Iran to blind criminal with acid in 'eye for an eye' justice

[Eoin247]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/13/iran-blind-criminal-acid

Just looking at the picture of this woman, i think that the man is actualy getting let off easy by just being blinded.

Of course we have all these human rights groups and western countries condeming this sentence. I don't usualy agree with Islamic law but right here i think they got it right.

Thoughts on this? Anybody think this sentence is too harsh? Or do you agree with it?

[Catzsy]

It makes me sick to think about this tbh. I really feel sorry for the woman but it does not mean in a civilised society
that people enforcing the punishment should act the same way. I do think a long prison sentence is appropriate though. Also she was not anaesthetised when it happened so it is not really 'an eye for an eye'.

[Mathew]

A human simply shouldn't have the authority to inflict something like this on another human, no matter what caused it or what job position they're in. We are all the same type of mammal, we all have brains and we all act similarly. I find it disgraceful.

By all means shove them in a cell, but all humans should treat each other with respect.

[AgnesIO]

A human simply shouldn't have the authority to inflict something like this on another human, no matter what caused it or what job position they're in. We are all the same type of mammal, we all have brains and we all act similarly. I find it disgraceful.

By all means shove them in a cell, but all humans should treat each other with respect.

How far does someone need to go to lose that respect though?

[Mathew]

How far does someone need to go to lose that respect though?
You should never lose respect for another human, it's as simple as that. I'm not gonna go all Communist on you because that's just odd, but we were all created in the same way, we need the same things to survive and we all die. We're the most intelligent animals on the planet and it's just completely immoral to do anything like that on someone of your own "breed".

On that note however, I do suppose I'm quite torn and hypocritical because I think the death penalty is justified in some cases. If you're stuck for life in prison for murdering 10 people, that's not a good quality of life. There was a news report a couple of days ago where a prisoner constantly tried to kill himself with knives, etc, but the prison guards had to keep him alive.

I don't know what to think, but I don't agree with making someone blind just so that it evens out the blow. Why sink to that level? I also think there is a high degree of ambiguity throughout this whole process.

[AgnesIO]

You should never lose respect for another human, it's as simple as that. I'm not gonna go all Communist on you because that's just odd, but we were all created in the same way, we need the same things to survive and we all die. We're the most intelligent animals on the planet and it's just completely immoral to do anything like that on someone of your own "breed".

On that note however, I do suppose I'm quite torn and hypocritical because I think the death penalty is justified in some cases. If you're stuck for life in prison for murdering 10 people, that's not a good quality of life. There was a news report a couple of days ago where a prisoner constantly tried to kill himself with knives, etc, but the prison guards had to keep him alive.

I don't know what to think, but I don't agree with making someone blind just so that it evens out the blow. Why sink to that level? I also think there is a high degree of ambiguity throughout this whole process.

However intelligent we may be, we are still animals. I don't understand how a prisnor got his hands on knives in the first place though - that is where the problem is. I don't necessarily agree with this punishment, but I think if you commit a serious crime you should lose any human rights you may have.

[Mathew]

However intelligent we may be, we are still animals. I don't understand how a prisnor got his hands on knives in the first place though - that is where the problem is. I don't necessarily agree with this punishment, but I think if you commit a serious crime you should lose any human rights you may have.
Define "serious"? It's way too ambiguous to even consider putting a law on it. You can't say that one person should be killed and another shouldn't - you can't choose favourites and you can't always be certain what the true story is. There's probably only one completely objective institution in this country, and that's the judical system.

[AgnesIO]

Define "serious"? It's way too ambiguous to even consider putting a law on it. You can't say that one person should be killed and another shouldn't - you can't choose favourites and you can't always be certain what the true story is. There's probably only one completely objective institution in this country, and that's the judical system.

Attempting to harm or end another's life.

[Mathew]

Attempting to harm or end another's life.
Define "harm"? Define "attempt"? How do you explain accidents or those with mental abnormality?

[Inseriousity.]

You should never lose respect for another human, it's as simple as that. I'm not gonna go all Communist on you because that's just odd, but we were all created in the same way, we need the same things to survive and we all die. We're the most intelligent animals on the planet and it's just completely immoral to do anything like that on someone of your own "breed".

On that note however, I do suppose I'm quite torn and hypocritical because I think the death penalty is justified in some cases. If you're stuck for life in prison for murdering 10 people, that's not a good quality of life. There was a news report a couple of days ago where a prisoner constantly tried to kill himself with knives, etc, but the prison guards had to keep him alive.

I don't know what to think, but I don't agree with making someone blind just so that it evens out the blow. Why sink to that level? I also think there is a high degree of ambiguity throughout this whole process.

That's sort of the point! If we do the job that he's been tryna do himself then we'd be doing him a favour. Make him live a life of hell like he's put the victim(s) and their families through (of course this raises questions about how comfy our prisons are but I personally think it's been exaggerated). I do not believe in 'an eye for an eye' punishment tbh because it's just hypocritical, like me breaking your windows because you broke mine. It sounds so childish when you put it in a different context.

[AgnesIO]

Define "harm"? Define "attempt"? How do you explain accidents or those with mental abnormality?

Well I think if you throw acid on someones face, the chances are that is attempting to ham or end another persons life.


harm/härm/
Verb: Physically injure: "the villains didn't harm him".
Noun: Physical injury, esp. that which is deliberately inflicted.

t·tempt/əˈtem(p)t/
Noun: An act of trying to achieve something, typically one that is unsuccessful or not certain to succeed: "an attempt to halt the bombings".
Verb: Make an effort to achieve or complete (something, typically a difficult task or action): "she attempted a comeback in 1989".

