An Eye for an Eye....

[Gil Hamilton]

I've spilled a tiny drop of concentrated nose-hair curling sulfuric acid on myself before. I think I made a sonic boom running to the sink to wash it, because an acid burn is hurts like nothing else. What this scumbag did was completely beyond horrible and I'm not going to mourn him suffering the same bit.

[Admiral Valdemar]

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]

Singapore is also a draconian state where freedoms are routinely curbed. One can saw the same of China and Saudi Arabia, but I sure as hell don't want to live in a totalitarian state for the perceived belief that state sanctioned torture is keeping me safe.

[Akkleptos]

Please forgive me if I find the whole "Is an-eye-for-an-eye fair/moral/right/necessary/good" question to be a moot point, IMHO. What I think REALLY matters is -assuming a defendant found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a a decent justice system- to make sure the public is served by keeping such nocive individuals from harming anybody else, be it by locking them away for life or just executing them, the latter being the less costly option.

For me it's not about moral issues as it is about practical ones. This man has proven to be a real danger to others? He has to be isolated to protect the people. Too expensive for the people to provide room and board to an obvious menace to society? Terminate him. What about his human rights, yadda yadda? Too -fucking- bad. He REALLY should have thought of that before splashing the girl with the acid.

Also, the matter about the woman needing the revenge-factor (to call it something) is understandable but, alas, moot as well from a practical perspective. Yes, were I in the same situation of course I would like the bastard to hang by the balls, but psychologically, dwelling in rancor (the emotion, NOT the creature from ROTJ) or the need for revenge consumes your soul (figure-of-speech) and destroys your life more utterly than any acid. Making hatred, acrimony and desire for revenge the centre of your life will never fail to make you miserable, and to leave you with a host of dysfunctional behaviours and beliefs. So, what a woman in that situation needs is medical assistance, therapy, and some form of monetary compensation (say, have the guy work a paid job in prison and she'd get the money, should she accept such an arrangement).

But, no, killing or blinding the guy JUST so that they be "even" makes no sense to me. It doesn't help anyone. It's inefficient use of energy and resources, ergo, stupid.

[Master of Ossus]

Well, I can't say I feel sorry for that guy. Still, that sentence is pretty barbaric. To those who know more about legal things than I, what kind of sentence could he expect had this happened in the USA?

In the US? Jail time and fine - which might be considerable. This might be considered attempted murder, depending on the details of the circumstances.

Here's an old (and famous) case in which some guy hired thugs to throw lye in someone else's face. He got 14 years for it.

[Kanastrous]

Then why do people who can still accept the concept of them being found and executed commit such crimes?

Because they believe that *they* are smart and/or lucky enough, to get away with it, *this time.* Getting caught and punished is for other, less cautious or lucky perpetrators. And if they have already been caught/prosecuted for a crime, well, next time perhaps they believe that they won't be.

[Garlak]

Please forgive me if I find the whole "Is an-eye-for-an-eye fair/moral/right/necessary/good" question to be a moot point, IMHO. What I think REALLY matters is -assuming a defendant found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a a decent justice system- to make sure the public is served by keeping such nocive individuals from harming anybody else, be it by locking them away for life or just executing them, the latter being the less costly option.

For me it's not about moral issues as it is about practical ones. This man has proven to be a real danger to others? He has to be isolated to protect the people. Too expensive for the people to provide room and board to an obvious menace to society? Terminate him. What about his human rights, yadda yadda? Too -fucking- bad. He REALLY should have thought of that before splashing the girl with the acid.

Also, the matter about the woman needing the revenge-factor (to call it something) is understandable but, alas, moot as well from a practical perspective. Yes, were I in the same situation of course I would like the bastard to hang by the balls, but psychologically, dwelling in rancor (the emotion, NOT the creature from ROTJ) or the need for revenge consumes your soul (figure-of-speech) and destroys your life more utterly than any acid. Making hatred, acrimony and desire for revenge the centre of your life will never fail to make you miserable, and to leave you with a host of dysfunctional behaviours and beliefs. So, what a woman in that situation needs is medical assistance, therapy, and some form of monetary compensation (say, have the guy work a paid job in prison and she'd get the money, should she accept such an arrangement).

But, no, killing or blinding the guy JUST so that they be "even" makes no sense to me. It doesn't help anyone. It's inefficient use of energy and resources, ergo, stupid.

Should we consider the king of society/culture it is before pronouncing that the justice/punishment should be humane, like in the US?

Consider this; the woman was stalked. She told him to bugger off, he didn't get the message. She couldn't get assistance.. no one to turn to... Here, you'd be able to get a restraining order or the police involved; you feel safer. But over there, perhaps something other than imprisonment or a fine is needed to ward off such things.


Or an alternative. Blind him, then kill him.

[Rytheo]

While this is a particularly heinous crime this insistence upon severe punishment for crime really does not help anything. Recidivism rates only increase when you favor punishing individuals as opposed to rehabilitating them, up to a certain point of course. However, if for example, one mandated state-sanctioned murder for any offense, sure recidivism rates would go down but it would have a brutalization effect upon any criminal activity. The victim's "need" for revenge simply does not exist, the victim may feel that way, but when the person who harmed them is finally punished they get none of the feelings of relief and could have spent most of their lives waiting for that anti-climax. (you need a subscription to read the paper in full but the abstract is available here.)

