Do you think blinded by acid is a fair punishment?

[btf]

sorry couldnt read all of the replies - far to many atm - i do agree with a sort of eye for an eye attitude, saying that pouring a cup/bucket of acid in his face isnt going to undo what he did to her - i would rather let her decide what fate he should have, regardless of what that fate should be - be it the removal of his balls, his toungue, chopping his hands off, chopping his feet off, you can see where im going with this i hope - leave it to the person the crime was committed to rather than what justice thinks should be enough

[Kreo]

I'm still waiting for an answer to why no civilized nation in the world does something like this.

Why is it that shit like this only goes down in the cesspools of the world?

And who proclaimed those nations civilized? Themselves?
Just because you fail to think about anyone else as civilized and have a pre-set mind about someone else culture, this does not make them uncivilized.

[Atrea]

What you on about USA still has death penalty and a few others of the "civilised" countries as well.

Of the G8 nations, only the US and Japan still have it. Of the G20, only Japan and India are added to this list.
With that said, there's a far cry between the death penalty - which is typically carried out as humanely as possible - and state-sanctioned torture/disfigurement.

While I don't condone the death penalty, this sort of thing stopped happening in the civilized world before the turn of the last century.

[The Madgod]

I can not BELIEVE how much sympathy you have for that criminal. It's insane. And the worst part is, with every post that you're trying to 'convince everyone else to take pity on the poor man' by showing us how absolutely worthless his life would be if he had acid thrown on him, you are further pointing out how much worse the woman is suffering. She wouldn't even get half the rights/help as a mutilated man would. Not to mention someone's going to kill that woman after she throws the acid on him. Either him or his family.

It isn't sympathy, it's the belief that nobody deserves to be in pain. People should face the consequences, including this man, but "an eye for an eye" would only make more suffering, when the punishment of a crime should try to lessen suffering. The victim herself has said that she just doesn't want other people to suffer in the way she did. If there's another way for this man to pay without suffering, yet stopped others from doing the same thing, I wouldn't hesitate to bet that she would be the first to agree with it.

Jail may be innefective, but in my opinion, that doesn't make "an eye for an eye" better. We should be looking for a solution that effectively punishes the criminal without causing more suffering, not falling back onto something that, in my opinion, makes us no better than the man who committed the crime.

[kaelyor]

Retribution is not the right reason to punish. Yes he deserves punishment, but one that is so concerned with retribution is not the right way to go.

[Ryme]

This thread is shocking, people would actually want to adhere to archaic animalistic scripture like "an eye for an eye"?

[Malkaedus]

So rather than moving forward as a human race you rather have us go back in to dark ages and start witch hunting and cutting off arms from thieves as a standard practice.
Eye for an eye is a barbaric relic from religious scripts like bibble. Revenge is said to be sweet but it isnt, it only adds more hate in the cycle that never stops if things like this is allowed.

Have you looked around lately? Crime is at an all time high in the history of man per capita. Why? It is because no one is afraid of the punishment for said crime. You can even get fully accredited degrees in prison on the taxpayers' dollar. The human race is moving backwards, from less crime to more.

Religion has nothing to do with it, punishment is just. That is what this is: Justice. The government over there are the ones carrying it out. Revenge would be more along the lines of the family of the lady murdering the man when they found out her assault.

[Revelations]

This thread is shocking, people would actually want to adhere to archaic animalistic scripture like "an eye for an eye"?

About as shocking as a man throwing acid in a woman's face because she refused to marry him.

[BigPimpin]

I'm still waiting for an answer to why no civilized nation in the world does something like this.

Why is it that shit like this only goes down in the cesspools of the world?

you ever heard of a muslim hippie?


me neither lol

[HazardYo]

Have you looked around lately? Crime is at an all time high in the history of man per capita. Why?

Oh? Where is the study to back that up?
Or are we starting to invent our own 'truths' now, aren't we?

About as shocking as a man throwing acid in a woman's face because she refused to marry him.

Your answer makes little to no sense, whatsoever.

[Dirtyfist]

Two wrongs wont make a right. A country and its government should always treat people with international laws and human rights in mind.

I agree with the human rights comment but not the international law comment. The laws of a particular country are "supposed to" uphold the values, set guideines, and restrain criminal activity, etc, etc, of that country.

If its an expected punishment for a person who steals to have a finger cut off or a hand cut off in one country but to impose a fine or imprison someone in another, who's to say which one has the "right" system. Certainly NOT the international community. However its HOW those punishements are implemented (i.e. how many offences, the severity, etc ) that human rights come into the equation.

But thats just my opinion.

[zorkuus]

And who proclaimed those nations civilized? Themselves?
Just because you fail to think about anyone else as civilized and have a pre-set mind about someone else culture, this does not make them uncivilized.

Ah, and there we have it... cultural relativism. That's always a good argument...not!

