-
Eye for an Eye - A discussion
This article made me think. The moral argument that I would pose is
'A society that reacts to unjust behaviour in such a matter by definition makes people react to perceived injustice with vengeful cruelty'
In simpler English. If a society promotes eye for an eye tactics, it makes its own people act cruel. When that man suffered 'injustice' (As he saw it, being forever denied) he decided to react by forever denying the victim her looks. I think that it is a vicious circle that plunges societies to cruelty and does not really stop the crime.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7754756.stm
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
So it is literally an eye for and eye.
In an eye for an eye atmosphere it should, in theory act like a mutual assured destruction situation discouraging anyone from harming anyone but in reality I don’t think it would work any better than the archaic system that already exists in a third of the world.
Crime and punishment are difficult things to understand when you take time to review the circumstances.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
i personally would slowly strangle to death any man who intentionally threw acid in the face of a women for reasons of culture.
which i guess is my way of saying - go iran!
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
I can't imagine what he has done to that poor woman's life, if i was her i would probably want his eyes burned out by acid also, but i don't think society should carry out such cruel or unusual punishments... even if it does have a kind of fairness to it.... imo prison (fines and community service as well but not for serious crimes) should be the only punishment the goverment can give people....
I would agree with your statement that it makes society's more cruel, not by a huge amount, but im sure it would validate that kind of revenge in the eyes of some citizens, i don't think a society should work on an eye for an eye basis, society shouldn't be about revenge....
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
'an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' etc is probably one of the few parts of the bible i agree with in entirety only i think it should be an 'eye for two eyes' a criminal should get what he did as a crime and more as a punishment
if laws were incredably hard on those that commit serious crimes, you mark my words, crimes and murders would plummet, and i dont necessarily blame police, they do there jobs, however it's the government and the courts that allow the criminal to get very little punishment for his/hers acts
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
The UK system works... :inquisitive:
Link
Clearly people feel that the court punishment - if ever meted out - isn't good enough. If law isn't believed in, one of the planks of society is rotten.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rory_20_uk
The UK system works... :inquisitive:
Link
Clearly people feel that the court punishment - if ever meted out - isn't good enough. If law isn't believed in, one of the planks of society is rotten.
~:smoking:
i see that link also tells us how other crimes gone up instead and yes by courts i ment sentence lengths and yes this 'plank of society' is rotten, law is only belived in to a certain extent here, to me it's more a circus, wouldnt, havent you heard stories of late where various people have been allowed out of jail after murder because they dont have enough room to fit them in, disgusting, there just as likely to re offend, trash like that should be put to sleep and killed like a dog
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
... Makes the whole world blind.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
... Makes the whole world blind.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
And Triffids.:skull:
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
“if laws were incredibly hard on those that commit serious crimes, you mark my words, crimes and murders would plummet,”: as proved during the Middle Ages when Crimes rates was so low. Oops, no.
You have to know one or two things: Punishment is not a deterrent, and never was.
Two main reasons:
I planned to commit a crime, so I planned to fool the police and to escape from the punishment. Nobody knowing he will be caught commit a crime or offence. If you over speed it is because you think there are no speed camera at this spot, or no police officer.
A crime committed under influence, hunger or other strong feelings are not under hard penalties.
To make things simple:
To kill your wife and her lover you find in bed is not a cold blood murder.You would kill then without thinking of the consequences, so hard punishment prospects didn’t stop you in doing it.
If you plan to kill my wife and her lover later on, you will produce/imagine a plan to avoid to be caught. And you think you will be better than the Police.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
The majority of serious crime is highly motivated so punishments aren't too much of a deterrent, the majority of criminals think they will not get caught anyway, the only place a majorly harsh penalty would work are petty crimes where there isn't much motivation... but in that case the penalty would be far too harsh to fit the crime...
So very harsh sentencing won't make much difference...
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aries777777
'an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' etc is probably one of the few parts of the bible i agree with in entirety only i think it should be an 'eye for two eyes' a criminal should get what he did as a crime and more as a punishment
if laws were incredably hard on those that commit serious crimes, you mark my words, crimes and murders would plummet, and i dont necessarily blame police, they do there jobs, however it's the government and the courts that allow the criminal to get very little punishment for his/hers acts
FYI, incredably hard laws on those that commit serious crimes does not cause crimes and murders to plummet. The percieved risk of getting cought does on the other hand.
