
A gruesome legal case turned Voltaire into a crusader for the innocent - drjohnson
http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/03/13/broken-on-the-wheel/
======
lotsofmangos
_The first form—“The Question Ordinaire,” as it was labeled—called for an
elaborate pulling of limbs: “With his wrists tied tightly to a bar behind him,
Calas was stretched by a system of cranks and pulleys that steadily drew his
arms up while an iron weight kept his feet in place.” But Calas did not
confess._

 _The second form—or, “The Question Extraordinaire”—might sound familiar,
having been much in the news in recent years. Calas’s mouth was forced open
with two sticks. Then came the water, pitcher after pitcher. “His head was
held low and a cloth placed over his mouth and on the cloth a funnel,” is how
one author described this torture. “His nose was pinched, but from time to
time released, then water was slowly poured through the funnel on to the cloth
which was sucked in by the suffocating man.” Still, Calas did not confess._

We have not progressed much. And from the order of the punishments, at least
they understood that threat of death is worse than threat of injury.

~~~
lisa_henderson
Is this a typo?

"at least they understood that threat of death is worse than threat of injury"

Surely you meant to write the opposite? As we've all been told, over and over
again, at least since it became clear that President Bush was encouraging
torture, is the old slogan "death is what you wish for when you are being
tortured."

Personally, given a choice between a quick, painless death and some of the
worst kinds of torture, I would always chose death. Rather death than, say,
being tied tightly in a chair while someone takes some nails and a hammer and
hammers the nails through my hand, or being bound so I can not move and then
having rats allowed to eat my face and eyeballs.

~~~
comrade1
It probably depends on the method. With waterboarding you pass out, they wake
you up and waterboard you more, you pass out again, they wake you again,
waterboard you some more, pass out again, wake you up, repeat over the course
of tens of hours. You might lose some brain cells but it's more psychological
than permanent. And maybe you know that.

Compare that to extracting an eye, a second eye, a tongue... cutting off an
ear, a nose, fingers, destroying your knee cartilage, cutting your Achilles
tendon?

So it sounds like torture was institutionalized in France in the 1700s much
like it is in the u.s. now, and that less permanent forms of torture were
accepted, much like it is now in the u.s.

So, I think I'd first take these institutionalized forms of torture, then
death, then the more gruesome and permanent forms of torture.

~~~
pakled_engineer
They are still permanent, you likely don't walk out of CIA black sites and
have any kind of normal life again. If PTSD affects volunteer soldiers badly
enough to require long term treatment what does being subjected to repeated
torture designed by unethical psychologists and MDs do to somebody.

------
exo762
Somewhat similar scenes of injustice are taking place in colleges in USA
today. Courts composed of administrators without law training are judging
using Preponderance of the Evidence as standard of proof instead of Beyond a
Reasonable Doubt, without appeals and without ability to being represented by
professional lawyer. And victims of this kangaroo courts are selected on basis
of gender.

At least no torture is involved. That's a victory! /s

------
dghf
> With its formal finding of a wrongful execution, the case became exhibit No.
> 1 in what has emerged as a key argument against the death penalty—that
> sometimes, we misfire.

Years ago I read a column by the late, great Auberon Waugh that convinced me
that this argument, though well-intentioned, is at best ancillary and at worst
wrong-headed:

> [J]udicial execution can never cancel or remove the atrocity it seeks to
> punish; it can only add a second atrocity to the original one.

> [A] few innocent men and women will always suffer, but I do not think that
> has ever been a very serious objection to the principle of capital
> punishment. Innocent men and women are just as likely to fall down a manhole
> which has been left uncovered. There is almost no end to the list of
> unpleasant things which can happen to an innocent man or woman ... but blame
> must attach to the negligent man-hole coverer, balcony builder, to the
> stupid or cruel judge rather than to the manhole principle, the balcony
> system, the idea of the death penalty.

> The main objection to killing people as a punishment is not, as I say, that
> innocent people will be killed. It is that killing people is wrong.... So
> long as one sees killing as wrong there is no need to waste time with the
> deterrent argument, since it would be nonsense to try to prevent a
> theoretical evil in the future by perpetrating an actual one in the present.

\-- [http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/17th-
june-1978/6/anot...](http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/17th-
june-1978/6/another-voice)

~~~
Ntrails
I agree that there is high probability of 1-2 (more even?) in every 100 hanged
being innocent. I also agree that this doesn't make any meaningful difference
to the argument for capital punishment.

When the argument against it is simply "we're not good enough at judging when
to use it", then you aren't rejecting the concept - simply the execution of
it[1]. Which means that some bright spark comes up with the most absurd set of
safeguards, appeals systems etc to try and overcome the objection - and the
end result is death row.

Does any _punishment_ truly act as a deterrent? Should we instead be upset by
the underlying societal issues? What proportion of crime is truly a free
choice? Once the damage is done to the perpetrator can you ever truly
rehabilitate _everyone_. Does everyone even _deserve_ a change at
rehabilitation? Are the costs of perpetual incarceration acceptable?

I'm not even close to having strong answers for all of my vague questions. I
do know that I disagree with the articles key point though - killing a person
is wrong as an absolute unquestionable moral position. It doesn't stand up in
my opinion.

[1]I'm not even that sorry. I simply couldn't resist.

