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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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? :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matthew

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

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....eyed-set-.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Hitchens

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....eyed-set-.html

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....eyed-set-.html

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matthew

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matthew

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.