I didn't think I would need to define those for you, Matt! Would have thought it was quite clear.

The idea behind prison is to punish, and obviously to punish by locking someone away you are 'taking away their previous quality of life'. Do you think it is unfair to lock people up, and therefore removing some of their quality of life?

[HotelUser]

I'm a big death penalty believer here for people who commit homicides, genocides and terrible crimes against humanity. But I don't think this is fair at all here. I think he should be required to give just about all of his savings to her and then serve some time in jail.

[AgnesIO]

I'm a big death penalty believer here for people who commit homicides, genocides and terrible crimes against humanity. But I don't think this is fair at all here. I think he should be required to give just about all of his savings to her and then serve some time in jail.

Oh I am not sure on this punishment, but I think that would be a good idea. 'You attempted to harm/end another persons life. EVerything you own is now theirs, now **** off in jail'

Would like to see people commit the crimes again.

[Mathew]

Well I think if you throw acid on someones face, the chances are that is attempting to ham or end another persons life.

I didn't think I would need to define those for you, Matt! Would have thought it was quite clear.

The idea behind prison is to punish, and obviously to punish by locking someone away you are 'taking away their previous quality of life'. Do you think it is unfair to lock people up, and therefore removing some of their quality of life?
That's where we differ then, because I think the idea behind prison is to teach them to not do it again. People don't learn their lesson through punishment. If you've had a deprived, disrupted childhood where you weren't taught the basics of civilisation then it's pretty obvious then they're going to turn out rough in the end. Indeed, a study called the "44 Theives Study" found that the 44 Theives missed the Critical Period in which they could attach to a primary caregiver, whereas the control group (normal members of society) had well-formed relationships with their primary caregiver during the first few years of their life.

You can't assume that they CHOOSE to break the law, and therefore you can't rub salt into the wound by punishing them for it. That is why it's all so ambiguous, and that is why you can't define the words "harm" and "attempt".

[AgnesIO]

That's where we differ then, because I think the idea behind prison is to teach them to not do it again. People don't learn their lesson through punishment. If you've had a deprived, disrupted childhood where you weren't taught the basics of civilisation then it's pretty obvious then they're going to turn out rough in the end. Indeed, a study called the "44 Theives Study" found that the 44 Theives missed the Critical Period in which they could attach to a primary caregiver, whereas the control group (normal members of society) had well-formed relationships with their primary caregiver during the first few years of their life.

You can't assume that they CHOOSE to break the law, and therefore you can't rub salt into the wound by punishing them for it. That is why it's all so ambiguous, and that is why you can't define the words "harm" and "attempt".

But prison is punishment?

For example, if I was ever given a detention at school (albeit I only had one by myself) I knew not to do it again.

[Mathew]

But prison is punishment?

For example, if I was ever given a detention at school (albeit I only had one by myself) I knew not to do it again.
Of course prison is a punishment, but I also think the primary reason for it is to teach the people not to do it again; and therefore you can't accuse law-breakers of doing things off their own back.

I never had a detention wooo. :D

[AgnesIO]

Of course prison is a punishment, but I also think the primary reason for it is to teach the people not to do it again; and therefore you can't accuse law-breakers of doing things off their own back.

I never had a detention wooo. :D

NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF XXXXXXXX :L

I think punishment CAN work, I don't think prisons are used how they should be (in this country) though.

[Stephen]

I don't really care. If they wanna go ahead and blind him with acid then WOOOOOO. If someone chopped your fingers off and you had the chance of chopping theirs off would you do it? HELL ******* YES


Well I think if you throw acid on someones face, the chances are that is attempting to ham or end another persons life.




I didn't think I would need to define those for you, Matt! Would have thought it was quite clear.

The idea behind prison is to punish, and obviously to punish by locking someone away you are 'taking away their previous quality of life'. Do you think it is unfair to lock people up, and therefore removing some of their quality of life?

mmm i like ham

[HotelUser]

I don't really care. If they wanna go ahead and blind him with acid then WOOOOOO. If someone chopped your fingers off and you had the chance of chopping theirs off would you do it? HELL ******* YES



mmm i like ham

Yes but I'd rather have my sight than to not have a few fingers!

[-:Undertaker:-]

You can't assume that they CHOOSE to break the law, and therefore you can't rub salt into the wound by punishing them for it. That is why it's all so ambiguous, and that is why you can't define the words "harm" and "attempt".

Those of sound mind are responsible for their actions and if you do not accept this principle then you do not accept the rule of law as the main three political parties no longer do, instead, they believe in the sociological approach that people commit crime based on race, background and wealth - something that needs to be rejected because it is simply not true.

Now as for this case i'm no supporter of barbaric punishment which you could class as torture, however when you look at what this man would have got in the United Kingdom - I personally find a suspended sentence and a tag more sickening than the judgement Iran have come to concerning a case such as this. A long spell in a harsh prison would have been more suitable because Iran, unlike the UK, has some concept of what punishment is.

[Mathew]

Those of sound mind are responsible for their actions and if you do not accept this principle then you do not accept the rule of law as the main three political parties no longer do, instead, they believe in the sociological approach that people commit crime based on race, background and wealth - something that needs to be rejected because it is simply not true.
Yes, people of a sound mind are responsible for their actions. How does this have any connection to one's race, background and wealth?
But yeah indeed, I do agree that people commit crime based on race, background and wealth. How can you be sure that it's "simply not true"?


