An Eye for an Eye....

[Kamakazie Sith]

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?

It's not hypocrisy. He's saying that once a human starts to act like an animal in a criminal manner then they should be treated like an animal.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

The victim's well-being most certainly should enter into consideration - that's why I mentioned it as the only plausible reason to blind the offender. I merely think that whatever satisfaction she derives from revenge can be weighted against the cruelty and various problems with the punishment and found wanting.

However, Stuart brings up something that should be made clear - I only defend the right against punishment by torture and mutilation as the question of the OP was whether this is justice. It is unjust, but as I haphazardly implied when debating with Darth Onasi, justice is something which pre-civil societies may not always be able to afford. In a society where a functioning justice system is non-existent, extraordinary measures - such as, for example, crucifixion - may be employed when the ends justify the means. However, it is not justice, only order, and in any case can never be proven to conclusively bring even the latter.

It is a short step from blinding to throwing people off cliffs, or decap- oh wait, Iran does those things already, never mind.

It's not hypocrisy. He's saying that once a human starts to act like an animal in a criminal manner then they should be treated like an animal.

Why, though? Why are non-criminal humans special but criminal humans suddenly indistinct?

[petesampras]

Why, though? Why are non-criminal humans special but criminal humans suddenly indistinct?

Criminal can refer to a pick pocket. This argument delibrately confuses the issue using a simplistic split between criminals and non-criminals.

We are discussing here a man who threw acid in a womans face, blinding her, because she refused his advances. An absolutely heinous crime commited out of hurt pride. Claiming that such a man forfits his human rights does not imply that one would apply that to any criminal.

[Darth Wong]

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.

That is an expression of your opinion, not an explanation of it.

I would rather we simply executed the criminal and harvest his organs. What possible benefit does destroying perfectly good eyes serve?

Irrelevant to my question and my position.

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?

No. I have never heard anyone say that the entire point of a justice system is to completely remove the victim from the punishment decision or eliminate the emotion of revenge. I certainly do not agree with that statement, and I challenge you to justify it.

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.

Since I never said that I prefer blinding over execution and organ harvesting, it would be nice if you actually address my fucking point instead of bringing up irrelevancies.

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?

Why not?

How does one go about deciding what measures are necessary in order to carry out a just sentence?

What the fuck kind of question is that? It applies to any conceivable system of justice, no matter what the punishments are.

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.

Both diametrically opposed statements are oversimplifications. There is most likely a deterrent curve with diminishing returns. However, in the case of an individual violent offender, executing him most certainly removes the threat of future recurrences. That is most likely what Stuart was referring to.

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.

Again, why do you think the victim's emotional well-being should be considered irrelevant? It seems to me that you're just taking every opportunity to launch into talking points, rather than answering my question.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why, though? Why are non-criminal humans special but criminal humans suddenly indistinct?

It seems like you're trying to make this issue deeper than it actually is. This should be a simple distinction. It's not black and white...

One is preying on other members of society. The other is not. One represents a threat to members of society. The other does not.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why, though? Why are non-criminal humans special but criminal humans suddenly indistinct?

Criminal can refer to a pick pocket. This argument delibrately confuses the issue using a simplistic split between criminals and non-criminals.

We are discussing here a man who threw acid in a womans face, blinding her, because she refused his advances. An absolutely heinous crime commited out of hurt pride. Claiming that such a man forfits his human rights does not imply that one would apply that to any criminal.

It should be noted that even a pick pocket forfeits certain rights when arrested and then convicted. Whether it be a right to his money and possessions or his freedom.

It should be about the totality of the crime. Can society tolerate a pick pocket? Is the damage done by a pick pocket reversible? The answer is probably yes. In this case like you already stated this crime is heinous and the damage done permanent.

[Formless]

You know, I am watching this, and I still have yet to see anyone back up the claim that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Maybe it doesn't, but I have yet to see proof beyond that bullshit map of countries that do and do not have it (the origin of which NUA didn't cite). In this case, it would seem important to many peoples points here, and would certainly establish the upper limit to what we can and cannot use as punishment for this kind of crime.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That is an expression of your opinion, not an explanation of it.

I do not feel that temporary satisfaction from such an extreme punishment outweighs the practical benefits of simply executing the criminal and utilising his organs. The end result is still a punished act.

No. I have never heard anyone say that the entire point of a justice system is to completely remove the victim from the punishment decision or eliminate the emotion of revenge. I certainly do not agree with that statement, and I challenge you to justify it.

