Blinded woman demands 'eye for eye' punishment

An eye for an eye is right in most cases when someone kills someone they should be killed, when someone shoots someone they should have that done to them why because they have no right to do and so what if they show remorse they shouldnt have done it in the first place, there are plenty of us that dont go round killing people and throwing acid in peoples faces and we are the ones that suffer as these then blame their actions on t.v or computers etc truth is there is no excuse you have free will to choose weather or not to do something and there are plenty of us which dont so eye for an eye and the death penalty are fair if the crime is bad.

reply to post by Juksey


An eye for an eye is a very simplistic way of looking at a complex subject in which a society needs to maintain order while at the same time not becoming that which it vilifies since that's wrong and things that are wrong aren't right and so that is why an eye for an eye is bad and as an example of how an eye for an eye is useless and stupid I'm going to make my entire post a run-on sentence improperly punctuated grammatically incorrect to prove that doing to others that which has been done to you only makes for a stupid backwater world..........

Or we could move forward, learning from that which came before.

The man is deranged and should not be given the right to do this to anybody else. That being said The masses or the government should not practice his behavior. The old saying two wrongs don't make a righ comes to mind. Yes he admitted it yes he deserves it, but you can't think on a case by case bases like other posters have said their is false charges. Also as many have said or will use agianst my argument is that why should the tax payer support them after they commited these crimes? Very good question my answer after the contruction of the prison what are the operating cost food, utilities, salery ect. put them to work doing something profitable bingo, no tax burden. I understand this would lead to mass corruption and basically slavery so make all profits by law charitable donations.

Originally posted by Hellish-D
reply to post by Juksey

 

An eye for an eye is a very simplistic way of looking at a complex subject in which a society needs to maintain order while at the same time not becoming that which it vilifies since that's wrong and things that are wrong aren't right and so that is why an eye for an eye is bad and as an example of how an eye for an eye is useless and stupid I'm going to make my entire post a run-on sentence improperly punctuated grammatically incorrect to prove that doing to others that which has been done to you only makes for a stupid backwater world..........

Or we could move forward, learning from that which came before.

I agree it is very hard to defend such crimes, But the good must maintain the moral high ground. I know the examples I give are not always followed but they are what is suppose to happen, don't torture give aid to wounded combatants, pow have rights. Two wrongs don't make a right ever hear that. I completely understand the poor girls reaction I would probally want the same thing, but the government can't have the power to mutilateand,torture, and kill it leads to bad things.

Originally posted by elevatedone
I personally don't think he should have this done to him. Stand trial, answer for your actions and go to jail. Jail, but for how long?

Jail has proven to be nothing more than a resort hotel for criminals.

I personally believe firmly in capital punishment. If one is heartless enough to intentionally harm another person in that fashion or most other, how are you a benefit to our society. Accidents happen but some people are heinous and i might go as far as to say evil. Things may have happened in their past but that does not excuse their actions.

If jail meant an intense psychological rehabilitation and actual punishment, then maybe. Otherwise jails and prisons should not exist.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by dantrav]

you see everything around every single day, one day some jerk comes to you and takes your eyes he closes your eyes, never to see the beautiful trees flowers, snow water nothing pitch black.

an eye for a eye, seems to be perfect for such crimes . being blind forever is a very long painful death. he should feel the same as her maybe even get married to each other so they feel the same pain

we should update eye for an eye to eye transplants.
he should replace what he has taken away.
for science!

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Fibonacci11235]

My opinion is the man's family should share his burden. They should adequately support this woman for the rest of her life while the man should spend the rest of his life in prison. Let him keep his eyes so he can look outside to see what he is missing. In Iran a woman can be honor killed for being a disgrace to her family. Well, this man should be considered a disgrace to his family and they should make restitution on his behalf.

Oh my gosh those terrible terrible Iranians. Lets Nuke the entire middle-east now on humanitarian grounds.

This is *so* not a hard question.

Fact a) Physical damage cant be undone, so if you make a mistake (and mistakes do happen) you cant correct it anymore

fact b) Harming this person to the point where he is physically handicapped helps nobody and harms everybody.

Blinding this person will make him, well, blind. He will need special help to get through the day. He will no longer be able to do certain works. He will need time to adjust to his new handicap. You *can't* let him starve in that time.

Justice and Moral dont even enter this. Its just common sense.

An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.

I totally agree with Soloman Kane, transplant his eyes into her! Or at least one? I dunno, no matter the compensation it doesnt make up for what he did. Hurting him wont bring her sight back.

In a sense I think it may be logical for the man to have the same wrong brought upon him that he brought upon the woman. But then again, since when have 2 wrongs made a right. I'm sure this will be a tough decision for the person deciding.

I dont know HOW, but the guy should loose the sight in my opinion. A woman won't be able to see the sun, the sea, the grass, animals, cars, streets everything anymore, because of this guy's action. He should loose the sight, because that would be the REAL only way to realize the gravity of what he did. It's sad, i know that many will disagree, but this is what i think.

reply to post by peskyhumans


I hate to say it but it is not necessarily true. People commit crimes no matter what the punishment is.

States that do not have capital punishment still have the same number of offenses as those who do.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by peskyhumans

 

States that do not have capital punishment still have the same number of offenses as those who do.

I do not believe this is true, but will you please site your source.

I hate to say it but it is not necessarily true. People commit crimes no matter what the punishment is.

Many people will not commit a crime due to the punishment. If at least ONE crime is deterred, than the punishment is worth it...IMO


[edit on 2/20/2009 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by greeneyedleo


The statistics were provided by myself and Hellish-D earlier on in the thread for homicides per 100,000. They show that there is no correlation between harsh corporal punishment and a low crime rate.

Hellish-D's post on this is on the last page.

How about a compromise?

Put the guy in prison, or house-arrest/electronic tag him, for 2-5 years, with a medically applied, unremovable blindfold. A life sentence, even, for the hardliners.

This punishment is harsh but humane at the same time.

Originally posted by HiAliens
How about a compromise?

Put the guy in prison, or house-arrest/electronic tag him, for 2-5 years, with a medically applied, unremovable blindfold. A life sentence, even, for the hardliners.

This punishment is harsh but humane at the same time.

That is a very intellgent and human way to approach the issue, i really liked it.
Five years not seeing should be enough to make him understand what it does mean to don't see. The difference between blinding him forever and this possible solution provided by you is that blinding him forever is a PUNISHMENT, to blind him temporarly is a chance to recover him, which should be the target of every verdict. You just gave to me a lesson on the real meaning of laws, lesson that i accept with pleasure. IF you are not a judge, then it's a shame

I condemn those who accept what has happened here,

Under your own laws, compassion and morrality,
To punish a crime with the same act of the original crime, would thus be a crime in itself,
and would therefore not constitute as 'justice' in the first place,

Argue what you want about whether it is fair,
But heed the warning that if you choose to follow the same path as those you despise, then you are equal only to them,

Do not fall into the trap that has plagued your kind for centuries,

"If a rat were to bite you, you would not turn around and bite the rat"