Now as for this case i'm no supporter of barbaric punishment which you could class as torture, however when you look at what this man would have got in the United Kingdom - I personally find a suspended sentence and a tag more sickening than the judgement Iran have come to concerning a case such as this. A long spell in a harsh prison would have been more suitable because Iran, unlike the UK, has some concept of what punishment is.
You don't support barbaric punishment.
You think a tag and prison would be worse.
Yet... you think Iran has a concept of punishment?

Unclear? :(

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, people of a sound mind are responsible for their actions. How does this have any connection to one's race, background and wealth?
But yeah indeed, I do agree that people commit crime based on race, background and wealth. How can you be sure that it's "simply not true"?

It is simply not true because if you are of sound mind you are capable of making sound, rational decisions - thus the usual excuse of 'it was little Johnnys background what made him commit this crime' is made void.


You don't support barbaric punishment.
You think a tag and prison would be worse.
Yet... you think Iran has a concept of punishment?

Unclear? :(

Because Iran has at least concept of punishment which although is barbaric I must admit, we on the other hand do not have a concept of punishment hence why so many criminals go unpunished and those that are 'punished' are not punished at all, merely sent to a fairly comfortable prison or let out with a tag.

[Inseriousity.]

It is simply not true because if you are of sound mind you are capable of making sound, rational decisions - thus the usual excuse of 'it was little Johnnys background what made him commit this crime' is made void.



Because Iran has at least concept of punishment which although is barbaric I must admit, we on the other hand do not have a concept of punishment hence why so many criminals go unpunished and those that are 'punished' are not punished at all, merely sent to a fairly comfortable prison or let out with a tag.

And where do "sound rational decisions" come from? This is really the nature vs nurture debate. I do not personally think that "sound rational decisions" are objective as they will vary from culture to culture and therefore it's an environment thing and therefore "it's little Johnny's background that did it" is essentially true to an extent. Does that mean he should get off scot-free? I don't think so as punishment is meant to protect the wider community as well but to completely void someone's background is ridiculous.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And where do "sound rational decisions" come from? This is really the nature vs nurture debate. I do not personally think that "sound rational decisions" are objective as they will vary from culture to culture and therefore it's an environment thing and therefore "it's little Johnny's background that did it" is essentially true to an extent. Does that mean he should get off scot-free? I don't think so as punishment is meant to protect the wider community as well but to completely void someone's background is ridiculous.

If you are of sound mind then you know what right and wrong is, that killing a man is wrong, to rob a man is wrong and that to commit terrible crimes is wrong. There are many people of sound mind who commit crimes knowing it is wrong, but when it comes to court they plea the 'it isn't his fault because such and such' and the sociological left panders to this accepting it as an excuse. If you know something to be wrong and against the law along with being of sound mind then you have nobody to blame but yourself; personal responsiblity.

A wealthy man from a good background could go and murder a personal enemy tommorow and at the same time a poor man from a terrible background could go and murder his personal enemy - both are of sound mind yet your logic would suggest we treat these differently, by making excuses for the man with the terrible background despite the fact that he knew what he was doing was wrong, just as the other man did.

On the other hand I accept there are people who are not of sound mind and thus cannot grasp the concept of right or wrong, many of these people used to be in mental hospitals/asylums until the left closed them all down to attempt to 'integrate' them into the local neigherhood - forgetting that many of these people simply cannot be cured and that they will always remain a danger to those around them.

A risk the sociological left was willing to make because it does not affect them.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/12/never-mind-rioting-yobs-the-real-enemy-will-soon-be-roaming-your-street-giggling-and-blank-eyed-set-.html


Q Why do we imprison more people per head than any other Western European country?
A Liberal answer: Because we are too tough.

True answer: Because we have far more crimes per head than our neighbours.

Q Why can’t we simply build more prisons?
A Liberal answer: Because prisons are horrid, crime is caused not by human wickedness but by deprivation, and we don’t like being responsible for such a harsh system.

True answer: We have built more prisons. But we don’t use them properly (see below) and the criminally-inclined are not frightened of them. So the criminally-inclined become actual criminals. And we cannot build them fast enough to house the growing criminal underclass our policies have created.

Q Many claim that ‘prison works’. Does it?
A Liberal answer number one: Yes, but only by keeping criminals off the streets till they offend again, which isn’t much use. Liberal answer number two: No, huge numbers of prisoners reoffend after serving time. So prison makes them worse.

True answer: Prisons are purposeless warehouses, where criminals are corralled for a short while with other people like them. The nastier they are, the more they are left alone by increasingly powerless staff. They are given taxpayer-funded drugs, or a blind eye is turned to illegal drug-taking. They are seldom made to work and – as we saw with the case of the gangster Colin Gunn, who has forced officers to call him ‘Mister’ – they are treated with absurd generosity.

With the exception of those who commit a few specially heinous crimes, most criminals do not get sent to prison until they are already habitual law-breakers, with a long line of cautions, unpaid fines and suspended sentences behind them. Then when they arrive in prison they are given drugs, TVs and pool tables. No wonder they reoffend.

[Inseriousity.]

If you are of sound mind then you know what right and wrong is, that killing a man is wrong, to rob a man is wrong and that to commit terrible crimes is wrong. There are many people of sound mind who commit crimes knowing it is wrong, but when it comes to court they plea the 'it isn't his fault because such and such' and the sociological left panders to this accepting it as an excuse. If you know something to be wrong and against the law along with being of sound mind then you have nobody to blame but yourself; personal responsiblity.

A wealthy man from a good background could go and murder a personal enemy tommorow and at the same time a poor man from a terrible background could go and murder his personal enemy - both are of sound mind yet your logic would suggest we treat these differently, by making excuses for the man with the terrible background despite the fact that he knew what he was doing was wrong, just as the other man did.