I was asking for your point of view, not making a statement.

Why not?

It again basically asserts that our own legal system forbidding torture is inadequate and that criminals are not exempt from any kind of behaviour the emotionally distraught victim can conjure up. We rape rapists, we steal money off fraudsters, we, presumably, run over those who drink and drive.

What the fuck kind of question is that? It applies to any conceivable system of justice, no matter what the punishments are.

People vary with what they see as "justice". That is why this is such a sticky situation. If you can't determine the best course of action in dealing with punishments, then letting the victims decide can get messy fast. I have known people who would happily go along with Iran in having kids who are anti-social lose a hand or worse. The perceived outrage over offences can be awkward at best. There were calls at one time for a return of the death penalty in the UK after a police officer was shot. Why should a copy invoke that response when many more, non-police officers are killed by dangerous driving?

Both diametrically opposed statements are oversimplifications. There is most likely a deterrent curve with diminishing returns. However, in the case of an individual violent offender, executing him most certainly removes the threat of future recurrences. That is most likely what Stuart was referring to.

Precisely, and I in no way disapprove of punishments being able to exact both a just result and one that may hopefully deter. I just don't see why the victim should be allowed to suggest a cruel and unusual punishment when more useful, humane and efficient forms exist.

Again, why do you think the victim's emotional well-being should be considered irrelevant? It seems to me that you're just taking every opportunity to launch into talking points, rather than answering my question.

The victim's emotional trauma should be taken into account, I've never suggested otherwise. The resulting actions against the perp are something that should be down to the state to deal with by statute, and not the whim of those who have been affected. If we should go along with this example (and I see plenty of others from Iran with one man having his eye removed after blinding another man in one eye during a scuffle), then perhaps we should adopt such a system in the west and see where it takes us. Although I'm pretty sure our history details the effects quite well. Maybe Iran can justify such acts, just like the vigilante gangs in Johannesburg can justify theirs. I was shocked to see how they went about exacting justice by beating people who stole mobiles within an inch of their life. According to those performing such acts against suspects, they never repeat offend. However, it did nothing to solve the problem or deal with the trauma of those affected by crime. Instead, the crime waves have gotten worse with time, and despite even the cops seemingly "disappearing" those who have caused harm against them, you still get gangs taking over entire blocks of flats or carrying out day time shootings over turf.

I simply question the practical application of such tit for tat tactics.

You know, I am watching this, and I still have yet to see anyone back up the claim that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Maybe it doesn't, but I have yet to see proof beyond that bullshit map of countries that do and do not have it (the origin of which NUA didn't cite). In this case, it would seem important to many peoples points here, and would certainly establish the upper limit to what we can and cannot use as punishment for this kind of crime.

You need to be able to provide evidence of its deterrent effect. Do you have anything along those lines?

[Formless]

You need to be able to provide evidence of its deterrent effect. Do you have anything along those lines?

I never made any claim, other then deterrence being one of the main purposes of punishment. However, NUA continues to claim that capital punishment does not have a deterrence effect. I believe that he would have to support that assertion. It would certainly help resolve this argument to know one way or the other.

[petesampras]

You need to be able to provide evidence of its deterrent effect. Do you have anything along those lines?

I think those who claim capital punishment does not have a deterrent effect have the burden of proof here.

We all accept, I am sure, that humans will try to avoid dying accept in a small number of special cases. Right? Therefore, if a crime has capital punishment that will act as a deterrent, unless the act of someone committing such a crime overrides this self-preservation. In which case it is you that needs to provide evidence for that.

Unless you are arguing the general point that humans will avoid death where possible?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I never made any claim, other then deterrence being one of the main purposes of punishment. However, NUA continues to claim that capital punishment does not have a deterrence effect. I believe that he would have to support that assertion. It would certainly help resolve this argument to know one way or the other.

The problem lies in the methodology of determining how "deterrent" was applied. A murderer who was deterred does not pop up on any statistics, and so we cannot count them as a data point for or against any particular system. On the flip side, there is very little difference between a lot of the US states, those with and without capital punishment, while places like Canada have far lower crime rates and no system as harsh as that of the States. Additionally, criminals do not weigh up their actions so rationally, since people who consider the death penalty a deterrent will not commit such a crime. Those who tend to flout the law are also the less likely to believe they'll be caught at all or are mentally handicapped. Crimes of passion also fit into this category, where the perpetrator was not thinking straight in any case and still caused harm.