Edit: Bah, too late.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brenus
“if laws were incredibly hard on those that commit serious crimes, you mark my words, crimes and murders would plummet,”: as proved during the Middle Ages when Crimes rates was so low. Oops, no.
were not living in the middle ages, times move on, when people know theres such a large punishment for serious crimes, there are those that would think twice before offending, unless there just true nutcases, we have media and the like now, these changes in law wouldnt be as well known in the middle ages aswell as behavioral changes as a whole in society
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The_Doctor
And Triffids.:skull:
Bit of salt water and they're sent off. Not much of a problem really.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aries777777
were not living in the middle ages, times move on, when people know theres such a large punishment for serious crimes, there are those that would think twice before offending, unless there just true nutcases, we have media and the like now, these changes in law wouldnt be as well known in the middle ages aswell as behavioral changes as a whole in society
So public excutions didn't work then, but drawing and quatering will stop crime now because we have T.V.'s? :inquisitive:
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord Winter
So public excutions didn't work then, but drawing and quatering will stop crime now because we have T.V.'s? :inquisitive:
not at all, radios too :laugh4: i also said mind sets, people in the middle ages didnt give a toss, and were often doing crimes because they were in poverty, and figures of crimes from so far back can't be completely accurate at any rate
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Eye for an eye types of ideology just lead to an endless spiral of violence, unless one side so terribly cripples the other that it cannot strike back. What started as racial struggles in the civil rights movement became "we must avenge our injustices", which led to "we must avenge our neighbors who were unduly assaulted by those blacks", until MLK and peaceful resistance ideology took prominence. What started as religious struggles in the Holy Land has become a struggle of "they're taking our land, we must strike back!" and "they attacked us, we must strike back!"
Only through peace can society truly advance.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
then its preventions better than cure
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Even though I don't know how killing people violently is the best form of pervention.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aries777777
not at all, radios too :laugh4: i also said mind sets, people in the middle ages didnt give a toss, and were often doing crimes because they were in poverty, and figures of crimes from so far back can't be completely accurate at any rate
Just so you know, the big reduction in both the amount of crimes and the punishments were during the nineteenth century, hardly the middle ages is it? But it has also been proven with multiple studies later on.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Sharia ain't that bad after all, go Iran.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ironside
Just so you know, the big reduction in both the amount of crimes and the punishments were during the nineteenth century, hardly the middle ages is it? But it has also been proven with multiple studies later on.
Causation or correlation?
~:smoking:
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord Winter
Even though I don't know how killing people violently is the best form of pervention.
no we prevent that by coficating all weapons in the world including kitchen knifes and heavy objects :yes:
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aries777777
no we prevent that by coficating all weapons in the world including kitchen knifes and heavy objects :yes:
And scissors, pens, and everything made of glass? :inquisitive:
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rory_20_uk
Causation or correlation?
~:smoking:
Rather lack of correlation. I might've formulated myself badly, the later studies have only shown that heavier punishments doesn't have an effective value as a deterent (or the opposite), making the big shift on cirme and punishment a correlation. Other factors, like social status, risk of getting caught, have a much larger influence on crime.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
I just read this article [WARNING: DISTURBING IMAGE] and it made me rethink my position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicholas D. Kristof
Terrorism in this part of the world usually means bombs exploding or hotels burning, as the latest horrific scenes from Mumbai attest. Yet alongside the brutal public terrorism that fills the television screens, there is an equally cruel form of terrorism that gets almost no attention and thrives as a result: flinging acid on a woman’s face to leave her hideously deformed.
Here in Pakistan, I’ve been investigating such acid attacks, which are commonly used to terrorize and subjugate women and girls in a swath of Asia from Afghanistan through Cambodia (men are almost never attacked with acid). Because women usually don’t matter in this part of the world, their attackers are rarely prosecuted and acid sales are usually not controlled. It’s a kind of terrorism that becomes accepted as part of the background noise in the region.
Pouring acid on the son-of-a-bitch's face isn't enough.
This sort of abominable attack happens because there is not enough 'eye for an eye' justice.
If every single one of those sub-human beasts who attacked a woman in this way knew, knew with complete certainty in their hearts that they would get it even worse, trust me, there would be much, much less of this.
That article has made me angrier than most any other thing I've read. I want to find every cockroach that did something like this and make them suffer in a worse way.
