Would you blind someone who blinded you with acid?

Pretty much the same though as a few other posters. Screw the whole "an eye for an eye makes the world blind". I would think "the thought of losing an eye will keep you the fuck in line" is a much better saying, but its a bit longer and cant be used on regular TV.

Seriously, considering women have practically NO rights in that country, its good to hear that they will actually be doing something there. And yeah, sure, raping a woman is illegal there too but you practically have to have the entire village there to witness it, a signed document from the attacker, video tape of said rape, a letter from the governor and all of this has to go down in a courtroom to have any validity. Screw doing a simple rape kit on a woman, there are TRADITIONS in place here!

And I think a simple blinding is a bit too easy. You want to stop egregious crimes like this? Really make an example of him. Blind him, strip him, have him walk around town to be stoned, then after all that is done... well, you remember that last scene in Braveheart? Like that. Then a simple head on a pike and we're all set for some real peace and quite in the community.

In a place where jerks like that get off scott free and their victims get the shit end of the stick I think a little fear goes a loooooooong way. Sometimes fear is good. It works on people who arent smart enough to stop before they do something horrible that they cant take back.
 
Linhjah said:
Just looking for a little clarification here. So are you saying that you believe that if little Allison is molested by some sick fuck, then the sick fuck's daughter, Suzy, should be handed over to Allison's parents to brutalize/molest?
Click to expand...

GOD NO! Maybe I should read over what Tristam wrote.

I understood that if the courts were to allow the father/mother/uncle or whom ever in the victims family to brutalize the accused (convicted rather). That I agree with 100%.

Acutie said:
Fuck him, animals don't deserve rights. Well, actual animals deserve them, but not this type of animal..
Click to expand...

Monster.

EDIT: I misread Trists post. Pasted over offender's 'child'.
 
Last edited:
Acutie said:
Ya, I'm the monster in all this.
Click to expand...

I do not think she means what you think she means.

Spoiler:
She is saying he's a monster, not an animal.
 
Tristam Green said:
I do not think she means what you think she means.

Spoiler:
She is saying he's a monster, not an animal.
Click to expand...

Thanks Trist.

I should have made that a clear and complete sentence.. I assumed you (Acutie) would have known I meant he is a monster.
 
Morcheeba said:
GOD NO! Maybe I should read over what Tristam wrote.
Click to expand...
I didn't think that was what you meant, I know you a little better than that. ;) I just didn't want anyone who doesn't know you at all to get the wrong idea.
 
Linhjah said:
I didn't think that was what you meant, I know you a little better than that. ;) I just didn't want anyone who doesn't know you at all to get the wrong idea.
Click to expand...

Indeed >.>; No I wouldn't ever want that to happen.
 
I am a large fan of Rorshach's post.
 
I don't know what to think about this. The guy is a psycho to have done that. The act he did was deliberate and horrible. It should not have taken place in the first place anyway.

Still, does it warrant to make him through the same thing as her? I'm not so sure. Yes what he did was atrocious, yes I feel for her too, yes I think he deserves to be made an example but no their is probably an another way to do it than corporal punishments.

It's already been said but violence will lead to more violence and I'm even more afraid that it will cause some precedent for upcoming trials and that people will take "eye for eye" more frequently as a method of payment (if we can say that) to the prejudice they have suffered.
 
I'm sure it won't get that bad. There's probably some judge's discretion involved, and maybe also some kind of jury. Not really sure, but I doubt there'll suddenly be a huge spat of eye-for-an-eye rulings there.

But hey, if there are, maybe it'll make people commit less heinus crimes like this. Which would, in the end, be a VERY good thing.
 
IDK after all this i kinda think the US prison system can be a little soft. I mean if someone here commits a horrible crime they get 3 square meals a day, healthcare, dental, an exercise room and all at the cost to the taxpayer of about 20 grand per person per year (from what I've been told, so dont jump up my ass if the numbers are a little off) yet the homeless, jobless, less fortunate people who have done nothing wrong other then either make poor fiscal choices or just being a victim off circumstance get nothing and are treated like crap by their own government. And yeah i know that prison isnt exactly the happiest place on earth, but thats what the prisoners make of it. If they were all to act civilized in there with eachother it wouldnt be nearly as bad as it is (sure its idealist, but most of the bad experiences are caused by prisoners to prisoners so they are their own problem most of the time). Yet you go to other countries prisons and its like night and day hell look at a chinese prison, CRAZY from what I've heard.
 