As I mentioned before, the use of execution against rapists is not in line with the crime and would lead to the rapist having even more incentive to remove any witnesses, that is, the victim of the rape him/herself.

I think those who claim capital punishment does not have a deterrent effect have the burden of proof here.

We all accept, I am sure, that humans will try to avoid dying accept in a small number of special cases. Right? Therefore, if a crime has capital punishment that will act as a deterrent, unless the act of someone committing such a crime overrides this self-preservation. In which case it is you that needs to provide evidence for that.

Unless you are arguing the general point that humans will avoid death where possible?

Then why do people who can still accept the concept of them being found and executed commit such crimes? Why, also, are there no significant differences between areas that hand out life sentences, and those that use the death penalty?

[petesampras]

while places like Canada have far lower crime rates and no system as harsh as that of the States.

Whilst places like Singapore have far lower crime rates, especially homicide, than Canada.

[petesampras]

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/c ... a&b_desc=1

The three lowest per capita homicide countries were in those which have the death penalty.

Meanwhile two of the three worst don't have the death penalty.


Does this prove anything - of course not. But neither do the constant use of Canada verses US prove the opposite.

[Singular Intellect]

If we treat the human predators the same as we treat animal predators, why should we treat the human prey any different?

Simple: A human predator choses to become a predator, a human victim by definition does not.

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?

See above. By chosing to become a predator/attacker in severe cases like this, the individual in question has chosen to assert themselves as seperate from humanity, ergo, becoming a dangerous predator.

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?

I guess you're not familiar with the concept of 'war'.

[Admiral Valdemar]

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/c ... a&b_desc=1

The three lowest per capita homicide countries were in those which have the death penalty.

Meanwhile two of the three worst don't have the death penalty.


Does this prove anything - of course not. But neither do the constant use of Canada verses US prove the opposite.

That list has its own issues, which is why I prefer to compared like with like. Having the US states compared is more applicable and relevant given their similarities with respect to the law, how crime is reported, culture and so on. If you compared KSA to Norway, you'll be looking at two very different societies making such comparisons harder go gauge.

[mr friendly guy]

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

Why, also, are there no significant differences between areas that hand out life sentences, and those that use the death penalty?

Am I the only one who sees the disconnect here? On one hand you say violence leads to to more violence yet on the other you admit that its the same as the non-violent approach.

1) If the latter is true, than the former cannot be used as an argument against these violent penalties. At best its deterrant value is neutral vs life sentences, in which case playing the deterrant card is utterly useless and a red herring. As has been pointed out by Darth Wong and Stuart there are other considerations besides deterrance for arguing their position.

2) I am interested to see what mechanism you propose for how "eye for an eye" approach in this case will beget more violence. It would seem that at least it successfully deters the perpertrator and be neutral in detering others, since their motivations for throwing acid into someones eyes seem to be related to rejection by the woman coupled with a dehumanising attitude towards women rather than, OMG the courts punished an acid thrower, I better go throw some acid in some woman's face to balance things out.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Am I the only one who sees the disconnect here? On one hand you say violence leads to to more violence yet on the other you admit that its the same as the non-violent approach.

I didn't say that, it was an example of the comments I have seen elsewhere. I have already stated that if the death penalty should be used, then it can at least give a practical end result of organ harvesting. There are other reasons against the death penalty other than the lack of deterrence, which have been rehashed on this forum not long ago.

In actual fact, I retract my statement that there is little difference between states with capital punishment and those without given further reading of the subject correcting my prior assumptions.

[Knife]

I'm trying to figure out why some would want to take vengeance out of justice. Without the victims feeling some sort of Justice, how can you call it such? I think that's the down and dirty reality that Wong and such are getting at with their arguments about the emotional well being of the victim. Sure, the justice system can swoop in and give penalties and call it justice but if the victim feels as if nothing was done, how can it be justice? Justice for whom?

On the flip side, it is society that must come up with the actual punishments, not the victim per say. The victim is the one who got wronged, more so than society, but it is society that is determining the loss of both the victim and the perpetrator. The loss of a pickpocket from execution may sate the needs of the victim (yeah Texas), but the loss of the pickpocket who could be rehabilitated is too great for the crime. The loss of a socialpathic shithead who would and could repeat the offense when and if he gets out of jail, is of little loss to society and the vengeance and utility of the victim and society are both sated by execution.

