Talk:Impalement

Torture and punishment

If the punishment fits the crime, then what would a person have done to be executed in this fashion? I have watched a video clip of this being done and it is quite a horrific death. If the punishment fits the crime, then the only thing I can think of is anal rape (child or adult) or homosexuality. Other methods of execution such as firing squad, hanging or electric chair are, in my opinion very quick and humane, despite the arguments against barbarity. thats sounds pretty bad to me. I would hate to have that done. these people are pretty gay.

In the Middle Ages, this was a very cruel method of execution, it didn't had a particular purpose. Vlad III Dracula used it for intimidation: he impaled all the Ottoman Turks prisoneers, so that when the Ottoman army marched toward his capital, they would be frightened. Bogdan | Talk 15:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since when did the punishment ever fit the crime? In the Middle Ages, you could be impaled because your neighbor thought you were a witch or someone shot a deer in the Duke's forest and framed you, or because an invading army was passing through and you looked like a loyalist, or just because the prince was having a bad hair day. Torture never has any legitimate reason aside from sick enjoyment. P.S. You might want to do some research into frequency of botched executions (hangings that don't quite hang, firing squads that have to reload and try again, electric chairs that take minutes to kill, lethal injections that the victim can feel pain during). You might be surprised. -Kasreyn 11:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Since when did the punishment ever fit the crime? This is a common fallacy. In the US when somebody murders another, they can be put to the death penalty. But when someone commits arson, the court doesn't order their hourse burned down; when they rape, the court doesn't order rape in return. The punishment almost never fits the crime.

"Torture never has any legitimate reason aside from sick enjoyment." This is rather narrow a viewpoint. There **are** legitimate reasons for torture, and in-fact, this is why even many developed countries maintained only cursory party in the "anti-torture" treaty sponsored by the United Nations. Torture may be used to precipitate critical information from subjects or in more terminal form it can be used to further grade punishment according to crimes, in fact, the foundation of our justice system (United states at least) is supposed to guarantee citizens that "punishment"(in specialized form also known as torture)will be standardized against the spectrum of crime, to check the possibility of such attrocities as being boiled alive for stealing a pencil.

You're right - there is one legitimate reason for torture - the enjoyment and arousal of the torturer. This is why it's so common among serial killers: Dahmer, Bundy, and the rest. And by soldiers forcing their prisoners into sexually submissive positions, in photos published to the world from Iraq.

Wrong. Torture does not elicit information. Torture just gets the tortured person to say whatever the torturer wants to hear. Research the Inquisition. You are also incorrect about the U.S. penal system. The U.S. operates under a model of "rehabilitation", where the justification for punishments is the stated goal of "rehabilitating" criminals into law-abiding members of society. Torture has no rehabilitative effect and is forbidden by the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Imprisonment, some have argued and continue to argue, is a form of torture; it is however a necessity, to protect society from reoffense. The principle purpose of imprisonment is this protection, not punishment. Kasreyn 12:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How long does it take for one to be "rehabilitated"?, Do we really need 100+ years to achieve rehabilitation?

Does it depend on the nature of the crime commited or that of the criminal?

Can our penal code, even in a most dissociated form consist of rehabilitation even in principle?

Perhaps most important of all, what is the **definition** of PUNISHMENT?(look it up in the dictionary).

"Torture has no rehabilitative effect and is forbidden by the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Absolutely wrong!!! Torture is NOT forbidden by any amendment in the constitution and in fact the founding fathers recognized such acts of punishment to be a cornerstone of any serious justice system and thus the notoriously vague 8th amendment. What they forbade where "cruel and unusual" acts of torture(punishment) because such systems tend to attenuate the spirit of freedom which is arguably an essential part of any workable democracy, not because they actually cared about the comfort or rehabilitation of criminals.

" Imprisonment, some have argued and continue to argue, is a form of torture; it is however a necessity, to protect society from reoffense. "

Imprisonment **is** a form of torture. It is constitutional because it isn't "cruel and unusual". It isn't cruel and unusual because it is not yet "cruel and unusual".

...wow. I don't know what to say in response to something that flies so utterly in the face of common sense. I suspect the solution is not to continue this unfortunate digression any further. The only point of yours which is actually grounded in the reality which I inhabit (rather than the reality you inhabit, where apparently water flows uphill and the sky is purple), I will rebut thusly: telling a torturer what they want to hear is not the same thing as information. If you are not a heretic, and they are torturing you and will not stop until you say you are a heretic, then you will say you are a heretic. There is no other option available. There is no information content in this exchange, and your contention that torturers - torturers - are actually equipped to distinguish such answers, is palpably false. It's rather quaint that your other arguments are based on other definitions of the terms "punishment" and "torture" than the ones the rest of us use, but quaint doesn't merit a response. Cheers, Kasreyn 02:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this arguement with a bit of interest. "kasreyn", you have totally missed the point of the original author, instead resorting to disconnected attacks and unwarranted accusations. I agree generally with the position that torture is just a special case of punishment which in turn is the foundation of any real justice system. The problem with "common sense" is that it is useless outside of a short history of a collection of area codes, when trying to understand such abstract constructs.

well, torture is not always a kind of punishment, various tortures were/are used to extort information not just from accused but also from witnesses, they weren't considered punishment.