CR
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Punishment should be worse then the crime. The perp should have a net loss.
That is not to say blinding him is the most humane or smart option. After all it just puts the burden of looking after him on to someone else, when he should be working twice as hard to provide for himself and the women (and her family) who he attacked.
Game theory does support tic for tac responses.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crazed Rabbit
I just read
this article [WARNING: DISTURBING IMAGE] and it made me rethink my position.
Pouring acid on the son-of-a-bitch's face isn't enough.
This sort of abominable attack happens because there is not enough 'eye for an eye' justice.
If every single one of those sub-human beasts who attacked a woman in this way knew, knew with complete certainty in their hearts that they would get it even worse, trust me, there would be much, much less of this.
That article has made me angrier than most any other thing I've read. I want to find every cockroach that did something like this and make them suffer in a worse way.
CR
And then what does that person's family do in response to the fact that you did something so horrific to their brother/son/in law? They come back at you and attack more of YOUR family members, in even more gruesome methods. You, angered they would dip to such low methods, go even further in revenge. Where does it end? Until whole villages are annihilated? Whole towns? Provinces? Countries? Give me some proof that such a tactic actually prevents such violence. Actual studies and facts would be preferable instead of heated rhetoric.
-
Re : Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crazed Rabbit
I just read
this article [WARNING: DISTURBING IMAGE] and it made me rethink my position.
Pouring acid on the son-of-a-bitch's face isn't enough.
This sort of abominable attack happens because there is not enough 'eye for an eye' justice.
If every single one of those sub-human beasts who attacked a woman in this way knew, knew with complete certainty in their hearts that they would get it even worse, trust me, there would be much, much less of this.
That article has made me angrier than most any other thing I've read. I want to find every cockroach that did something like this and make them suffer in a worse way.
I am forever torn on this subject. In my mind, I understand all criminological, sociological, practical arguments. But in my heart...
Maybe we are criminally lax. In my heart of hearts, I would love to put every deranged criminal five minutes in a room with nothing but a blunt pencil, a spoon, and one Crazed Rabbit. :2thumbsup:
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seireikhaan
And then what does that person's family do in response to the fact that you did something so horrific to their brother/son/in law? They come back at you and attack more of YOUR family members, in even more gruesome methods. You, angered they would dip to such low methods, go even further in revenge. Where does it end? Until whole villages are annihilated? Whole towns? Provinces? Countries? Give me some proof that such a tactic actually prevents such violence. Actual studies and facts would be preferable instead of heated rhetoric.
Mutually assured destruction did keep the world from engaging in nuclear war.
CR
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crazed Rabbit
Mutually assured destruction did keep the world from engaging in nuclear war.
CR
Which is unfortunately a red herring to this argument, as nobody outside of governments has access to nuclear bombs(at least, I hope :sweatdrop:) Throwing acid on your former spouse's face is hardly the same thing as detonating a nuclear bomb in her home. Mutually assured destruction is NOT the same thing as having the ability to retaliate.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seireikhaan
Which is unfortunately a red herring to this argument, as nobody outside of governments has access to nuclear bombs(at least, I hope :sweatdrop:) Throwing acid on your former spouse's face is hardly the same thing as detonating a nuclear bomb in her home. Mutually assured destruction is NOT the same thing as having the ability to retaliate.
Retaliation is not the same as mutual assured destruction but if equal “retaliation” (eye for and eye) was legal and commonly accepted I do think it would work to cutback the amount of violent crimes committed.
If you know that you will get acid poured into your eyes if you pour acid into someone else’s eyes, I bet you think twice about it.
-
Re : Eye for an Eye - A discussion
As much as I despise this form of 'justice', I understand it.
For too long this kind of event went unpunished. Having this kind of eye for an eye responses will probably make the damn bastards think twice about doing it.
Notice that I'm only supporting it for the fact that women had been voiceless for too long in these countries, and that any kind of answer to this (well known) issue is better than nothing. Ultimately, a more civilized kind of answer would be billions of times better, assuming you're in a rational and civilized country, which is obviously not the case.
Notice also that if it was only up to me, the bastard would be killed in the most painful and slowest way, but hopefully, nobody has to listen to me on this issue.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yesdachi
Retaliation is not the same as mutual assured destruction but if equal “retaliation” (eye for and eye) was legal and commonly accepted I do think it would work to cutback the amount of violent crimes committed.