So, is revenge an important part of justice? Yes, I think so. If not, who's justice are you talking about when you say justice? Should the guy get acid in the face? Meh, I wouldn't, rather let the woman be in the room with observers telling her of the events as the state executes the shit head.

[Alien-Carrot]

Personally, i feel that the punishment should EXCEED the crime.

Having been convicted of crimes in the past, i can say that i never felt any motive for NOT doing the crime until i was punished in excess of the crime.

Eye for an Eye is actually to lenient for the prevention of most crimes. Sevenfold is a much better deterrent.

However, there are some crimes where Sevenfold could not work. Murder being the most obvious example. Unless you stopped the guys heart, restarted it, waited 3 months, then repeated. But even i find that excessive. In cased of murder, Eye for an Eye is adequate.

As for rape, we already use Eye for an Eye to some extent. Rape is a violation of the body. Chamical or surgical castration is also a volation, (although not as heinous as one), and is an accepted punishment for repeat offenders.

As for the acid burning. I say splash the asshole from head to navel.
After seeing that on the evening news, no-one will ever take the risk of commiting that crime again.

A different approach in one country I worked in also worked well. Normally the ladies of negotiable virtue carry knives (very sensible, at the range they need such weapons, a knife is much better than a gun). Then, a few of the girls started carrying bottles of acid in their bags and it was only a question of time before one such girl used it on another in a cat-fight. This led to some of the pimps carrying the stuff as well. So, the police sent out word by way of the grapevine. They'd be doing spot-checks of people at random. Anybody caught carrying a bottle of acid would be required to drink it. The first carrier they caught was a particularly nasty pimp and the police were as good as their word. Stopped the problem stone dead.

Seems to me as if this would be good police procedure. The only problem would be corrupt cops. But then, there should be a massivly severe penalty for corrupt cops too.

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.

Heres a fact. A bully will continue being a bully until punished. People with the "i can do whatever i want" mentality will not be deterred by a "go stand in the corner" punishment. You have to make them loath the thought of punishment so much, they won't risk doing what they want, because they know they cant get away with it.

And if you still think a surgical, clinical removal of his eyes is to great a punishment, look at stuarts picture again. Dont cringe away from it like last time, LOOK AT IT. look at the milky white eyes that will never see a loving family again. Look at the disolved, malformed nose. Look at the yellow pussy discharce in the left orbital socket. Look at the picture above it. Of the young beautiful woman who had a good life ahead of her. And at the horriblescarred MONSTER she has become because this type of crime is PERMITTED.



And one final note.

"Of course, only blind him and take his eyes, because I cannot behave the way he did and ask for acid to be thrown in his face," she said. "Because that would be [a] savage, barbaric act. Only take away his sight so that his eyes will become like mine. I am not saying this from a selfish motive. This is what society demands."

She doesnt ask for him to be blinded as revenge. But because societal laws demand it. She specifically says NOT to splash him with acid, cause she doesnt want to be as barbaric as him.

[Sarevok]

You don't see acid attacks on women in a civilized first world country. Maybe a country's level of development has something to do with it. You can't reform a poor country's law enforcement without raising the nation from mudpit of third world. Exemplary punishments as outlined by Stuart might have some deterring effect. But third world is full of grim deaths every day. It will make little difference in number of people meeting sorry deaths in various ways. So instead it's better just to pray and wait for these countrys to become economically well off because there is no magic bullet solution for this.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Yeah, excessive punishments totally prevent any further crimes of that kind. That's why there was no crime in Ancient Rome, right?

[Broomstick]

You don't see acid attacks on women in a civilized first world country.

Actually, there was one in Chicago just a couple months ago. In that case, it was a group of three young women throwing acid on an older woman, but it was still an acid attack that caused blindness and disability.

And no, the perpetrators/victim were neither Arab nor Pakistani nor Bangladeshi nor Muslim. They were Catholic hispanics. Acid attacks are not unknown in the first world, western world, Europe, or whatever you want to call it.

One major difference, though is how society perceives the act. In the west there is NO excuse that would make it excusable - not family honor, not a man's honor, nothing. There was an all-out search for the perpetrators, they have been arrested, and they will probably be tried for attempted murder. Societal contempt for these criminals is overwhelming. There has been a spontaneous show of support for the victim, including a charitable fund set up to help pay for her medical bills and rehabilitation. The victim's family has stood by her and supported her.

