This is the way I see it. Everyone has human rights, and should respect everyone else's human rights. If you consciously hurt anyone you concede your human rights from what you have done. Think of it like pvp flagging.
Also, what is the point of having prison for life sentences? I understand prison is supposed to be a place to get better as a person if you have done something wrong, but if you are there for life, there is no point in living at all, you have no life. If I had a life sentence I would rather kill myself than live my "life" doing nothing.
I'm not saying capitol punishment is the ideal way of dealing with a murderer, but I've always wondered where the people who are so against it get their "right" from.
The question (as I see it) is "what do we as a community wish to accomplish by apprehending people who do things to other people against their will?"
Personally I think that a person who is without doubt found guilty of a crime resulting in severe damage/death of other people has nothing to do in our society. People who oppose of the death penalty use the phrase "if we punish murderers with death we are also murderers, and that devalues us as a whole". I would say it doesn't.
You've probably heard argument before: If a dog bites a kid, we put the dog down.
Why do we do this? Is it because we want revenge? I'm sure the kid's parents want revenge, but ultimately we do it so the dog won't bite again. I personally think that dogs that we know have a fetish for biting children is not something I want in my neighbourhood. I also think that a person who kills someone because he wants their stuff is not someone we want walking around in the streets again. Sure, he/she may be rehabilitated, but there is no guarantee. Let's assume this murderer spends his X amount of years in jail and rehab, gets out, and kills another person. Does this sound humane to you?
I don't know the numbers, but as far as I've gathered there isn't neccesarily a large amount of people who kill again after having served their sentence. But there still are some who do. Why should the society take the risk? There will always be an innocent person who ends up suffering, is that a better sacrifice than showing ZERO TOLERANCE for the crime that is murder?
So many questions!
itt: disgusting, immature, ignorant, rightwing cretins. holy shit even a page in and someone has already made this about gypsies? staggering.
so all you neanderthals, why stop at an eye for an eye? why not just do away with laws, courts, clothing, houses etc? let's all just shit and piss in a bush and club and rape each other to death like evolution and society never happened. the root cause of this and other Iranian acid attacks is to do with the fact their society trains men to completely devalue women, so that being denied sex or marriage is a huge personal affront, emasculating them and making them a source of mockery: but then it's okay to teach that bitch a lesson because she, as a woman, is worth exactly half of what a man is.
civilised punishments exist for a reason, revenge is a biblical concept. try living in a country where 'eye for an eye' is an acceptable social convention and see if you're happy with other human rights you abandon in comparison to your sweet little western bubble.
yes burn his face off and make him squirm and for people that say no and thats inhuman picture the victim being you our your bf/gf sister close friend and ask yourself if you still think this man deserves not to suffer? he ruined the girls life becouse of what? a no? its only fair he gets his life ruined to besides if his blind he wont have an easy time doing the same thing again.
I love bleeding hearts lol. Commit all the crimes you want because all that will ever happen to you is that you will go to jail for a while. Effing retarded. If a person wants to commit a violent act against another person, they must be prepared for violence to be visited upon them.
Don't one of their hands get chopped off for stealing too? Or is that somewhere else in the Middle East.It is also nice to know that men are punished accordinly to their actions in Iran, in the light of all the stonings done to the women.
Either way, they don't mess around with their punishments.
So what a little less than half of you are saying is... It's okay to throw acid in someones face and utterly ruin their life, thats all well and good. That just means you're mentally ill and should be kept out of society and receive treatment. Okay what does that do to get that woman's life back or even make her feel like appropriate punishment was dealt out? What does it give back to her? Barbaric? No, it's pretty bloody fair. Actions have reprocussions and to simply wave the white flag of 'Omg that is so immoral' is utterly ignorant to the victim. While I don't wish direct harm on anyone I'd like to maybe suggest that you be attacked by some sort of sociopath and suffer such injuries. Tell me if seeing them put in an asylum of some nature makes you feel as if justice has been done..
I see it this way: the way proof works, it's by a jury deeming the proof to be reliable and then putting it to a vote. While I agree that it makes sense, it also doesn't make sense for people who didn't have anything to do with the crime passing judgement on some poor sod.
Also, just 'cause someone deems him/herself above these "morals" we weak mortals bestow on ourselves - y'know, so's we can have a bit of peace and quiet every now and then - what gives us the right to stoop to their level? Come on, really? Just 'cause someone else acted like a complete twit, does that mean I get to do that as well?
I shouldn't think so.
Sure, I'd want to get revenge. Truly, I would. I wouldn't want anyone else to carry out the punishment, however. If someone wronged me, s/he would answer to me, and not to some anonymous jury, judge, and whatever else there is in a court of "law."
Oh, and you know the thing about law? It's made to be interpreted, thus unfair.
Bad, adj.: subjective word carrying a negative connotation, used to apply negative affections on another word; That was a bad film!
Not used as a noun; He's a bad.
Get your grammar on.
The problem here is that there are several ways to regard this problem:
Without considering morality: The government merely needs to do their job in protecting their people from criminals, as such they merely need to make sure that won't / can't do it again, and the most failsafe method to do that would indeed be sharia-based laws.
With considering morality: The man should be incarcerated (because all forms of damaging punishment take away all hope for a better life) for the rest of his life so that he may recognise his wrongdoings.
So it merely depends on what you consider more important: A guiltless conscience or safety.
People who think they can reason with me are clearly unreasonable.
Practicin' drawing and writing too, might even post a story or two. (no rhyme intended)
Note to beer-fans: Beer's for pussies, mead's for men.
isnt bestowing judgement on people some divine guys job?
not that i really care, cuz im an atheist tehee
A picture of the lady was posted. I think looking at that photo is evidence enough that this punishment is fair and probably not good enough. He took away a ladies face. Maybe his face should look the same instead of just his eyes.
All the people who think that he is mad and deserves help are the ones who believe in americas or similar justice systems where someone can kill multiple people but instead of giving him the death penalty they try to find a reason to their madness. Imagine if someone did that to your child. You'd want the culprit to feel the same punishment whether it be murder, the loss of eyes or rape.