An Eye for an Eye..,

[Auburn Boy]

There is a dilema here. First that a person could take such a depraved action in the first place against a woman for such a slight, and second because the state will retaliate in such a manner.

Where will socitey go from here?

http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_11087619

Iranian court sentences man to be blinded by acid
The Associated Press
Posted: 11/27/2008 04:01:26 AM PST


TEHRAN, Iran—Iranian newspapers say a court has sentenced a man who blinded a woman with acid also to be blinded with acid under the country's Islamic law.

Thursday's reports in several newspapers, including the Kargozaran, say 27-year-old Majid confessed to attacking Ameneh Bahrami in 2004 to dissuade anyone from marrying the woman he loved.

Wednesday's ruling was issued based on the Islamic law system of "qisas," or eye for an eye retribution.

The reports say Ameneh asked the court to sentence Majid, who was only identified by his first name, to be blinded by acid to prevent similar attacks on other women.

Majid is allowed to appeal the verdict.

Different responses from different cultures, but where's the "natural moral law" when you need it?

[Potemkin]

Well, it certainly will make men think about acid throwing wouldn't it?

[rootdiggr]

While I condem the ruling, and do not believe that "an eye for an eye" equates justice; still, some deep part of me says "Yeeesssss! They are not letting a man get away with a horrendous crime, just because the victim is a woman."

Not one of my prouder moments, I admit.

[jason]

If you screw up someone's life, I'm OK with your life being screwed up too.

As a blind man, I'm sure he'll not be as successful with the acid throwing. This means the punishment will have a 100% success rate of rehabilitating him.

[A.T. Hagan]

My first reaction is that anyone that would commit such a crime should simply be shot like a mad dog. I suppose that some might think that an overreaction though. I'm not too keen on torturing and maiming him like that, but it will keep him from doing it again.

.....Alan.

[theoryman]

You know, there is an interesting question here...

Does 'an eye for an eye', in cultures that practice it, help prevent crime?

[jason]

I would say that the culture would matter more than the laws.

The results of the 'eye for eye' situation would likely vary quite a bit if you practiced it in Hawaii compared to China.

[jason]

video and pics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30kristof.html?_r=2

It becomes much more real when you see the aftermath instead of an article.

[Twoolf]

Public hangings, with an hour of public humiliation allowed before the main event. Crime would drop like a stone.

[gsgs]

barbars

there were reasons, why they abandonned these practices.
Some will be innocently tortured.
They (or their relatives) will seek for revenge. They are disabled, get no job,
pay no taxes, need care,support.

It also could become common practice in conflicts,wars,kidnappings,
self-justice.
Someone injures you, you do the same to him, referring to the eye-law.
It starts with words,insults,pushing,boxing,stubbing... at what point in
the fight does the law apply ? How to prove who started which escalation ?

See medieval Europe, public burning of witches, public torturing.
There was more crime, hate, more wars not fewer.

Criminals have more reason to kill the victims rather than just injuring,disabling them,
so to eliminate witnesses. They leave the country, join your enemies.

Authorities will be feared and hated and avoided, no cooperation with the police,
opposition, revolution.

[Auburn Boy]

After reading all the comments posted, I have to add my thoughts..,

I think the death penalty just might curb this type of behavior. Swift, and with no appeal as long as the prrof is of "moral certainty."

[Mousehound]

I will try to be honest. The idea of killing or maiming a person goes against every instinct that I have in me. I do see that the jails and mental hospitals are filled with people who will commit these very crimes again and again if not stopped. I also realize there are times when people really are innocent of what they have been accused of. I am not sure if there is a way to be sure to only kill someone with the death penalty in the case of "moral certainty." On the other hand, I am sure if someone harmed or killed one of my loved ones right in front of me, and I had the means right then and there to kill that person, I would probably do it in effect. I just don't know if I could live with myself afterwards even though I felt that what I did was morally correct at that moment.

[Potemkin]

I will try to be honest. The idea of killing or maiming a person goes against every instinct that I have in me. I do see that the jails and mental hospitals are filled with people who will commit these very crimes again and again if not stopped. I also realize there are times when people really are innocent of what they have been accused of. I am not sure if there is a way to be sure to only kill someone with the death penalty in the case of "moral certainty." On the other hand, I am sure if someone harmed or killed one of my loved ones right in front of me, and I had the means right then and there to kill that person, I would probably do it in effect. I just don't know if I could live with myself afterwards even though I felt that what I did was morally correct at that moment.

You have to reconcile these two positions.

How can a death by the state be immoral and a revenge killing (even the spur of the moment) be allowed?

Either they both are incorrect or under the right circumstances both be correct.

[Mousehound]

You have to reconcile these two positions.

How can a death by the state be immoral and a revenge killing (even the spur of the moment) be allowed?

Either they both are incorrect or under the right circumstances both be correct.

Yes, it puts me in a bind. I guess if I had to choose, I would say under the right circumstances it is correct (the death penalty), but I don't have to be happy about it do I?

[Potemkin]

Yes, it puts me in a bind. I guess if I had to choose, I would say under the right circumstances it is correct (the death penalty), but I don't have to be happy about it do I?

Of course not, I don't think any moral person would be.

The discussion comes around is it advantageous to society of have capital punishment (with the correct controls and appeals in place.)

[Michael]

Public hangings, with an hour of public humiliation allowed before the main event. Crime would drop like a stone.

You mean like the way they did it in a "civilized" culture, like old England? The prisoner might undergo disembowelment or castration before hanging, but then the prisoner could have hands and feet tied to some of those huge draft horses and then "drawn and quatered." And to top off the day's entertainment, chop the head off and mount it on a pike on the Tower of London. Ah! I tell you, what would we do without being so civilized?