Back to impalation: it was a very gruesome way of executing people used to scare others more than anything else, no need for the victims to have done anything. BTW: I don't think Kasreyn has missed anything. Plch 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a section about impalement in literature and movies. I am thinking of the Shrike Tree in the Hyperion Cantos for instance. 68.165.99.171 19:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sources? All I got is The Historian.

I read in a website that even now six countries follow Impalement as their legal mode of execution. Is it true? If yes can anyone tell me what are those countries?Sauron 10:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Crucifixion ?

Please contribute to the discussion on Talk:Crucifixion#Merge with Impalement. --Ephilei 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course NOT! Impalement has a much more general meaning than a means of torture. This is rediculous. When you impale your marshmellows on a stick do you crucify them too?!

Unsourced claim

The article stated: During war in Bosnia, some Serbs captives was put on stakes by mujahedin in Srebrenica and some ("bosnian lambs") was put near fire to cook alive (source ICTFY Den Haag). Can this source please be given in full length? -- Zz 14:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fiction

A reference to the film Cannibal Holocaust might be in order, it contains a rather iconic impalement scene...--127.0.0.1 14:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I added a paragraph about the film today. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Impaling today

As someone else stated, there are videos of impalings to be found on the net, which would suggest that this disgusting practice is still going on in various uncivilised parts of the world. Surely this article would benefit from some information in regards to this sorry state of affairs. Information on the areas where this kind of thing still occurs and its frequencyN^O^el (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Claims of this sort require particularly careful checking and should not be put into articles unless good sources can be cited (ie. sources that indisputably meet Wikipedia standards). I'm not saying that very bad things don't happen in the world but war does lead to the spreading of rumour and propaganda.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Meaning of "Impalement"

As this article is titled "Impalement" rather than "Impalement (torture and execution)" it should reflect the general meaning of that word. I noticed that someone had already put in wording mentioning impalement as a form of accidental injury, however the article still began by assuming that torture and execution were the main meanings. I have switched the text around a bit to give the general meaning first. I also mentioned impalement in stage illusions. I left the stuff about torture and execution mostly untouched but I put it into properly headed sections to make things clearer. I'll leave further editing of that stuff to others as it's really not my cup of tea. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Wikipedia articles are not about the general meaning, they are about specific meanings. The most common specific meaning (in this case "torture and execution") gets the main title, other articles about other meanings will have to settle for disambiguation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Gravity and weight

On 7 Jan 2011, in the section Impalement#Torture and Punishment, the line Gravity and the victim's own struggles would cause him to slide down the pole was changed to Gravity and the victim's own weight would cause her/him to slide down the pole". I reverted the edit for the following reasons:

• Adding "weight" is redundant. What else would gravity be working on? Actually, according to physics, I think the correct answer is "mass", but the mention of gravity takes this into account. I concur with the original wording that the victim's "struggles" would move the body down the impaling pole.
• I concur that a victim can be either male or female, but standard English grammar allows for the usage of the masculine pronoun in non-specific cases. Might seem biased, but it is expedient, cleaner, and easier to read. I believe there's a Wikipedia guideline if anybody is really interested. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Video of modern impalement

Here is a video on YouTube of an impalement victim being treated in Libyan hospital after he was impaled on an iron rood. The video is extremely "graphic" and vulgar. Do not watch unless you are prepared to feel sick for the next week.

• 10 yrs old boy tortured by rebels......

Some details for those who prefer not to watch the film: The rood enters the boy through his anus. It does not exit the boy's mouth as in the standard impalement depictions, but has forced its way into the boy's arm, exiting just above the shoulder.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Does anyone know Wikipedia guidelines for including this in the article, under External Links? Boneyard90 (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam Impalement

There are numerous accounts of barbarous acts committed by Communist forces during the Cold War which have been perpetuated in the West and later proven to be false. I am not 100% sure that the cases of impalement in Vietnam are untrue, however, better sources are required if this is to be reported as fact rather than propaganda. Currently the sources are an unsupported second-hand account by an American veteran (hardly impartial), and an issue of Reader's Digest from 1968 which is nothing more than pro-war propaganda. If no sources can be found, I suggest this be listed as 'propaganda' rather than historical fact, allong the lines of the Germans bayonetting babies in WWI etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.10.68 (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be an unsupported judgement call. One source isn't by some random veteran, it was the director of CIA operations. And I've never heard of the integrity of Reader's Digest being suspect in any way. If you feel the sources aren't good enough, then the burden is on you to find something that discredits them, or supports your hypothesis that the information was fictional propaganda. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A Cold War era director of the CIA? If there is a way to be any MORE partial on this subject I cannot think of it! Remeber that the United States government was a conflict party in Vietnam and the wider fight against communism. Regarding the Reader's Digest, it's an American popular publication from just before the Americans deployed wholesale into Vietnam in an environment of heightened pro-war propaganda, it's not academic, it's not peer reviewed and it's all third hand information.

I reject the idea that the burden of proof is on me; I am ready to accept right now that I cannot PROOVE that the Viet Cong didn't murder people in this way, but the evidence which is provided in the article is a long way from proof that something like this might have actually happened. For example; the fact that nobody can PROOVE that the US Government wasn't behind 9/11 doesn't provide me with the legitimacy to go to the 9/11 article and report such a hypothesis as fact--as a conspiracy theory, yes, but not fact.

All I'm saying is that what is written here is rumour not fact; and is even described as such in the extremely flawed sources provided. The fact that the only sources provided are thrid hand info from almost 50 years ago shows the paucity of evidence here.