Blinded woman demands 'eye for eye' punishment

No Skeptic the OP asked “"eye for an eye" punishment should happen? Or should he be punished with imprisonment or by other means?”. I quoted him after you claimed the thread was about something else. This would be clear if you took my entire quote.

And, now, you want me to answer a hypothetical question based on a 1975 case where the medical technology is no where near what we have today and with my somehow being able to know the man is innocent?

I want you to put your views into a real world context.

As for the issue of medical technology I have already addressed this in a previous post and shown it to be untrue. Here is what I said:

That is absolutely not true. Firstly the technology existed at the time to prove he was innocent; the semen sample taken from the body and from Kiszko showed that it could not have been him yet this information wasn’t even given to his defence team. This is not a matter of technology but even so:

www.guardian.co.uk...

en.wikipedia.org...

You are patently ignoring what doesn’t suit your viewpoint.

Moot point....and a trap, to boot.

It is neither, if you would be happy for an eye for an eye system to be implemented then you must be ok with this applying even to miscarriages of justice which most definitely, as evidenced above, do happen.

That would not happen today with our medical technology and defense team that wasn't asleep at the wheel.

Again, as above, the medical technology to clear him existed at the time but the defence team was not made aware of this. And can you provide any evidence at all that all defence teams today are infallible where they weren’t in the 1970’s?

Your argument is idealistic, impractical and totally divorced from the real world.

reply to post by peskyhumans


I too said this and I completely agree. You are certainly going to have innocent people here and there get caught up in the dark side of the legal system. Corrupt cops and lazy investigators have put many innocents behind bars but the larger issue is those that have truely committed a heinous act and spend their lives behind bars at our expense. We perpetuate the problem by making it easy to commit these acts. Our legal system is meant to reform the individual and release back into society (depending on the sentence of course) I think the only way to learn the lesson is to experience it. And through experience he will understand the pain he caused another individual.

It's a priceless experience because I can bet he will never do it again. Lesson learned!

[edit on 19-2-2009 by DDay]

It sickens me to even begin to read the posts and I can't help but feel an agenda is being performed here. This is pure barbarism, a blast of thousands of years of the dark ages and brutality. No, you do not respond in kind. Removing a dangerous man like that from society is what is appropriate, as well as attempting to reform him. Also providing the best surgeory and recovery and counseling and help for the victim.

The next and most responsive step is to stop promoting governments that create systems of economic, miliatry and even pharmaceutical slavery out of the human race, and separate all religions from politics. Then work at a totally different, equal system with men and women, children and minorities, and all sexual orientations treated and honored equally to substantive economic equality. Crimes will drop considerably when the crime lords are gone.

This is propaganda. I watched a video by Commander X or something where he warned there was a plan to bring into our nwo changes a similar, old testament form of christianity that would be like Sharia law, blending ancient ugly twisted barbaric practices, such as hanging or stoning gays or adulterors (sorry, everyone is free to sleep with whomever they please if its not rape or child molestation, and if your husband or wife is fooling around, and your not into some free spirited marriage, leave them, get it!!!!)
and tying this into our court systems.

WAKE UP and get rid of the cartel. We are going to advance not go back 2000 years.

reply to post by DDay


But the statistics don't bear this out. As pointed out earlier if this were true then Iran should have a lower homicide rate than countries like the UK, Canada, France and Germany who all have a more lenient system of punishment yet also have a lower murder rate.

reply to post by Mike_A


I don't know what else you want me to say.

Do I agree with eye for an eye punishment? Yes, as long as guilt is proven definitively by physical evidence (which it obviously wasn't in your example).

Do I agree with eye for an eye punishment? Yes, as long as the option is available and the victim chooses that route (which it wasn't in your example).

Can I see the future or change the past? No.

reply to post by mystiq


Mystiq.

Can you explain further?

Your perspective seems to be based upon an idealistic behavioral mechanism whereby society responds to the grossest of aberrations with a minimal societal response with societal values being imposed as 'humanistic' punishment.

To me this seems not to be a 'punishment' or 'preventative' orientated approach but more a 'reoccurrence preventing we hope because we're nice' approach whereby an offender receives the 'morally acceptable' punishment as deemed by a particular societal viewpoint rather than one appropriate to the mentality of the defender, since after all, criminals are not notorious for adhering to the morality of the society in which they commit crime...

Thanks.

Absence.

The question is academic...

If this happened to you and your country offered this form of 'Justice' what would you do?

reply to post by Walkswithfish


In this woman's exact situation?

I'd do exactly what she is doing.

reply to post by Absence of Self


You are right in saying prevention is the only correct response to anything and punishment is barbaric. Most definately correct. We are ruled by slavemaster overlords, and religions as well as their scarcity system of economics, along with their orchestrating nearly every war, funding and setting up nearly every terrorist group, to STIR THE POT with us nonstop.

This is the year 2009, and in the 80s the world was progressing to a much higher spot, were we, in the democratic nations, may have reached the level of Norway or the Scandivavian countries and achieved proportional democracy and substantive equality for women and minorities with good social programs and high standards living. But alas, the cartel put in Reagan and Thatcher at the same time, and crashed our good system. Now they seem determined to reduce us to ancient barbaric practices, to be ugly eye for eye, tooth for tooth savage serfs, while they, sophisticated and ever so worthy, sail off to Mars, or whatever moon on Jupiter, or even perhaps, spread their fascist dicatorships on other planet on other timelines.

