An Eye for an Eye....

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, we usually kill the non-human animals because they can't be reasoned with or changed, but that brings up an interesting problem. These people probably can't either.

[Sarevok]

So how did the idea of throwing acids on women spread to Iran ? I thought it was restricted to the fucked up society I am currently living in here in bangladesh...

[Stuart]

So how did the idea of throwing acids on women spread to Iran ? I thought it was restricted to the fucked up society I am currently living in here in bangladesh...

Actually Bangladesh has recently passed a law that applies the death penalty to acid attacks. Good for them, more countries should follow suit. Acid attacks on women have been spreading rapidly throughout the Islamic world as part of the fundamentalist surge of the last few decades. There has always been a limited number of such attacks in all societies over the years but the attacks in Moslem countries are now reaching epidemic proportions. They're also spreading to countries where there are significant Moslem minorities. An example, in Thailand there is a festival called Songkhran where more or less everybody throws water at everybody else. These days they use super-soaker water guns to do the same job (one of my fonder memories is visiting a Thai Army base at Songkhran to see the base guards engaged in a super-soaker fight with the local kids. The kids won). About three years ago, the police busted a group of Moslems who'd loaded up their super-soakers with acid and were planning to spray the crowds. I'll leave to your imagination what the police did about that. More recently, a group of Taliban in Afghanistan sprayed acid over a group of schoolgirls who were on their way to the local school. The Taliban believe women should be kept illiterate you see.

Let's put a note of reality into this discussion. These acid attacks do not just blind the victim, they leave them horribly disfigured and in severe, constant pain for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, since the injuries are very rarely fatal, "the rest of their lives" may be fifty or more years. In the final analysis, the people who have carried out these attacks have sentenced their victims to a lifetime of torture - and they knew it before they carried out the attacks. Executing them is a mild punishment compared to the crime they inflicted on their victims.

WARNING HIGHLY DISTURBING PICTURES

















This is a victim before the attack











This is the same victim now.

Would somebody like to explain why this woman is not entitled to revenge for what has been done to her?

[petesampras]

A man who commits such a terrible act, seemingly purely out of petty pride, deserves anything that is coming to him. It's not like there is any doubt of him being innocent in this case. I think it is entirely right that she be given the right to demand revenge.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Hence my point that humans are typically more intelligent, aware and accountable for their actions, therefore why the hell do we have a problem making the consequences increase accordingly?

Obviously there will be exceptions to the rule; but in this case it's a unprovoked attack where the animal in question stalked and viciously attacked the woman for no reason.

If this had been a tiger that had stalked and mauled a woman minding her own business, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't have been killed.

Human predators are vastly more dangerous and cunning than your average non human predator; I want to hear a good reason why we should treat human predators as 'special'. And no, I don't consider "because they're human" a valid answer.

Hypocrisy. If we treat the human predators the same as we treat animal predators, why should we treat the human prey any different? If people are no more worthy of special treatment than tigers, are they not then no more deserving of justice than hogs and game hens and dingos? Indeed, since humans are so cunning and over-populated, ruining vast habitats in their introduced lands, would your logic not then dictate that all men be treated like encroaching foreign predators like the feral pigs of Australia or elm-eating beetles in North America, and hunted to manageable sizes?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I find the idea of throwing acid at the perpetrator, or plucking his eyes out, to be sadistic, pointless and stupid. If you need to set an example, then execute him. Don't start giving the government an excuse to get into cruel and unusual punishments that will only lead to their intended target becoming a dependant on the state or burden to others. I don't particularly want to aspire to be as "just" as any Islamic republic. Weren't we supposed to be teaching them how to be a civil society last I checked?

If execution is extreme, then consider putting him to good work away from the rest of society in whatever form a gulag takes in Iran. Given these nations have extreme punishments for minor offences, the idea that they act as a deterrent would seem flawed what with such offences perpetrated. In many cases, the actual criminal doesn't think about such repercussions (there is no pro or con analysis on any rational scale) or is otherwise arrogant enough (like this guy) to believe they will be tried by peers and found innocent. As has been argued in cases related to rape, should a vicious attack like this be met in kind, or with execution, it makes the idea of allowing the woman to remain alive less tenable.

