Not so sure he is kidding. remember this is his posts on another thread here:

What do we want?...JUSTICE!
When do we want it?...NOW!

That could be be justice in his mind...torture.

Charles II had Oliver Cromwell's rotten body dug up, hung, beheaded and drawn and quartered. There is no suggestion Cromwell ever again deposed an English King so I think there is evidence for the efficacy of torture and capital punishment.

. Humorous point taken, but Tony's serious point is quite logically flawed. "Deterrent" wouldn't mean that *all* revolts stopped, but rather that there were fewer than here otherwise would have been.

There is no law in Bulgaria, it’s Mafia country.

Ok, here is another example. In 1916 a group of people with no popular support in Ireland rebelled against the English authorities who then ran the country. The rebellion was crushed in a week, despite the fact that the British were taken up with the First World War. Many tens of thousands of young Irish men were fighting for the British in the trenches, and there was no real support for the rebels.

Shortly after the rebellion many of the leaders were sentenced to death, and executed by firing squad. One was injured and had to be shot in his wheelchair. When the leaders were killed, the Irish suddenly switched allegiance and backed the rebels, and within three years a full-scale war was in progress against the British. That would not have happened if the British had not chosen to use the deterrent effect of executions. Lengthy prison sentences would have actually served as a far bigger deterrent.

Sometimes a deterrent serves the purpose of annoying a populace and making them more eager to overthrow the regime that imposes the deterrent. I believe that if whites had treated blacks better the march to civil rights would have taken a lot longer. I know that if the British had treated the Irish better after the 1916 rising, we would not have progressed to the war of independence. Deterrents often back-fire.

Ask the Baltimore police force. They'll tell you.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

I know, Danny. But how much scientific study has been done on the deterrent effects of torture and execution? Not really one of the hot areas of research.

Actually there is considerable research done on torture.

On it's effects as a deterrent? Point me in the right direction. I am always eager to learn.

I feel that deterrents are a very blunt instrument. There is anecdotal evidence (the Irish example I cited for instance) that sometimes a deterrent backfires. That is human nature. Obviously sometimes a deterrent works. But I don't think you can take it as a given.

Tony- I wouldn't consider the Irish example to be anecdotal. It's a matter of documented historical fact.

Https://www.utexas.edu/law/centers/human......Work.pdf

A place to start. Not too hard to find studies actually.

As a means of punishment or persuasion do bombs work?

Danny, interesting article. But not conclusive. For example, the author acknowledges that the French use of torture in Algiers was a failure, leading to a French withdrawal from that country. He also says that the CIA torture program in Vietnam was ineffective. In fact the whole thrust of the article was that torture does not work.

Unfortunately any study will be anecdotal, as much of this was. It is based on a historic record of what happened, not on any sociological or psychological assessment of the effects of torture, execution, etc. As I said, it would be difficult to get a research grant to study the actual effects of torture. Far easier to get a historic perspective as this study did. More anecdotes, but cloaked in academia.

Had a quick read through. Very interesting. Hope to read more thoroughly later. Thanks, Danny.

This one isn't a study, but it's an (informed) summary of other findings, including historical reports. It's pretty persuasive, nonetheless.

Yea I thought it a better place for ME to start as a "study" tends to bog down my mind. Not as smart as I think I am sometimes.