? asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 1 month ago

How would progressive amputations work to deter serious crimes in the United States?

I was watching a film, "The Disappearance of Willie Bingham."  Willie was convicted of the rape, murder and dismemberment of a mother and her daughter.   Under mounting pressure from an increasingly vocal public, the State has introduced “Progressive Amputation” as a controversial punishment for capital crime. The procedures, performed live in front of victims’ families, are carried out over several years and stop only at relatives’ request.

This is done only for very serious violent crimes and it was ordered by the court instead of execution.  Would this form of punishment work in the American Prison System?  Criminals would know, if they murder someone, their limbs would be amputated until the family said "stop".  The prisoner is now at the mercy of the family of the victim.

With many jails and prisons being overcrowded, it's obvious our current prison system isn't working.  This would only be used when life in prison is better than someone deserves.


The convicted criminal could always make a sincere apology to the family and make an urgent plea for mercy then hope that they wouldn't take it that far.  I liked when the doctor told Willie that the amputation of his left hand would be largely symbolic.  Okay, they are amputating his hand, but at least it's only symbolic.  

8 Answers

  • 1 month ago

    Ever heard of the 8th Amendment?

    Although strangely it does not apply to executing minors, jailing people for life for victimless crimes. 

  • Foofa
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Our Constitution's line about "cruel and unusual punishment" probably doesn't takes its lead from Australian horror porn films. 

  • 1 month ago

    This would not work.  First, I'm reasonably certain it would violate the Eighth Amendment.  Second, many murders are committed by someone in the victim's family, so I'm not really sure how the scheme would work; in many cases, the family would say stop at the very beginning, because they don't want their family member to die.  In other cases, the victim has no family.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    something something something cruel and unusual punishment. 

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    That WOULD NOT act as a deterrent. If anything, it would encourage ensuring the victim was unable to identify the criminal.

  • 1 month ago

    Frankly, although I can understand the theory behind this, I cannot see how this would not put more burden on the prison system by then having inmates that need more medical and daily assistance than before. This would only prove to tie up more faculty and funds. Just reinstate the death penalty for more crimes than what it already encompasses.

  • 1 month ago

    Personally I favor locking people up forever for certain crimes. Crimes that people are virtually guaranteed to commit again when they get out. Like scamming, grifting, hacking, pedophilia, rape

  • ?
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    I would fully support this, but it will never be allowed.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.