[Darth Wong]

Blinding him is purely retributive, and, unlike many punishments, actively prevents him from contributing to the society which he has harmed.

Let's be realistic: a douchebag like this is probably going to be a net negative contributor to society.

Harsh revenge has never been shown to act as a reliable deterrent (See: Post-Renaissance England, where public hangings of thieves resulted in numerous pickpocketings from audience members)

Deterrent is not the only conceivable reason for the assignment of criminal punishment.

and therefore there is no purpose to this sort of punishment - which, being unorthodox, which likely have no small risk or cost involved - aside from the victim's emotional well-being. It will neither recompensate her no repair the damage to society. It is therefore not justice of any sort.

Why is the "victim's emotional well-being" not important to you?

The inability of the perpetrator to re-offend is negated by his inability to repair this breach against society.

That is why I would prefer that he be executed and his organs harvested to benefit others.

I would further argue that 'permanent' justice (such as capital punishment, or permanent blinding or castration) should never be embarked upon by a society, if only because of the dehumanizing philosophy that this implies.

A justice system is a strategic tool, used in order to ensure order (which also increases security and prosperity) and increase the population's sense of value attached to membership in society. The various high-minded principles we tend to espouse as goals for the justice system were often originally created as means to an end. The reality is that every kind of punishment inflicted upon criminals tends to be "dehumanizing"; that's part of the point. It's just a question of where you draw the line and why.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If you want to stop such actions taking place, you put better effort and resources into policing and investigative powers, not into punishment. It has been shown time and again that no deterrence comes from the threat of life imprisonment or execution. Instead, being able to catch such offenders efficiently would at least make the system more useful in keeping such people off the streets. I don't see throwing acid at this guy and leaving him to beg as anything productive, it simply sates an animalistic revenge streak rather than address a problem.

If the perpetrator cannot be rehabilitated, then permanent incarceration or execution are what remains. The latter has many problems of its own as it is, though would allow a faster turnaround on the resources already invested in the criminal's physiology, that is, to harvest the organs for those less fortunate.

[Darth Wong]

Above a certain threshold, increased severity of punishment seems to have little or no added deterrent effect. However, if severity of punishment drops below a certain threshold, it becomes totally ineffective. That's the problem we're seeing in these societies; this guy freely admitted to the crime because he was confident that he'd be able to carry on with his life. Maybe pay a fine.

[salm]

Above a certain threshold, increased severity of punishment seems to have little or no added deterrent effect. However, if severity of punishment drops below a certain threshold, it becomes totally ineffective. That's the problem we're seeing in these societies; this guy freely admitted to the crime because he was confident that he'd be able to carry on with his life. Maybe pay a fine.

On the other hand, if you apply the harshest punishment you have below a certain point you don´t have anything left for worse crimes.
The good old example: If the guy knows that he´s going to be executed anyway what´s going to keep him killing the victim instead of "only" mutilating her.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Above a certain threshold, increased severity of punishment seems to have little or no added deterrent effect. However, if severity of punishment drops below a certain threshold, it becomes totally ineffective. That's the problem we're seeing in these societies; this guy freely admitted to the crime because he was confident that he'd be able to carry on with his life. Maybe pay a fine.

I sure hope no one is suggesting in this thread that we simply fine him, that's one thing. Everywhere else I have seen this story where some semblance of liberal, intellectual discourse takes place, the usual sentiment is "The fucker should burn, but violence begets violence and most people who consider deterrence are the type not to commit crime anyway". The punishment meted needs to be fair and just, not appeal to bloodthirst. Some would have you believe that lopping off his hands or simply giving him a good lecture will be enough. If only that were the case.

It's no easy topic to find results in; that being the case, I think a long time in prison with a decent rehab course would be a start. Though by the sounds of it, this guy is far up his own anus and probably beyond help thanks to his misogyny that it's likely he'd be in there for life and doing little of worth too.