I know that one, it's called bloodfeud, no vendetta. ~;p
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yesdachi
If you know that you will get acid poured into your eyes if you pour acid into someone else’s eyes, I bet you think twice about it.
I would say that actually prosecuting the perpetrator for aggrevated assult like they should be would work wonders.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Hmmm
The spread of oppinions are a bit different than I thought they would be.
Many people seem to prefer injuring the perpetrator and letting him go free than actually protecting the society from him. This is just punitive and not social benefit oriented.
Could it be that we ourselves are addicted to the process of causing more harm than the harm done to us? Maybe deep in the human psyche we enjoy the whole 'was wronged-did worse as revenge' circle and consequently are genetically inclined to prefer punitive instead of correctional measures.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yesdachi
Retaliation is not the same as mutual assured destruction but if equal “retaliation” (eye for and eye) was legal and commonly accepted I do think it would work to cutback the amount of violent crimes committed.
If you know that you will get acid poured into your eyes if you pour acid into someone else’s eyes, I bet you think twice about it.
Or you think since the person is now blind you will be superior and have nothing to fear afterwards.
Or you kill them outright so they cannot retaliate.
Or you kill their whole family so noone of them can retaliate.
Or you kill their whole clan so noone of them can retaliate.
Or you kill their whole country so noone can retaliate.
Or they defend themselves and you get a feud/war.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
The difference between mutually assured destruction (nukes) and personal revenge is obvious!
With MAD everyone dies (or everyone who is part of your country)
With personal revenge at no point does anyone think how many could die because of this one action as the death cycle is alot slower....
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ironside
I would say that actually prosecuting the perpetrator for aggrevated assult like they should be would work wonders.
I would agree with that. Of course the system would have to change for that to happen too, seeing as the women who gets the acid doesn’t really have any rights, the guy gets treated like he poured acid on the ground.
I stand by my statement that if you know someone will hurt you if you hurt them then you will be less likely to dish out some hurt. Doesn’t this type of eye for an eye (or worse) work relatively well for the mob of yesterday? Sure there are incidents but for the most part one family doesn’t move against another because they know they will be retaliated against.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rasoforos
Could it be that we ourselves are addicted to the process of causing more harm than the harm done to us?
I think it is the other way around, we have gotten too used to causing less harm then was actually inflicted. Burning out his eyes with acid is too poetic for my liking, but I hope it really hurts anyway.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Vigilante justice is not likely if the populace believes that for a given crime the perpetrator will be caught and the punishment is sufficient.
With the rates of convicting criminals so low, and punishment so low for non-violent crimes in the UK it's amazing more don't go it.
Compare punishments now to what was inflicted 150 years ago - it's got a hell of a lot more pleasant.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Evil_Maniac From Mars
And scissors, pens, and everything made of glass? :inquisitive:
definately, and be put in straight jackets to stop physical abuse
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
The trouble with drawing a comparison to MAD is, the whole reason why MAD works is that those who rise to positions of power, whether by fair means or foul, tend to have a very strong instinct for self-preservation and an understanding that rash, impulsive actions tend to have undesirable consequences. The same is not true of the general population; I suspect there are plenty of people who, given access to nuclear weapons, would immediately use them on the next person who cuts them up in traffic. It's just that these people are unlikely to have the temperament needed in order to obtain high political office.
I guess making punishments more severe may discourage people if the previous punishment is truly regarded as trivial, but whatever the Mail would have us believe I don't think many people would expect a long prison term to be akin to a stay in a five star hotel. It's hard to see why anyone in their right mind would commit a serious crime as it is if they think it likely they will be caught and spend most (or all) of the rest of their life in prison, so one can only conclude that the people who commit such crimes believe they will not be caught and thus consider the prospective punishment irrelevant.
-
Re: Eye for an Eye - A discussion
a lot of crimes are commited when one believes he has no other option, no other way than to do so. that turns an ordinary man in a killer. and than you also have the "mad" man who kills per example because he doesnt see that it is wrong. because he looks at things differently than the general population. but the fact that we consider raping a girl or murdering a human being as wrong is only because we as a populiation (majority) decided it was so. when the majority decides that it isnt wrong anymore, per example to kill jews on sight, it isnt. untill another majority surfaces and says otherwise. the majority however doesnt always have to be numerical, in the end for evil to prevail it only takes the good to look away.