Its not happening. Women and children will prevail and we will live in true social justice, complete equality with no overlords. By the way, there is a direct link between trauma and injustice and ecocomic inequality and crime.
Norway has an almost 0% murder rate.



[edit on 19-2-2009 by mystiq]

reply to post by skeptic1

Yes, as long as guilt is proven definitively by physical evidence (which it obviously wasn't in your example).

Which goes back to my first post which pointed out that there has so far been no level of evidence that has proven to be totally infallible which the example of Kiszko and others demonstrated. The point being that all the evidence, according to the justice system, proved his definite guilt therefore if you take your view you must accept that you would support an eye for an eye in this case. Yet you won’t say this, why not?

If you want a more modern case then consider Barry George, convicted in 2001 with forensic evidence and found not guilty in 2008. What you are saying about being found definitely guilty is just not a reality; there are always possible unforeseen circumstances.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by skeptic1

 

Yes, as long as guilt is proven definitively by physical evidence (which it obviously wasn't in your example).

Which goes back to my first post which pointed out that there has so far been no level of evidence that has proven to be totally infallible which the example of Kiszko and others demonstrated. The point being that all the evidence, according to the justice system, proved his definite guilt therefore if you take your view you must accept that you would support an eye for an eye in this case. Yet you won’t say this, why not?

If you want a more modern case then consider Barry George, convicted in 2001 with forensic evidence and found not guilty in 2008. What you are saying about being found definitely guilty is just not a reality; there are always possible unforeseen circumstances.

This case, this woman, infallible evidence.

1975 case, that man, fallible evidence.

Apples and oranges.

I support eye for an eye justice in this case with this woman, these circumstances, and this evidence.

Of course there are always unseen circumstances. I never said that there weren't. But, like I previously stated, I support eye for an eye punishment with the caveats I provided. I don't base my general beliefs or how I feel on a certain topic on the exceptions to the rule. Maybe you do. We have a difference of opinion on a subject that will never be put to a vote or come up in the Western world.

You’re completely missing the point; this case is only infallible because it is deemed to be so now. In the case of Kinszko and of George the evidence was also deemed infallible at the time until it was reassessed much later and found to be fallible. So your caveats are not practical in the real world, only in hypothetics.

This is why I’m asking you whether you would have supported this system in the case of Kinszko since at the time there would have been absolutely no doubt as to his guilt.

reply to post by Mike_A


Ok. In Kiszko's case, I would not have....only because of lack of DNA evidence. I am of an age where DNA testing is SOP in crimes. Without that, and with what they had then, I would not have been comfortable sentencing him to death....knowing what I know now and knowing the technology we are capable of now.

However, with definitive DNA evidence of a child rapist and killer, I would have no problem punishing them in the same way.

I see nothing wrong with this "eye for an eye" punishment and I think it should be brought here to the U.S. I only have one problem with this and it's that they're not going to do the same thing to him that he did to her, they're going to put him to sleep and then place drops of acid on his eyes. I think that's ridiculous, why not keep him awake so he can at least feel some of the pain she felt?

reply to post by skeptic1


But see the article I posted earlier about the potential problems with DNA evidence. There remains risks of bad methodology, contamination, deliberate planting of evidence etc.

In the last 20 years, DNA evidence has increasingly been used in criminal investigations and trials in Australia and overseas. DNA profiling is often used to compare DNA deposited on a victim or at a crime scene with a DNA sample taken from a suspect. If the two samples do not match, they did not come from the same source. If the two samples do match, this is strong evidence that they came from the same source but it is not conclusive. It is also noted that the reliability of DNA evidence can be affected by contamination, lab error, and planting. (p 6-12)

www.parliament.nsw.gov.au...

In my humble opinion on this story we must , as a collective society , distinguish the difference between justice and revenge . If someone physically hurt my wife or son I would be out of control with thoughts of revenge. The state cannot be expected to feel the same way about my plight. Justice has to be punishment with some kind of hope of repair. If not , who can blame the acid thrower's son , for instance, for throwing acid on the judge's face ?

reply to post by Mike_A


I take it you are against capital punishment, too?

Listen, you have your beliefs and I have mine. We aren't going to change each other's minds....no matter what links are posted or words are said.

I respect your position. But, it just isn't mine.

I for one will start the revolution personally and demand all negative barbaric people leave this solar system if this stuff goes down any further. ITS NOT GOING DOWN. we are advancing into a civil, caring, completely equal, moneyless, cartelless, and barbaric biblical crimes not committed (less). I'm not willing to listen to this. WAKE UP. Some of these people are on assignments.
Just before Obama got elected, Sharia law was tossed out the door in Canada but embraced in the UK. I got it!. My eyes are wide open. This is NWO barbaric propaganda and it will never go down, not now,not here,not on mars, not on pluto.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by mystiq]

[edit on 19-2-2009 by mystiq]

Hi ! Yes , I am against capital punishment . I am saddenned and sometimes probably as angry as others when someone is killed but I can not kill in return . Who is right and who is wrong ? If you kill me , for instance , what will your partner think when my partner kills you . Pierrepoint the u.k. hangman who killed on our behalf years ago eventually realised it was wrong to kill. Of course , you are right about our opinions . I am hoping that our so called progressive society retains the status quo regarding the law on this topic with no chance whatsoever of it returning to change for a good few years yet . I won't even touch on the fact that lots of people have been killed who are innocent . Thinking it is wrong to kill anyone is enough for me . Regards ,Longdog.

So, to all of those in favor:

Has your concept of justice not advanced in 4000 years?