For example, there are countries which have not signed the universal declaration of human rights. This is okay in the name of cultural relativism. Conincidentally most of these countries are countries which we refer to as uncivilized. Just a coincidence?

[narwaana]

You are right, a mad an violent person should be treated like any other mad animal in the world, killed for the good of the rest.

Look at a dogpack, or a lion pack, if a dog/lion turns mad it does either get killed by the rest of the pack, or simply chased away (which has the same result).
There are no reason to not do the same to humans.

[Speaknoevil]

Of the G8 nations, only the US and Japan still have it. Of the G20, only Japan and India are added to this list.
With that said, there's a far cry between the death penalty - which is typically carried out as humanely as possible - and state-sanctioned torture/disfigurement.

While I don't condone the death penalty, this sort of thing stopped happening in the civilized world before the turn of the last century.

You are also sickeningly condescending.

Stop acting like you view the world from a plateau of higher understanding.

All evidence contradicts you.

What is this "civilized world" that you keep making reference to?

The one that tortures people behind closed doors?
The one that lies to it's populace and takes what it wants?
The one that lets it's own citizens live in absolute poverty?

If the people like you would get your head out of the clouds and do what is actually possible to help your fellow man the world would be a far better place.

You aren't better than anyone else.

If you really had higher understanding, and what was is it? Insight?

You would know that that grants you responsibility.

Surprise me, say something that isn't slathered in superiority.

Disgusting.

[Atrea]

And who proclaimed those nations civilized? Themselves?
Just because you fail to think about anyone else as civilized and have a pre-set mind about someone else culture, this does not make them uncivilized.

Do these countries hold a stable democratic government?
Are basic human rights afforded to all citizens of the country, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion?
Do these countries obey and abide by international law? (Such as the Geneva convention, UN mandates, etc.)
Are these countries accountable for violations of international law?
Are these countries, except in times of disaster, financially independent?

If the answer to one or more of these questions is 'no', (with the exception of perhaps the first), then that country is (at least to my reckoning) uncivilized. These countries are almost universally third world countries. (Though not all third world countries are uncivilized. India, for example, is a very civilized nation.)

Examples include: Haiti, Congo, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia

[Starskee]

WOW the world just imploded because of irony overload.

Mak, I've been seeing your posts on this thread all day, and not a single one has had an articulatable opinion on the subject. Instead you just fling verbal abuse at people. I don't know how you're not banned for flaming, but keep it up and it will happen.

OT: Yes completely understandable. Can't pay the consequences? Don't effing attack people with acid. It's a yes/no question, not an invitation to expound on the liberal viewpoints held by individuals who were never punished as a child.

[sweepdeepsPL]

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.

[artemishunter1]

I agree with the human rights comment but not the international law comment. The laws of a particular country are "supposed to" uphold the values, set guideines, and restrain criminal activity, etc, etc, of that country.

If its an expected punishment for a person who steals to have a finger cut off or a hand cut off in one country but to impose a fine or imprison someone in another, who's to say which one has the "right" system. Certainly NOT the international community. However its HOW those punishements are implemented (i.e. how many offences, the severity, etc ) that human rights come into the equation.

But thats just my opinion.

The problems with human rights is that its not universal or natural. It was created by human society, more specifically philosophy of the greeks, romans and the french. In nature, there is only anarchy. societies of cultures around the world do not have clear definition of human rights. Which creates this kind of problems

[damntree]

So rather than moving forward as a human race you rather have us go back in to dark ages and start witch hunting and cutting off arms from thieves as a standard practice.
Eye for an eye is a barbaric relic from religious scripts like bibble. Revenge is said to be sweet but it isnt, it only adds more hate in the cycle that never stops if things like this is allowed.

Actually eye for an eye was imposed to limit the punishment the criminal would receive. People were often punished harshly for petty crimes and in most cases the punishment did not fit the crime. So eye for an eye was God's way of saying you can't do anymore to them than what they did themselves.

What's more barbaric than letting someone get away with dumping a bucket of acid on a woman's face. Yes, this society is going back into the dark ages and leading the way is spineless whiny idiots who want to give the cancer rights while it poisons the whole world around it instead of cutting it out.

[artemishunter1]

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.

So, far it has not. Eye for an eye existed in that country for so long, so far, not very of that are blind

---------- Post added 2011-05-14 at 03:47 PM ----------

Do these countries hold a stable democratic government?
Are basic human rights afforded to all citizens of the country, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion?
Do these countries obey and abide by international law? (Such as the Geneva convention, UN mandates, etc.)
Are these countries accountable for violations of international law?
Are these countries, except in times of disaster, financially independent?

If the answer to one or more of these questions is 'no', (with the exception of perhaps the first), then that country is (at least to my reckoning) uncivilized. These countries are almost universally third world countries. (Though not all third world countries are uncivilized. India, for example, is a very civilized nation.)

Examples include: Haiti, Congo, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia

as you said, by YOUR reckoning. Who died and made you God.