[Darth Wong]

I'd still like to know why the victim's emotional well-being is not a factor worthy of consideration. If that's the only thing we can do to alleviate her emotional suffering, and we all know perfectly well that this shitbag is not going to be a positive influence in society anyway, shouldn't we take that into consideration?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'd still like to know why the victim's emotional well-being is not a factor worthy of consideration. If that's the only thing we can do to alleviate her emotional suffering, and we all know perfectly well that this shitbag is not going to be a positive influence in society anyway, shouldn't we take that into consideration?

But do you really think going the Biblical "eye for an eye" approach is the right way to go?

[Darth Wong]

I'd still like to know why the victim's emotional well-being is not a factor worthy of consideration. If that's the only thing we can do to alleviate her emotional suffering, and we all know perfectly well that this shitbag is not going to be a positive influence in society anyway, shouldn't we take that into consideration?

But do you really think going the Biblical "eye for an eye" approach is the right way to go?

Funny; I read that twice, and nowhere in it do I see anything even vaguely resembling an answer to my question. Instead, I see nothing more than a Guilt By Association fallacy.

[Stuart]

Above a certain threshold, increased severity of punishment seems to have little or no added deterrent effect. However, if severity of punishment drops below a certain threshold, it becomes totally ineffective. That's the problem we're seeing in these societies; this guy freely admitted to the crime because he was confident that he'd be able to carry on with his life. Maybe pay a fine.

That appears to be the case in both Cambodia and Bangladesh; the first has virtually no functional legal system and the perps walk because there is nothing to stop them doing so. Bangladesh actually has a functioning legal system but there is a social ethos that makes laws aimed at preventing violence against women very hard to enforce. The sad fact is that people with this mind-set will do whatever it is they want as long as they believe they will (substantially) get away with it. The weird thing is that they actually get really resentful when the realization dawns that they won't. They honestly can't comprehend why anybody should care what they did to their victim. That's why I don't believe that imprisoning such people is a worthwhile exercise, they have something wrong with their brains that cannot be changed. They can't be dehumanized because they were never functionally human in the first place. Just put them down like the mad dogs they are.

There's a problem here; the threshhold of violence in some countries is much higher than in others, to get the threshhold below which punishment ceases to have an effect means the violence threshhold has to be taken into account. What may act as a deterrent level/non-deterrent divide in one country may be hoplessly inappropriate for another.

"The fucker should burn, but violence begets violence and most people who consider deterrence are the type not to commit crime anyway".

Actually violence quite frequently ends violence, often abruptly. 'Violence begets violence' is a mantra repeated by people who can't face the reality of the world we live in and are looking for an excuse to avoid it. Unfortunately, there are quite a few situations that can only be ended by violence (of the correct level and appropriately applied), not applying that calculated level of violence means that the original problem goes uncorrected and gets worse. It would be truer to say that 'withholding appropriate violence begets violence'.

The punishment meted needs to be fair and just, not appeal to bloodthirst.

Take another look at the picture of that poor woman's face. She's got fifty or sixty years ahead of her, looking like that, blinded, in constant, severe pain. Reality check here, she's going to be a social outcast for the whole of her life, spending it in grinding poverty as well. And the man who did it to her knew all of that before he threw the acid. How does one calculate 'fair and just' for a crime of such enormity? Even execution is too mild a penalty for the decades of misery and suffering he knew he was inflicting on his victim. There is no standard of fairness, no exemplar of justice that can apply to this case. All we can do is hope that by making an example of him we can stop another person doing the same thing to another woman whom he dislikes for some reason. And if the infliction of an adequate punishment gives his victim some cause for relief in her miserable agony, then who are we to deny that to her?

It's no easy topic to find results in;

No, it isn't. It's the sort of case that makes one despair of the human condition. And not just that of this particular perpetrator.

that being the case, I think a long time in prison with a decent rehab course would be a start.

