I wouldn't mind public torture for violent crimes (hey, if it is acceptable to torture the victim, what is it unacceptable to torture the criminal?), but the part that when they apologize they get a 50% discount is stupid.
Either the punishment is appropriate, or not. If it is inappropriate, change it. If it is appropriate, don't give a 50% discount for saying "sorry" when told to. First, it means nothing; no one reasonable will think that the "sorry" was sincere. Second, if once in a while an innocent person is incorrectly sentenced, you insist that they either apologize for something they didn't do, or get 2x the punishment an actually guilty criminal would get.
What is the police force isn't completely honest and has a tendency to incriminate say black men?
What if the police force isn't particularly competent?
What if the man was framed?
Cruel and unusual punishment is regarded as sadistic; and how and who decides what is okay or not? I would not be wholly surprised to find the definition of "violent crime" becoming a political football.
What happens if you get an Islamic Government in? cutting off hands is okay?
What about also when people find themselves in desperate situations through no fault or their own and turn to crime to survive? we should torture them?
Either the punishment is appropriate, or not. If it is inappropriate, change it. If it is appropriate, don't give a 50% discount for saying "sorry" when told to. First, it means nothing; no one reasonable will think that the "sorry" was sincere. Second, if once in a while an innocent person is incorrectly sentenced, you insist that they either apologize for something they didn't do, or get 2x the punishment an actually guilty criminal would get.