sadly, people still love guys like charlie manson and think that even he deserves to live. the kicker is good, because given the first oppurtunity, he'd probably cut your throat and laugh at you as you lay there dying thinking to yourself "poor guy doesn't understand what he just did to me, so maybe some more rehab is in order... ACK!"
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
Sure, let's completely validate his method by doing it ourselves as the supposedly morally superior party. GG.
"The truth, my goal."
Given the options of a) disfiguring this man as revenge, or b) letting him think about what he's done in prison, I would choose b.
It's not a perfect solution, and I won't pretend for a second that it is. Burning him with acid won't un-burn the person that he burned, though. If it did, then it might be fair. But the world doesn't work that way.
---------- Post added 2011-05-14 at 08:20 PM ----------
What? Why? When? Who? Which? How? Wait...
I'm not sure I particularly like the reciprocal acid treatment, but imprisonment is also torture. Since that's the "default" punishment in the US, and I've heard few people say that imprisonment as a concept is immoral, that means that our legal system already endorses torture as an appropriate reaction to a violation of the law... the only question is how severe a torture we're willing to inflict.
I think in the end I oppose this particular punishment for the same reason I oppose the death penalty: I believe that all punishments should be reversible, since there will always be cases where someone is wrongly convicted. You cannot know ahead of time which cases they will be, so I dislike any punishment that cannot be undone should new evidence be turned up. If the man is blinded by acid, he's never getting his sight back, so I oppose the punishment in this case.
@Maklor: Yes, the legal system exists (at least in part) so that punishments for violating the law can be administered fairly and evenly, but that doesn't necessarily preclude the punishment in question. Yes, I do oppose it personally... but if it is the punishment proscribed by the law, and it is carried out after a trial that concluded the man in question was guilty of the act, then it's not some emotional backlash fueled by nothing but a desire for vengeance. It is a legal punishment, no different in that sense than sending a man to prison for stealing a car.
@Atrea: Not finding fault with this particular punishment does not constitute approval of the Iranian Justice system in its entirety anymore than me liking WoW means I think every decision Blizzard makes is a good one.... and snide condescending comments implying that to be the case don't do much for your side. Human beings are perfectly capable of being monsters; the fact that we are all born innocent does not change that fact. We are born innocent... but the world changes us, and we change ourselves. There was a time in Hitler's life when he was an innocent person, guilty of nothing. By the end of his life, he had brought pain, suffering, and death to millions of people. I feel no remorse for the fact that he was killed anymore than I feel remorse for people in prison for crimes they committed (and given what people would have done to Hitler had they gotten their hands on him, death was probably a mercy for him).
Yes, people can act out of a desire for vengeance, and vengeance does not equate to justice. But that does not mean that any punishment other than simple imprisonment is carried out for the sake of vengeance rather than justice, nor does it mean that you should be so afraid of being inhumane that you do not punish the guilty, or do what is necessary to protect society from their actions in the future.
Then again, I also do not believe that international law should be binding on any actions that are not carried out on an international stage... every country has different laws, different customs. I may not approve of what China does, but they are a sovereign nation, and they have the right to enforce their own laws. There is also a very open question of what constitutes "basic human rights"... I know what I would say, but not everyone agrees. Whether you wish to admit it or not, considering a country to be uncivilized because they don't do what you think they should is simply attempting to enforce your morality and your way of thinking on others.... and the fact that people are so willing to do so is one of the reasons I believe WW3 is inevitable
Do you think that a blind man will be able to lead a proper life, free of any sort of government or communal support?
Either way, he's going to jail for awhile. He'll face enough adversity when he gets out - why ensure that the taxpayers would continue to support him?
I absolutely believe he should. Firmly believe in eye-for-an-eye.
The question was do I think the punishment is just and fair, not if i think it is right. I think it is more than just and fair, an eye for an eye is not just a Islamic belief, or for that matter a religious belief at all imo. Going beyond the question, do i think this is right? Yes, assuming he did this to this woman on purpose. Why should this woman now go through life blind, and probably disfigured by the acid, when this man goes through life, presumably in jail somewhere, with perfect eyesight and a perfectly normal face? The "eye for an eye" saying, if applied to more crimes would probably cut our crime rate in half. Who is going to do something violent when they know when they are caught the same will happen to them if they are convicted?
My question to you is, what makes you think that doing such a thing to this man will 'protect' us from people like him?
I think the second we stop worrying about being inhumane, is when we can all cash in on our 'monster membership club'.
Administered by the lady herself OHH SHIT, cruel and unusual ! :L
But yeah, do unto other's yada yada yada :P