Waste of time, money and resources. People like him can't be rehabilitated so why keep him alive? Why should he live in a cell with meals at regular intervals when his victim is living in conditions of unimaginable horror?

Though by the sounds of it, this guy is far up his own anus and probably beyond help thanks to his misogyny that it's likely he'd be in there for life and doing little of worth too.

[/quote]

Exactly. That's why we have retained capital punishment.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Funny; I read that twice, and nowhere in it do I see anything even vaguely resembling an answer to my question. Instead, I see nothing more than a Guilt By Association fallacy.

I have already made my thoughts clear on that matter. I then asked a valid question: do you think we stand to benefit from this kind of reaction simply to satisfy retribution? Where do we draw the line in the tit for tat that this would set precedent for?

[petesampras]

On the other hand, if you apply the harshest punishment you have below a certain point you don´t have anything left for worse crimes.
The good old example: If the guy knows that he´s going to be executed anyway what´s going to keep him killing the victim instead of "only" mutilating her.

Only mutilating her??? Jesus fucking christ!!!

This woman was left blind and terribly disfigured.

Frankly, I don't see this guy as any less heinous than a murderer. The idea that we shouldn't punish him more harshly because he could have done something worse is insane. You are implicitly suggesting that this asshole showed restraint. He didn't - he is a fuck that deserves whatever he gets.

[Stuart]

I then asked a valid question: do you think we stand to benefit from this kind of reaction simply to satisfy retribution?

If the perps had the sure and certain knowledge that their sufferings would be as great as their victims, and that served to reduce the incidence of these attacks, then yes, we would benefit,. It;s a benefit for which we would pay a grim price but its a benefit nonetheless.

Where do we draw the line in the tit for tat that this would set precedent for?

The moment the titting and tatting steps outside the legal system and becomes a matter of private enterprise. However, its also arguable that the decline of the vendetta principle is partly responsible for this kind of affair. If the perp's family knew that him committing this atrocious act would be the start of a family feud that would go on for generations and result in the deaths (and worse) of a marge number of thier family, they might have kept him under control.

[Darth Wong]

Funny; I read that twice, and nowhere in it do I see anything even vaguely resembling an answer to my question. Instead, I see nothing more than a Guilt By Association fallacy.

I have already made my thoughts clear on that matter.

Where? Where did you explain why you feel that the emotional well-being of the victim is worthless and therefore should be ignored?

I then asked a valid question: do you think we stand to benefit from this kind of reaction simply to satisfy retribution? Where do we draw the line in the tit for tat that this would set precedent for?

I don't think we necessarily stand to collectively benefit beyond a certain threshold. I do think that the victim stands to gain some emotional benefit, and I asked why you think that factor should be ignored.

Still waiting for an answer. Preferably one that has a more substantial basis than simply hurling various perjorative adjectives at the idea.

[salm]

On the other hand, if you apply the harshest punishment you have below a certain point you don´t have anything left for worse crimes.
The good old example: If the guy knows that he´s going to be executed anyway what´s going to keep him killing the victim instead of "only" mutilating her.

Only mutilating her??? Jesus fucking christ!!!

There´s a reason why i put the "only" in these quote signs.

This woman was left blind and terribly disfigured.

Frankly, I don't see this guy as any less heinous than a murderer. The idea that we shouldn't punish him more harshly because he could have done something worse is insane. You are implicitly suggesting that this asshole showed restraint. He didn't - he is a fuck that deserves whatever he gets.

Ok. First we have to establish the following: I´m arguing under the premise that the womans death would be worse than her mutilation.

Why is that insane? Even if he deserves death (which i don´t believe but won´t argue here) it´s simply impractical to execute him. What should keep the guy from killing his victim? It would even be better for the criminal to kill her. The potential punishment stays the same and he removes a witness.

[petesampras]

Ok. First we have to establish the following: I´m arguing under the premise that the womans death would be worse than her mutilation.

