This got me thinking: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100820/twl-judge-asks-doctors-to-damage-crimina-3fd0ae9.html So do you think it should be an eye for an eye? Obviously some people deserve it but some 1st time offenders will never do it again, everyone makes mistakes. Im all for it for repeat offenders or for serious crimes, it only takes a few puplic cases and its more powerful as a deterrent than an actual punishment.
Aren't there better solutions? Such as forcing the criminal to be a servant for the families? Sounds kind of like an immature action to me.
But if you knew it would happen to you, would you stab someone in the back with a cleaver? Thats what i mean by a deterrant, I know for certain I wouldn't break any laws or even take the slightest risk over it no matter how mad/upset I got.
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. cant remember where I saw it nor do I actually give a fuck about it I just felt like saying some wise shit.
Yes and will it happen again? well, yeah....on rare occasions, but think of it as a long term benefit to society. All them people that would have done a crime but though better of it.
Says it all right there. : No, it's not. When people commit crimes like this, they are usually to blinded by anger or other type of emotion to think about what punishment they will get. Look at the death penalty, for example. It's no better deterrent then a life sentence. Agreed. What if you knew you would get locked up for life, or even for a good amount of years? Would you still do it? Like i said, in the heat of the moment, i doubt the aggressor is considering what the penalty for his crime will be. That does not invalidate what he said. Just because they call a barbaric and ancient book, with outdated morals and values, law, doesn't necessarily make it right. IMO, the people who would actually think about this type of punishment and would therefore not commit the crime are the same exact people who would otherwise think of the punishment of imprisonment or any other punishment. So, what i'm trying to say is, i don't believe that stooping to the criminal's level will make a better deterrent.
The victim's life is ruined, so I think it is somehow justified to punish the criminal the same way as well. Still, it's barbaric and I do think that the assault wasn't intended to paralyze the victim in the first place. Hell, it was even a fight. This is not as barbaric as stoning and beheading of adulterers though. That one is completely selfish of the authority and unreasonable. Why do you want to kill somebody who indulge in extramarital sex? It's not like it causes death and did those who are involved kill anyone?
The thing is, I do think about my actions and always have done. I wasn't scared I knew nothing would happen, the most I ever got was a suspended sentance.
Wait wait. So they take out his eye and send him on his way? Hmm, doesn't seem that fair to me. The loss of an eye will effect you till the day you die. After 5 years of jail time (for example) you pretty much have to rebuild your life but atleast you can get a job. Who's gonna hire a blind man? I don't know how to feel about it, maybe if it were a more severe crime that was intentional. But I can't say I agree with their actions.
I see situations where it works, such as castrating serial rapists and paedophiles, but in general its not a good idea.
A disabled person are usually morally "cleaner". Have you ever heard of a blind rapist? Seriously dude.
Its not literally an eye in this case, did you read the link? He put someone in a wheelchair by severing his spinal cord with a cleaver so his family want the same for him.
*facepalm myself* I see it now lol. Post Merge: [time]1282461654[/time] Ahh I read it. Well the fact that he only got 14 months for paralyzing someone is shocking. A greater punishment is deserved though damaging his spinal cord might be a bit overkill, albeit fair I guess... Who know's it may "scare" off other criminals.