Contrast this with where these sorts of attacks are more common, where society allows violence to go unpunished if it involved "honor" of some sort, where perpetrators can openly brag about their actions without public revulsion, where the victims are often blamed, often abandoned, often left destitute and without resources.

The woman attacked in Chicago is just as blind and maimed as the woman shown up thread, but in Chicago her life will be tremendously better than the other woman's even aside from the punishment meted out to the criminals who maimed her.

[Stuart]

You don't see acid attacks on women in a civilized first world country.

As Broomstick pointed out, that's not strictly true. Acid attacks, almost invariably on women, have taken place in all countries for centuries (they were well-known enough in 19th century France for a special adjective to be coined for the perps "vitrioleuse".) However, the current epidemic of attacks is unprecedented.

Maybe a country's level of development has something to do with it. You can't reform a poor country's law enforcement without raising the nation from mudpit of third world.

I don't think so, at least not in economic terms. Cultural development has a lot more to do with it I think. I can think of relatively undeveloped countries where anybody trying an acid attack on a woman would die a little bit every day for many, many days at the hands of her relatives while everybody else (including the police etc) stood back and cheered the executioners on - and offered advice on prolonging the business still further. This whole case here is in a relatively well-developed country. It's social development that's key here I think, rather than economic. I was reading a report on this some weeks ago (I'll try and find a reference to it) that points out that something like 90 percent of all such attacks are carried out in Islamic countries. That implies a very solid cultural connection.

Exemplary punishments as outlined by Stuart might have some deterring effect.

I'm not so interested in the deterrent effect as making sure that the perp never does it again. That's the ultimate argument (one of them anyway) for capital punishment - name one convicted and executed murderer who has gone on to kill another victim. The key thing is to reduce the incidence of such attacks to teh lowest possible level, I'll take any solution that achieves that end.

So instead it's better just to pray and wait for these countrys to become economically well off because there is no magic bullet solution for this.

Prayer, or the thought pattern it represents, is one of the things at the root of this problem. But, I agree, there is no magic bullet solution. By the way, another side to this problem is being dealt with. It's becoming possible to give people complete face transplants so the kind of damage resulting here can be at least partially repaired. This story covers such an operation. Can't restore sight of course but its a big step forward.

Science and Technology wins again over superstition and dogma. Oh by the way, yes, the ethics activists are trying to have the procedure banned on the grounds that others may find it "offensive" to have somebody walkinga round looking like a person who has died.

[Alien-Carrot]

Yeah, excessive punishments totally prevent any further crimes of that kind. That's why there was no crime in Ancient Rome, right?

Try a more modern equivilent. Like say, Singapore.

Remember that ambasadors son who keyed a car. They beat the shit out of him with a cane. Ever hear of another ambasadors son comitting a crime in singapor.

Btw [Shameless plug] 100 POSTS!!!! [/Shameless plug]

[The Duchess of Zeon]

An important thing to always remember--and sometimes people fall short of this--is that crime is not going to go away, short of us all being gene-engineered into a bunch of snuggly communists who manage to simultaneously have a harmonious internal society and well-armed pose toward the outside. In short, when dealing with crime, the goal can never be 100% convict rate--this is impossible--nor can it be 100% deterrence. In the case of a punishment like this, well, you're not going to keep crimes like this from happening, but it's a rather excellent example of a grusome sort of crime which could at least be prevented. In the future these muscle-bound idiots could be at least deterred from blinding someone with acid. Probably beat them senseless and/or knife them, but I'd prefer that to being mutilated for life with acid, as I think most of us would. In sense the goal is not to prevent the crime with such a severe retaliatory punishment (which I do actually support), but rather just to convince the criminals to ratchet down one level in the intensity of their violence out of fear.

I don't think we can completely deter crimes against women like this, but we can at least terrify the potential offenders into doing the talking with their fist instead of a vial of acid, and that is a measurable improvement--and one we are unlikely to exceed in any human society. The death penalty for murder is rather more complex in turn, though I certainly support it as a reponse to premeditated murder, where the person committing the crime has unquestionably spent some time in advance thinking about the crime, and there are few cases in the United States where it's legal to apply the death penalty for something other than premeditated murder. So I find the legal application of the death penalty in the United States to be solid ethically, though the practical applicaiton may fall short, but that is a rather unrelated debate.