On the other hand I accept there are people who are not of sound mind and thus cannot grasp the concept of right or wrong, many of these people used to be in mental hospitals/asylums until the left closed them all down to attempt to 'integrate' them into the local neigherhood - forgetting that many of these people simply cannot be cured.

Firstly, my logic would not treat them differently because there would obviously be something in each other's backgrounds that would lead to the crime. You narrowed it down to race and wealth but there are obviously more factors that can contribute to a person's mindset, family etc.

You're making the assumption that all crimes are made under a sound rational mind but is a man so enraged with his wife for having an affair that he kills her working under a sound rational mind? I would say no because his anger has replaced that rational mind whereas a man who purposely plans to murder his wife after having an affair but goes out to buy the supplies is working under a rational mind. Every crime is different.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Firstly, my logic would not treat them differently because there would obviously be something in each other's backgrounds that would lead to the crime. You narrowed it down to race and wealth but there are obviously more factors that can contribute to a person's mindset, family etc.

I've just told you what 'leads' them to commit the crime (despite the fact that nothing can lead you to committing a crime as a person of sound, rational mind is solely in control of himself) - so is the poorer of the two, because of his deprived background, the less guilty of the two?

Or is it actually the case that both men are equally as wicked and deserve the same punishment for their crimes?


You're making the assumption that all crimes are made under a sound rational mind but is a man so enraged with his wife for having an affair that he kills her working under a sound rational mind? I would say no because his anger has replaced that rational mind whereas a man who purposely plans to murder his wife after having an affair but goes out to buy the supplies is working under a rational mind. Every crime is different.

Hang on now, you've switched now from backgrounds to emotions at the time of the crime.

[alexxxxx]

If you are of sound mind then you know what right and wrong is, that killing a man is wrong, to rob a man is wrong and that to commit terrible crimes is wrong. There are many people of sound mind who commit crimes knowing it is wrong, but when it comes to court they plea the 'it isn't his fault because such and such' and the sociological left panders to this accepting it as an excuse. If you know something to be wrong and against the law along with being of sound mind then you have nobody to blame but yourself; personal responsiblity.

A wealthy man from a good background could go and murder a personal enemy tommorow and at the same time a poor man from a terrible background could go and murder his personal enemy - both are of sound mind yet your logic would suggest we treat these differently, by making excuses for the man with the terrible background despite the fact that he knew what he was doing was wrong, just as the other man did.

On the other hand I accept there are people who are not of sound mind and thus cannot grasp the concept of right or wrong, many of these people used to be in mental hospitals/asylums until the left closed them all down to attempt to 'integrate' them into the local neigherhood - forgetting that many of these people simply cannot be cured and that they will always remain a danger to those around them.

Some criminals honestly believe what they are doing is not particularly unjust due to their own socioeconomic standing. For example poor pick-pocketers may justify their crimes that "they don't need their money as much as I do" or someone selling drugs may just think "i'm a businessman, serving a market, selling people what they want." Gang members are scared of other gangs, no matter what face they put on, they kill each other for "self-defense" through fear and revenge attacks. They are obviously wrong (to us!) and they harm their local communities but i think that there is truth that people do honestly feel like what they are doing isn't morally wrong or particularly selfish. From your/my point of view it's stupid and they are in fact wrong in the head. Some people cannot see anything from anyone else's perspective.

On the other hand you have people who murder people for money or property. Calculated and planned killings. People who attack people outside nightclubs for just looking at them. Carjackers. Fraudsters and conmen. Rapists and child molesters. They're selfish, destructive and can't possibly justify their crimes apart from gratifying themselves. They are the ones who are most dangerous to the public.


http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/12/never-mind-rioting-yobs-the-real-enemy-will-soon-be-roaming-your-street-giggling-and-blank-eyed-set-.html
Please don't quote Hitchens. He writes such populist tosh.

[Mathew]

It is simply not true because if you are of sound mind you are capable of making sound, rational decisions - thus the usual excuse of 'it was little Johnnys background what made him commit this crime' is made void.
While I do agree that a small minority of people get let off and blame everything on their mental state, you still can't deny the fact that your environment affects how you function in life. Mike has hit the nail on the head with the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate. As I have said throughout this thread, there is too much ambiguity here and you can't impose a law (and you can't torture or kill somebody... :rolleyes:) just because the judge has decided whether they have a sound mind or not. Yet again Dan, I bring you back to my original post where I said that humans should not have control over another human's life like this. It's completely immoral.



Because Iran has at least concept of punishment which although is barbaric I must admit, we on the other hand do not have a concept of punishment hence why so many criminals go unpunished and those that are 'punished' are not punished at all, merely sent to a fairly comfortable prison or let out with a tag.
Perhaps that's because our British society doesn't want to encourage punishment. You could say that Iran is a more "barbaric" state that us. Naturally I don't know the true purpose of prisons, but in my opinion they aren't to punish - they are there to seperate people from the community and teach them the type of socialisation that they missed when they were children.