Rehabilitation does more good for society as a whole, and while punishment to some degree is necessary, capital punishment really has no strong deterrent effect (The chart at the end is most helpful), is really easy for a state to abuse, and is awfully final. On the other hand, offering job opportunities to convicts that have served their time and providing them the means to further their education and pick up new employable skills does work to reduce recidivism rates, as this study confirms. (link)

The reason that there is no deterrence effect for capital punishment, is that whenever someone commits a crime, they do it because they think they can get away with it, if they thought that they would be caught only people prepared to accept the punishment would commit crimes.

[Darth Wong]

While this is a particularly heinous crime this insistence upon severe punishment for crime really does not help anything. Recidivism rates only increase when you favor punishing individuals as opposed to rehabilitating them, up to a certain point of course. However, if for example, one mandated state-sanctioned murder for any offense, sure recidivism rates would go down but it would have a brutalization effect upon any criminal activity. The victim's "need" for revenge simply does not exist, the victim may feel that way, but when the person who harmed them is finally punished they get none of the feelings of relief and could have spent most of their lives waiting for that anti-climax. (you need a subscription to read the paper in full but the abstract is available here.)

How does the study establish that the victim's family feels no relief when the killer is punished, even though we have seen numerous cases where the victim's family states the exact opposite on TV?

Rehabilitation does more good for society as a whole, and while punishment to some degree is necessary, capital punishment really has no strong deterrent effect (The chart at the end is most helpful), is really easy for a state to abuse, and is awfully final. On the other hand, offering job opportunities to convicts that have served their time and providing them the means to further their education and pick up new employable skills does work to reduce recidivism rates, as this study confirms. (link)

I agree that rehabilitation is good for convicts that you eventually intend to release back into society. But that does not apply to all cases; what about cases like this where the person was not an example of a person with no future, but rather, just a douchebag who hates women and thinks he can get away with brutalizing them? He has the same economic prospects as any other person.

The reason that there is no deterrence effect for capital punishment, is that whenever someone commits a crime, they do it because they think they can get away with it, if they thought that they would be caught only people prepared to accept the punishment would commit crimes.

That's a black and white fallacy. It is possible for someone to be affected both by the belief that he won't be caught and a lack of concern for the consequences if he is caught.

[LaCroix]

The reason that there is no deterrence effect for capital punishment, is that whenever someone commits a crime, they do it because they think they can get away with it, if they thought that they would be caught only people prepared to accept the punishment would commit crimes.

That's the most regurgitated lie from hobby-lawyers.

If there isn't a harsh enough punishment for an action (like for that acidfacestuff), people start doing it a lot. To the point, which was mentioned in that article, that it is common.
People start doing it, because there is no real punishment attached. And if there is no real punishment, people who would not do it if there was a serious punishment, will start doing it, too. If there was capital punishment for that, most people would think twice, since all criminals DO think about what would happen if they get caught, they just think it's still worth it. But there are no statistics of people being on the verge of comitting murde, but did "chicken out" because of fear getting a life sentence or even capital punishment.

Some things from my university courses about why harsh sentences ARE needed.
In old Rome, there was one old law which said that you could slap a person, and instantly pay a wergild to them, and that person therefore couldn't seek punishment anymore. When it was made, that amount was equal to a barnyard animal's worth, and therefore substancial. After some centuries, it was a joke to slap strangers on the streets, because the amount was ridiculous by then.

If you, for example, wouldn't be punished for killing your husband/wife if you could prove they cheated, murder rates would skyrocket.

Imagine there were only a 50$ fine for rape. It would be a national sport!

[Master of Ossus]

The reason that there is no deterrence effect for capital punishment, is that whenever someone commits a crime, they do it because they think they can get away with it, if they thought that they would be caught only people prepared to accept the punishment would commit crimes.

Economic literature is split AT BEST with regards to this claim, and the vast majority of modern studies find that there is a deterrent effect associated with capital punishment, and its magnitude varies from being slight to fairly powerful.

[Junghalli]

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.

Am I correct in understanding that you consider involuntary castration, which causes permanent debilitation, to be less bad than rape? I must say I find that quite strange myself. If I had to choose between being raped and being castrated, I'd definitely take being raped.

[Akkleptos]

Please forgive me if I find the whole "Is an-eye-for-an-eye fair/moral/right/necessary/good" question to be a moot point, IMHO. What I think REALLY matters is -assuming a defendant found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a a decent justice system- to make sure the public is served by keeping such nocive individuals from harming anybody else, be it by locking them away for life or just executing them, the latter being the less costly option.

Should we consider the king of society/culture it is before pronouncing that the justice/punishment should be humane, like in the US?

From a practical point of view, the question of whether punishment is humane comes in second to what is practical to society as a whole. The guy should be isolated from society, as it's quite clear as per the OP that he doesn't even think his actions were THAT wrong. That kind of people has no cost-effective means of redemption (barring the Ludovico Technique).

How does the study establish that the victim's family feels no relief when the killer is punished, even though we have seen numerous cases where the victim's family states the exact opposite on TV?

The revenge-factor can be considered relevant if it helps the victim or his/her family resume their productive activities. In any case (revenge, compensation or neither), they should focus on getting on with their lives as well as they could, since acrimony and bitterness will do a better job at destroying them than the actual crime. By this I mean by all means have the bastard hang by the balls -or pass legisltion to that effect), but, whether that be not possible or beyond our power, they'd better just learn to survive the tragedy as best as they can, lest they be trapped in rancor that will be more harmful to them than to the actual criminal.