Why is that insane? Even if he deserves death (which i don´t believe but won´t argue here) it´s simply impractical to execute him. What should keep the guy from killing his victim? It would even be better for the criminal to kill her. The potential punishment stays the same and he removes a witness.

I don't agree with this argument because you are ignoring the deterrant effect the death penalty would have on him committing the offense in the first place. An increased chance of him deciding to kill her if he does go ahead with the attack is diminished by the decreased chance of him deciding to commit the attack in the first place. Overall, the net risk of harm to a potential woman in the situation is going to be reduced.

That said, I think the punishment of him losing his eyes is quite reasonable. It is fair that the victim has this choice. If she wants him blinded, she has that right.

I amazed that people want to defend the rights of assholes like this.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Where? Where did you explain why you feel that the emotional well-being of the victim is worthless and therefore should be ignored?

My mentioning that I don't agree with the tit-for-tat model some would see as the right course of action. I would rather we simply executed the criminal and harvest his organs. What possible benefit does destroying perfectly good eyes serve?

I don't think we necessarily stand to collectively benefit beyond a certain threshold. I do think that the victim stands to gain some emotional benefit, and I asked why you think that factor should be ignored.

Still waiting for an answer. Preferably one that has a more substantial basis than simply hurling various perjorative adjectives at the idea.

But isn't the whole point of the justice system to remove the victim from the punishment decision to stop descent into emotional revenge? I am not denying the need for justice, because I am clearly not condoning Islamist bigots throwing acid at women. However, I do not see how appeasing this desire to have the eye (literally) for an eye ideology warrants such a cruel and unusual punishment where a more utilitarian, less emotionally based punishment would serve the same purpose of exacting justice and also help others, whereas a blind beggar on the streets would be a net leech. The man would be dead and unable to harm anyone else, and his death would have served to benefit others.

Thinking along the same lines of this argument, would a rapist of a woman be eligible for being raped in retributive justice passed by a court in order for the punishment to fit the crime? How does one go about deciding what measures are necessary in order to carry out a just sentence?

I do have to say that I question Stuart's notion that violence solves the problem. Were that true, the death penalties of many nations would have been a suitable deterrent. It is clearly not, and this problem stems from society's general state of being and how it should be shaped. Imposing harsher, crueller and more imaginative acts of violence on behalf of the state have not resolved such problems. Rehabilitation should be the goal along with punishment, except in circumstances where a sociopath or other psychologically troubled person is unable to react to treatment and can only be held or executed.

[salm]

I don't agree with this argument because you are ignoring the deterrant effect the death penalty would have on him committing the offense in the first place. An increased chance of him deciding to kill her if he does go ahead with the attack is diminished by the decreased chance of him deciding to commit the attack in the first place. Overall, the net risk of harm to a potential woman in the situation is going to be reduced.

I´m not ignoring the deterrant at all. I´m simply using the deterrant at a different place than you.
I´m trying to minimize the risk of him killing her. This carries higher risks of him blinding her.
You on the other hand try to reduce the risk of him doing anything. This increases the risk of him going all the way should he once start.

In my case the the all over risk of anything happening is higher while the risk of the worst outcome is lower.
In your case the all over risk of anything happening is lower while the risk of the worst case is higher.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, Mr. Wong, I wouldn't say that the emotional well-being of the woman is irrelevant. It's a valid concern, from a utility view. You are trying to eliminate suffering and pain. You could factor that in, certainly, to a punishment.

[petesampras]

You on the other hand try to reduce the risk of him doing anything. This increases the risk of him going all the way should he once start.

In my case the the all over risk of anything happening is higher while the risk of the worst outcome is lower.

I don't think that even this is can be claimed. You have two probabilities at play here.

P(he attacks her) and P(he kills her | he attacks her)

Now I grant you that the second probability is higher with a harsher punishment. However, the first probability will be lower.

Now...

P(he kills her) = P(he kills her | he attacks her) * P(he attacks her)

So it could be quite feasible that the greater punishment will have no effect on the overall probability of him killing her. It may even decrease it, and this is taking into account that it increases the chance of him killing her should he attack her.