And where do "sound rational decisions" come from? This is really the nature vs nurture debate. I do not personally think that "sound rational decisions" are objective as they will vary from culture to culture and therefore it's an environment thing and therefore "it's little Johnny's background that did it" is essentially true to an extent. Does that mean he should get off scot-free? I don't think so as punishment is meant to protect the wider community as well but to completely void someone's background is ridiculous.
Quite right.


http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/12/never-mind-rioting-yobs-the-real-enemy-will-soon-be-roaming-your-street-giggling-and-blank-eyed-set-.html
Daily Mail, Hitchens and a completely bias, bigoted and unthoughtful interview. When are you going to show us some credible evidence?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Some criminals honestly believe what they are doing is not particularly unjust due to their own socioeconomic standing. For example poor pick-pocketers may justify their crimes that "they don't need their money as much as I do" or someone selling drugs may just think "i'm a businessman, serving a market, selling people what they want." Gang members are scared of other gangs, no matter what face they put on, they kill each other for "self-defense" through fear and revenge attacks. They are obviously wrong (to us!) and they harm their local communities but i think that there is truth that people do honestly feel like what they are doing isn't morally wrong or particularly selfish. From your/my point of view it's stupid and they are in fact wrong in the head. Some people cannot see anything from anyone else's perspective.

Yes they can, if they are of sound mind. They may believe it to be right, but that does not excuse them. Unlike people who are not of sound mind who cannot have it drummed into them that this is right or wrong because they have no concept of right or wrong, these peole do have that concept and do know that what they are doing is wrong. If you are here telling me that drug dealers do not know the effects of what their business causes on their customers then you are at best naive, they know exactly what they are doing - as do most criminals, from cold blooded killers to the average thief on the street.

Ignorance of the law, the most basic of laws (do not steal, do not kill) is no excuse, and to pin wickedness on the basis of wealth, upbringing or race is downright ridiculous. I certainly can see that moral poverty has played a part in the explosion of crime and wrongdoing, but other factors? no.


On the other hand you have people who murder people for money or property. Calculated and planned killings. People who attack people outside nightclubs for just looking at them. Carjackers. Fraudsters and conmen. Rapists and child molesters. They're selfish, destructive and can't possibly justify their crimes apart from gratifying themselves. They are the ones who are most dangerous to the public.

But what about their backgrounds? it seems as though you agree with myself and Hitchens, that theres a difference between those of sound mind and those who are not of sound mind - who formerly went into care, but thanks to the sociological approach now end up being treated as the same as those who are genuinely wicked and deserve to be punished.

As he says elsewhere, this links in with the collapse of morality of which cannot be replaced by government charters, EU regulations or dictats from Whitehall such as the Human Rights Bill - to bring back morals you need a strong system which shows what is right and what is wrong, and that if you do something which is wrong you are punished for it.


Please don't quote Hitchens. He writes such populist tosh.

Well apart from saying is that the best response you have to that, Hitchens actually isn't all that populist - rejects the main three parties along with other minor parties, rejects the cultural revolution of the 1960s, rejects the conventional view on most topics (including this one) - and besides, by populist you mean popular? such as the popular belief amongst the public that criminals of sound mind ought to be punished for their actions?


While I do agree that a small minority of people get let off and blame everything on their mental state, you still can't deny the fact that your environment affects how you function in life. Mike has hit the nail on the head with the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate. As I have said throughout this thread, there is too much ambiguity here and you can't impose a law (and you can't torture or kill somebody... :rolleyes:) just because the judge has decided whether they have a sound mind or not. Yet again Dan, I bring you back to my original post where I said that humans should not have control over another human's life like this. It's completely immoral.

However your enviroment does not excuse you from the law and does not instantly make you deluded about what is right and what is wrong. The majority of criminals know what they are doing is wrong yet they continue at it because they can, they are allowed to do so. I will take drugs for example (which I do believe should be legalised but thats another topic); all the people who I know who take drugs know it to be wrong and against the law but do so not only because they can, but because they believe there is nothing wrong with taking drugs and that is it their choice.

Now should the belief of 'I believe this is right' triumph over the law? thats what you are suggesting.


Perhaps that's because our British society doesn't want to encourage punishment. You could say that Iran is a more "barbaric" state that us. Naturally I don't know the true purpose of prisons, but in my opinion they aren't to punish - they are there to seperate people from the community and teach them the type of socialisation that they missed when they were children.

So you do not believe in punishment? you certainly belong in the Conservative Party along with the Labour Party which you constantly have a go at but which is identical to your viewpoint. But party politics aside and onto the remarkable statement that you do not believe in punishment for wrongdoing;

If you have a naughty child in school and there's a school trip coming up, do you not punish this child by not allowing him to go on the trip or do you just have a councillor talk to him about how he should feel about his actions? - thus meaning the child has learnt nothing and now understands that he will meet no punishment for his actions and can carry on regardless.

The same applies to crime and punishment.


Daily Mail, Hitchens and a completely bias, bigoted and unthoughtful interview. When are you going to show us some credible evidence?

Thats the best response you can muster to his accurate portrayl of your very argument?

If you want some evidence look at those criminals who continually flout the law because they have no fear, no fear of being punished and the view that if caught, it is still unlikely that they will be punished then please do look at inner-city comprehensives where all order has broken down, inner city estates and so forth - none of them fear punishment.

Either you have the law abiding majority fearing the wicked few or the wicked few fearing the majority.

[Mathew]

However your enviroment does not excuse you from the law and does not instantly make you deluded about what is right and what is wrong. The majority of criminals know what they are dong is wrong yet they continue at it because they can, they are allowed to do so. I will take drugs for example (which I do believe should be legalised but thats another topic); all the people who I know who take drugs know it to be wrong and against the law but do so not only because they can, but because they believe there is nothing wrong with taking drugs and that is it their choice.

Now should the belief of 'I believe this is right' triumph over the law? thats what you are suggesting.
Of course it shouldn't and that has no relation at all to the topic. Your environment shouldn't excuse you from the law, I'm not saying it should. What I'm saying is that you can't deny the fact that someone's wealth and culture has an effect on whether you end up being a criminal or not. There has been several studies which have quite clearly shown a significant correlation here, one of which I outlined several pages back. Obviously not all end up like that and I have never said that either.

