, though. IMO Jack mutilated his victims because it gave him a 'high'. He enjoyed the process of seeing the interior of his victims' bodies and disturbing their entrails in pursuit of souvenirs.

                      I don't believe the killer believed he was 'punishing' them in any way. Their deaths were incidental to his main purpose and pleasure, ripping their bodies in order to view and explore what lay inside. Had he tortured them, by disembowelling them little by little while they were still alive for example, as happened in the disembowelling of victims of the political/legal process in previous centuries, it would be a different matter.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                        No, Steve. It is you who do not understand. Point 6 and 4 is giving an interpretation of the elements in the two types of punishments. And quartering is interpreted as "further mutilations" (apart from disembowelling). Such further mutilations (of different types) was found on the victims of this particular serialist.

                        Firstly, you were not able to understand the principle of interpretation here and secondly, you are trying to say that I did some mistake when it was you who dit it. But since I am an honest person and donīt blame people for nothing (!), I would not blame you for not being able to admit mistakes, as you have blamed me.

                        You should consider the fact that your belief that others make mistakes could perhaps be explained by the fact that you sometimes donīt understand what others say.

                        Regards, Pierre

                        Pierre,

                        You interpret Quartering as further mutilations, its not that I don't understand what you are saying, rather I am saying that I disagree with that interpretation.

                        Again, you see similarities between displaying body parts and murder victims being left where they are killed. I am saying there is no similarity.

                        There is no set principle of interpretation is there? You give your view, and I may disagree with that view. Its not about not understanding.

                        The mistake you made was to not mention the point that women were not killed by this method.
                        This was compounded by you then saying:
                        Firstly you had not read this information, however this was in the same source you had used in section A of your first post.
                        Secondly that it was not important anyway.

                        By not mentioning this information any conclusions drawn that suggest their may or may not be similarities between the punishment and the murders, are based on an incomplete and thus accidentally misleading presentation of the available data.


                        And yes I can and do make mistakes, it can be seen from my previous posts that when I make a mistake I admit it, and apologise.

                        regards
                        Last edited by Elamarna; 03-14-2016, 04:55 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                          Pierre,

                          You interpret Quartering as further mutilations, its not that I don't understand what you are saying, rather I am saying that I disagree with that interpretation.

                          Again, you see similarities between displaying body parts and murder victims being left where they are killed. I am saying there is no similarity.

                          There is no set principle of interpretation is there? You give your view, and I may disagree with that view. Its not about not understanding.

                          The mistake you made was to not mention the point that women were not killed by this method.
                          This was compounded by you then saying:
                          Firstly you had not read this information, however this was in the same source you had used in section A of your first post.
                          Secondly that it was not important anyway.

                          By not mentioning this information any conclusions drawn that suggest their may or may not be similarities between the punishment and the murders, are based on an incomplete and thus accidentally misleading presentation of the available data.


                          And yes I can and do make mistakes, it can be seen from my previous posts that when I make a mistake I admit it, and apologise.

                          regards
                          Hi Steve,

                          Why is it so important for you to attach "mistakes" to other people?

                          I do realize that the field of ripperology is full of mistakes and that people who take part in it are disappointed and even resigned.

                          But there is no reason to accuse people automatically for having made "mistakes". We will only start - I have also been influenced by it - to use this sort of communication as a standard communication. I see it in so many discussions here and often people do not even bother to discuss the issues in the threads, instead they are accusing each other.

                          Now, I will try to enlighten you as to the question about my thinking about the fact that the methods we are actually discussing here were used on men and not on women. According to my thinking, a gender perspective is not relevant, since I am only interested in the punitive functions of the method. Therefore I am also not interested in the relevance of a class perspective, an ethnic perspective or a perspective of age.

                          In other words, all the "background variables" (gender, class, ethnicity, age) are left aside for the purpose of a discussion about punitive dimensions only.

                          Do you understand this, my friend?

                          If you have arguments about the background variables in this discussion about punitive functions or aspects, that could be interesting, but I bet people would appreciate if you present them without accusations.

                          So please leave unfounded accusations aside. This is not a trial. Letīs just try and discuss and perhaps solve the case together with clear arguments. If we donīt, thereīs a risk that no one will ever take the Casebook seriously.

                          Regards, Pierre
                          Last edited by Pierre; 03-15-2016, 02:50 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Hi Pierre,
                            I believe that, at some point in time, we will realise that there was no complexity in identifying the Killer. Personally, I think we've been hamstrung by some theories that have developed a life of their own and made some of us unconsciously take our eye off the ball. I believe the misinformation and incredible theories that have been advanced as fact, and occasionally accepted as such, has veiled the Killer from our view; yet he is there and always was there, standing right in front of us. Best Regards.
                            wigngown 🇬🇧

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                              [B]Hi Steve,

                              Why is it so important for you to attach "mistakes" to other people?


                              But there is no reason to accuse people automatically for having made "mistakes".


                              Sorry Pierre, to say you have made a mistake has obviously offended you, for offending you I am indeed sorry.


                              Now, I will try to enlighten you as to the question about my thinking about the fact that the methods we are actually discussing here were used on men and not on women. According to my thinking, a gender perspective is not relevant, since I am only interested in the punitive functions of the method. Therefore I am also [I]not interested in the relevance of a class perspective, an ethnic perspective or a perspective of age.

                              In other words, all the "background variables" (gender, class, ethnicity, age) are left aside for the purpose of a discussion about punitive dimensions only.

                              Do you understand this, my friend?


                              Yes I most certainly do understand.
                              However this discussion is about the murder of Women in 1888/89 and comparing it to a form of historical punishment which was not in use at the time.
                              To suggest that this can be discussed without reference to gender on this specific occasion, when the punishment was gender specific is in my opinion incorrect.


                              we do not agree on this, debate and disagreement are healthy


                              However I shall stick with what was said in my previous post:

                              "By not mentioning this information any conclusions drawn that suggest their may or may not be similarities between the punishment and the murders, are based on an incomplete and thus accidentally misleading presentation of the available data."



                              It is obvious we will not agree on this



                              So please leave unfounded accusations aside. This is not a trial. Letīs just try and discuss and perhaps solve the case together with clear arguments. If we donīt, thereīs a risk that no one will ever take the Casebook seriously.


                              Pierre, to suggest that someone has made a mistake is an opinion, as long as such opinion is not presented in a rude or degrading manner it is normally acceptable to express that opinion.

                              I find your repeated use of the words "accuse" and "accusations" very interesting, it give an impression that you feel under attack.
                              In addition it suggests if someone is of the opinion that an innocent mistake has been made, which could affect the discussion, they should not point this out, such is a stifling of debate. I am sure that is not what you intended.


                              I fear we will not agree on this, so lets agree to disagree on this.


                              regards

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by wigngown View Post
                                Hi Pierre,
                                I believe that, at some point in time, we will realise that there was no complexity in identifying the Killer. Personally, I think we've been hamstrung by some theories that have developed a life of their own and made some of us unconsciously take our eye off the ball. I believe the misinformation and incredible theories that have been advanced as fact, and occasionally accepted as such, has veiled the Killer from our view; yet he is there and always was there, standing right in front of us. Best Regards.
                                Absolutely correct!

                                All the clues are there.

                                Ripperologists do not believe it can be done,so Jack must be some anonymous lunatic and all his victims prostitutes.
                                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X