On another note, legalise drugs? Don't be so silly.


So you do not believe in punishment? you certainly belong in the Conservative Party along with the Labour Party which you constantly have a go at but which is identical to your viewpoint. But party politics aside and onto the remarkable statement that you do not believe in punishment for wrongdoing;

If you have a naughty child in school and there's a school trip coming up, do you not punish this child by not allowing him to go on the trip or do you just have a councillor talk to him about how he should feel about his actions? - thus meaning the child has learnt nothing and now understands that he will meet no punishment for his actions and can carry on regardless.

The same applies to crime and punishment.
As I have also said in this topic, I am torn about what to think about punishment. You can do just as much good by talking to the person than being just as stupid and punishing them.

I honestly can't believe you're saying that someone should get acid thrown in their eyes, just because they did it to someone else, Dan. Sure, they might deserve it, but that doesn't mean that one human should have the authority over another to administer that type of severe punishment. Two wrongs don't make a right. We're not animals. Why sink to the same low level?


Thats the best response you can muster to his accurate portrayl of your very argument?
Yes, when it isn't worth even commenting on.


If you want some evidence look at those criminals who continually flout the law because they have no fear, no fear of being punished and the view that if caught, it is still unlikely that they will be punished then please do look at inner-city comprehensives where all order has broken down, inner city estates and so forth - none of them fear punishment.

Either you have the law abiding majority fearing the wicked few or the wicked few fearing the majority.
I somewhat agree with the quoted, but I still think it's a disgrace that it is right to dish out the same attack as a punishment. By all means lock them up, but please to goodness don't sink that low.

[Inseriousity.]

I've just told you what 'leads' them to commit the crime (despite the fact that nothing can lead you to committing a crime as a person of sound, rational mind is solely in control of himself) - so is the poorer of the two, because of his deprived background, the less guilty of the two?

Or is it actually the case that both men are equally as wicked and deserve the same punishment for their crimes?



Hang on now, you've switched now from backgrounds to emotions at the time of the crime.


No you've told me your right-wing idea of what causes them to commit the crime. I've told you my left-wing idea so we're never going to agree on that. Of course they deserve the same punishment for the crime and there's no such thing as "less guilty." There's guilty or not guilty. If we base our justice system on different levels of guilt, like everything else, it's too ambiguous to really determine who goes where. However, you seem to depose of circumstances as if they are not relevant when you can not just throw away the environment in which you're brought up in. It's all around you.

It was an example, which you did not answer the point by the way so feel free to go back and answer it. Emotions do not come out of nowhere either; they are constructed from your environment. Would I feel sad if I got a U in an exam if the society I lived in did not place exam grades as important? Probably not hence why all those working-class children with parents who don't place much emphasis on having a good education aren't too bothered if they pass or fail. Moving away from crime but a similar example to what I was trying to get across.

[ifuseekamy]

Those kind of attacks are common in south asian countries where the obvious intention is to ruin their face so no one else will have them (says a lot about their view of women). The same thing happened to that Katie girl here who got a lot of media coverage.

[GommeInc]

I'm not a huge fan of this to be honest. An eye for an eye will make everyone blind, and I think one disgusting act shouldn't make another disgusting act justifiable. She won't get her eyes back for doing this, it's just setting for a terrible prescedent. Thankfully, we're not Iran.

[Nuxty]

It makes me sick to think about this tbh. I really feel sorry for the woman but it does not mean in a civilised society
that people enforcing the punishment should act the same way. I do think a long prison sentence is appropriate though. Also she was not anaesthetised when it happened so it is not really 'an eye for an eye'.

I agree with you 100% here Rosie. It really does make me somewhat angry and as you said, yes I do feel sympathy for the woman but taking away the offenders sight, what good will that achieve? They are proving to be just as bad as him meaning that really there isn't a great amount of justice there really - 'oh he blinded her, so lets blind him?' - I do not deem what he has done as acceptable, but I do not feel that he should have this done to him. I am a great believer in giving people a second chance, as much as it would anger me for someone to do this to someone else, I do feel that people can change and he could eventually prove himself to be a better man if they'd lock him in prision and give him a sentence, he could change? At the end of the day, they will just be as bad as he was to the woman if they proceed with this.

[Eoin247]

Imagine if this was the other way around though. If the woman had thrown the acid, her punishment would probably have been worse. I wouldn't be surprised if as well as this punishment, she was stoned to death or worse.

[Catzsy]

Imagine if this was the other way around though. If the woman had thrown the acid, her punishment would probably have been worse. I wouldn't be surprised if as well as this punishment, she was stoned to death or worse.

You could well be right there. That is barbaric but so is this suggestion.

[Nuxty]

I just think something needs to be done in order to take action against this punishments, I don't feel they are effective any more, it is just doing to people what they've done to others and the problems aren't really solved. It just disgusts me to know that the government wish to behave in such a way as bad as the man had in the first place.

[Red]

That is actually disgusting.
made me feel sick.

[Catzsy]

They have suspended this action for now. Lets hope it does not happen.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of course it shouldn't and that has no relation at all to the topic. Your environment shouldn't excuse you from the law, I'm not saying it should. What I'm saying is that you can't deny the fact that someone's wealth and culture has an effect on whether you end up being a criminal or not. There has been several studies which have quite clearly shown a significant correlation here, one of which I outlined several pages back. Obviously not all end up like that and I have never said that either.

But you are, its typical run-of-the-mill sociological nonsense 'Mrs Doris down the road was mugged and beaten as a result of the mistreatment of Little Johnny by his Dad and the system' - of course enviroment can give people more of a chance of being a criminal, but its purely statistical - it leaves out the concept of human morality and the idea that we as individuals are responsible for our own actions along rather than our social band, race or gender.


On another note, legalise drugs? Don't be so silly.

I do not believe it is the job of the state to regulate what substances people grow and smoke in their own time, this comes from somebody who is anti-drugs and hasn't touched them despite being offered them on numerous occasions. If I turned this around however and said that homosexuality should be regulated by the state, I can only imagine your reaction would go something along the lines of 'the state shouldn't have anything to do with what people do behind closed doors' - the same logic is applied here. Both drug taking and anal sex to a degree can be dangerous, but I don't find thats any of my business.


As I have also said in this topic, I am torn about what to think about punishment. You can do just as much good by talking to the person than being just as stupid and punishing them.

Really? rehabilitation does not work, and the stats are fiddled if you try and pull that one on me;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl9l-mQJHV0

If a child is naughty and is smacked, he or she will usually refrain from doing that same act again because they remember that not only is it wrong, but that if they do it they will be met with punishment. It goes back to the central point, those who commit wicked acts are responsible for their actions - and should be held accountable for them in the eyes of the law.


I honestly can't believe you're saying that someone should get acid thrown in their eyes, just because they did it to someone else, Dan. Sure, they might deserve it, but that doesn't mean that one human should have the authority over another to administer that type of severe punishment. Two wrongs don't make a right. We're not animals. Why sink to the same low level?

Had you read my reply you would see i'm not in support of this punishment.


Yes, when it isn't worth even commenting on.

Sure it is, its about as worthy in debate as the response 'well thats my opinion' - yes it is, I never disputed otherwise.


I somewhat agree with the quoted, but I still think it's a disgrace that it is right to dish out the same attack as a punishment. By all means lock them up, but please to goodness don't sink that low.

I'm not arguing in favour of the use of torture and bad methods, I want a strong justice system which has the death penalty (which is painless and moral) and which also has hard labor as a form of punishment to deter criminals from committing crime again - this is something that the main three parties refuse to commit themselves to.


No you've told me your right-wing idea of what causes them to commit the crime.

What causes them to commit crime is the fact that they wish to commit crime, nothing else.


I've told you my left-wing idea so we're never going to agree on that. Of course they deserve the same punishment for the crime and there's no such thing as "less guilty." There's guilty or not guilty. If we base our justice system on different levels of guilt, like everything else, it's too ambiguous to really determine who goes where. However, you seem to depose of circumstances as if they are not relevant when you can not just throw away the environment in which you're brought up in. It's all around you.

Oh there is, in many cases now background and so forth is taken into account and the criminal is somehow excused from the crime because of this. The enviroment can't be thrown away you are quite right, however a person of sound mind can see what is right and what is wrong and should act not on what sociological statistics suggest he should act, but how the law requires him to act and how morals require he act.

One of the biggest problems with crime is the wearing away of morality, again, due to the left.


It was an example, which you did not answer the point by the way so feel free to go back and answer it.

Feel free to point out the part you want a more meaty response to and i'll gladly respond.


Emotions do not come out of nowhere either; they are constructed from your environment. Would I feel sad if I got a U in an exam if the society I lived in did not place exam grades as important? Probably not hence why all those working-class children with parents who don't place much emphasis on having a good education aren't too bothered if they pass or fail. Moving away from crime but a similar example to what I was trying to get across.

The idea of what is right and wrong does to an extent, and in the cases where it lacks - it can only be rectified by punishment so that the criminal is deterred from committing the crime again as opposed to a 'talk' with a councillor who the criminal has in many cases already been through all the motions with, and simply understands that playing along as the victim is the only consquence of being caught.

The point you miss out is that many many criminals are simply wicked, and wickedness must be punished. Either the wicked live in fear of the majority or the majority live in fear of the wicked, which is it?


It makes me sick to think about this tbh. I really feel sorry for the woman but it does not mean in a civilised society that people enforcing the punishment should act the same way. I do think a long prison sentence is appropriate though. Also she was not anaesthetised when it happened so it is not really 'an eye for an eye'.

But why does it not make you sick when this government and the one before it treat the victims with contempt?

[GommeInc]

If I turned this around however and said that homosexuality should be regulated by the state, I can only imagine your reaction would go something along the lines of 'the state shouldn't have anything to do with what people do behind closed doors' - the same logic is applied here. Both drug taking and anal sex to a degree can be dangerous, but I don't find thats any of my business.
Women can partake in anal sex too, and sex is natural while drug abuse is something humans created, something synthetic. Gay sex and breeder sex are both natural in the Kingdom of Animalia. That said, drug usage is a bit of a different topic to what we're meant to be discussing and as far as I see it many drugs are a waste of time and resources for those who are too stupid to know how to use them. Those who do tend to do it secretly anyway. Making it available to the general public would be a problem, particularly the big drugs that don't involve being smoked (e.g. needles, snorting etc.)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Women can partake in anal sex too, and sex is natural while drug abuse is something humans created, something synthetic. Gay sex and breeder sex are both natural in the Kingdom of Animalia.

Indeed however that doesn't take viruses into account, of which can travel easier via anal sex - of which gay men are likely to partake in.


That said, drug usage is a bit of a different topic to what we're meant to be discussing and as far as I see it many drugs are a waste of time and resources for those who are too stupid to know how to use them. Those who do tend to do it secretly anyway. Making it available to the general public would be a problem, particularly the big drugs that don't involve being smoked (e.g. needles, snorting etc.)

There is no 'correct way' to use drugs in my opinion as they are stupid and dangerous and as I stated before, I have not and would never take them. On the other hand however I understand that others may wish to do so - just as some will view gay sex as immoral and a risk not worth taking due to the risk of infectious diseases. The fundemental value of liberty is that people should still be allowed to partake in it even if different sides may disagree. Neither are the business of the state to intervene in.

..as for the general public argument, as Ron Paul asks 'if drugs were legalised, would everybody in the room start taking drugs the moment they were legalised? oh the law is abolished so now i'll suddenly start taking drugs just because I can' - its ridiculous, the concept that we need the nannying state involved. If drugs were legalised there's no reason to imagine that thousands would all of a sudden start taking drugs when they could acquire them previously anyway.

[GommeInc]

Indeed however that doesn't take viruses into account, of which can travel easier via anal sex - of which gay men are likely to partake in.
Actually, any sex has a risk of viruses, not just anal sex. Oral sex with any sexual partner can lead to genital herpes, ulsers and in this day in age people are likely to wrap up for anal sex than for oral sex as no one particularly likes the taste of rubber, so it's double standards really though we're far away from such a scenario :P Viruses happen with any sexuality and for any type of sex. Suggesting anal sex is the problem is like saying murderers who kill using guns instead of knives are good people.


There is no 'correct way' to use drugs in my opinion as they are stupid and dangerous and as I stated before, I have not and would never take them. On the other hand however I understand that others may wish to do so - just as some will view gay sex as immoral and a risk not worth taking due to the risk of infectious diseases. The fundemental value of liberty is that people should still be allowed to partake in it even if different sides may disagree. Neither are the business of the state to intervene in.

..as for the general public argument, as Ron Paul asks 'if drugs were legalised, would everybody in the room start taking drugs the moment they were legalised? oh the law is abolished so now i'll suddenly start taking drugs just because I can' - its ridiculous, the concept that we need the nannying state involved. If drugs were legalised there's no reason to imagine that thousands would all of a sudden start taking drugs when they could acquire them previously anyway.
There are correct ways. The wrong mixture of heroin is potentially lethal, as are the wrong levels of cocaine - overdoses exist for a reason afterall, but we can both agree that it's at the individuals risk and they probably deserve it. Cannabis is possibly the safest, although high doses will most likely leave you hanging on the ceiling for a couple of days :P

[Mathew]

But you are, its typical run-of-the-mill sociological nonsense 'Mrs Doris down the road was mugged and beaten as a result of the mistreatment of Little Johnny by his Dad and the system' - of course enviroment can give people more of a chance of being a criminal, but its purely statistical - it leaves out the concept of human morality and the idea that we as individuals are responsible for our own actions along rather than our social band, race or gender.
How can you be 100% sure that Little Johnny has a concept of human morality? How are you going to measure that? How are you going to sentence someone to death when you aren't 100% sure they have a "concept of human morality"? I will say it yet AGAIN, you cannot give someone the death penalty because there are way too many factors which could contribute which makes it all far too ambiguous.


I do not believe it is the job of the state to regulate what substances people grow and smoke in their own time, this comes from somebody who is anti-drugs and hasn't touched them despite being offered them on numerous occasions. If I turned this around however and said that homosexuality should be regulated by the state, I can only imagine your reaction would go something along the lines of 'the state shouldn't have anything to do with what people do behind closed doors' - the same logic is applied here. Both drug taking and anal sex to a degree can be dangerous, but I don't find thats any of my business.
You are born gay, you aren't born a drug addict. Simple as. Discriminating against homosexuality is only considered immoral because the individuals had no choice. Drug addicts DO have a choice and they can seek help when and where. Poor analogy. Next?


It goes back to the central point, those who commit wicked acts are responsible for their actions - and should be held accountable for them in the eyes of the law.
Do you think the 9/11 bombers had a sound mind and knew exactly what they were doing? I'm sure you've heard of the numerous news stories of peer pressure, drugs and threats which circulate in terrorist organisations. Yes they did it and they should be punished, but you can't take away their life (which at the end of the day, is the whole point of this debate).


I'm not arguing in favour of the use of torture and bad methods, I want a strong justice system which has the death penalty (which is painless and moral) and which also has hard labor as a form of punishment to deter criminals from committing crime again - this is something that the main three parties refuse to commit themselves to.
Why would we want a death penalty where hundreds of people would be killed for no reason, when the justice system should have no right or authority to end someones life?


What causes them to commit crime is the fact that they wish to commit crime, nothing else.
Obviously not. http://www.nickoh.com/emacs_files/psychology/ss_dir/bowlby1944.html


There is no 'correct way' to use drugs in my opinion as they are stupid and dangerous and as I stated before, I have not and would never take them. On the other hand however I understand that others may wish to do so - just as some will view gay sex as immoral and a risk not worth taking due to the risk of infectious diseases. The fundemental value of liberty is that people should still be allowed to partake in it even if different sides may disagree. Neither are the business of the state to intervene in.
Of course it's the business of the state to intervene. That's exactly why we have a government; to restrict and allow certain things - to keep us all at a high, moral standard. Don't be so silly - do you really want to drive about and see the streets lined with people smoking goodness knows what? Of course people will take advantage of it. If it's legal, then it's readily available.... and if it's readily available then you'll have a hell of a lot more people smoking / injecting it.

It's simply absurd to suggest the state would allow people to smoke themselves to an early grave. The UK has higher morals than that... :rolleyes:

[Stephen]

so have they blinded him yet

[Narnat,]

It is torture there are many other ways of punishing someone and I don't feel that it has to be taken to such an extent!