Rorschach said:
IDK after all this i kinda think the US prison system can be a little soft. I mean if someone here commits a horrible crime they get 3 square meals a day, healthcare, dental, an exercise room and all at the cost to the taxpayer of about 20 grand per person per year (from what I've been told, so dont jump up my ass if the numbers are a little off) yet the homeless, jobless, less fortunate people who have done nothing wrong other then either make poor fiscal choices or just being a victim off circumstance get nothing and are treated like crap by their own government. And yeah i know that prison isnt exactly the happiest place on earth, but thats what the prisoners make of it. If they were all to act civilized in there with eachother it wouldnt be nearly as bad as it is (sure its idealist, but most of the bad experiences are caused by prisoners to prisoners so they are their own problem most of the time). Yet you go to other countries prisons and its like night and day hell look at a chinese prison, CRAZY from what I've heard.
Click to expand...


While I agree that the prison systems in the US and here in the UK leave a lot to be desired, that for me doesn't make this "eye-for-an-eye" punishment any more correct. Just because the current punishments are leniant at worst doesn't mean that a new form of punishment where the criminal endures the same punishment he dealt out would be in any way an improvement.

Yes, it may make certain criminals think "hey, I was gonna rape that girl over there with the blonde hair and big tits, but I don't fancy taking it up the ass for a punishment when I get caught, so I'll just have a wank instead." However, there are other criminals who will commit the same crimes anyway, regardless of the punishment. There's also the very real possibility, if this type of punishment were ever introduced on a wider basis, that the punishments were seen to be successful, and were handed out more freely, then you have to think about miscarriages of justice and cases of mistaken identity. It happens everywhere, regardless of what country you are in.

Some people find it hard to believe things like "getting the wrong guy" can happen in "our country" of all places, let alone places like the country in question. I don't deny what this person did was a horrific crime, and deserves a severe punishment. The problem I see with *this* punishment is that, not only is it extremely violent, and not *really* getting the message across that what the initial offender did was wrong, because they're getting the same thing back at them from the supposed "good guys," but how do you draw the line between what is a correct form of punishment, and what is "heinous" (ie. If it was such a heinous thing for this man to do to the woman, how do we have any right to do the same thing to another human being, no matter how disgusting that human being may be.) It's easy to speak with anger and aggression, I do it myself all the time, but for me the negatives, or possible negatives, of this punishment far outweight the positives.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of "undeniable proof" for a case. Sure you dont want to hand out punishment willy-nilly if there is a chance that a person is wrongly accused, but isnt that always the case? Isnt there always a chance that the accused is infact innocent? Sure this case is different since the attacker handed himself over to the authorities, but that doesnt always happen and I understand that.

The sad thing is that its hard to find a middle ground in all this. It ends up being boiled down to the criminal getting the death penalty or he lives for the rest of his life getting taken care of at the cost to the taxpayer.
 
An eye-for-an-eye is Old Testament. We live in a civilized world. Some places are more civilized than others, but it's still a far more civilized worlds than it used to be. I agree, there is great difficulty in finding a middle ground, but retribution that matched the original crime for me would be a total contradiction of the entire justice system. It's like going from "what you did was wrong, here's your punishment" to "what you did was wrong for you to do, but it's ok for us to do it to you because you did it to her and we're making you pay."

Much as the piece of shit who did that to the poor woman doesn't need backing up, and I'd like to point out that that isn't what I'm doing here, a move like bringing this kind of concept into more widespread circulation would be disastrous for us as human beings, in my opinion. The death sentence is pushing it already in terms of human rights, let alone violent, and "heinous" punishments matching the crimes. I'd like to think there are more civilized ways to punish people than that.
 
i think a good compromise would be only acid-burning one of his eyes back. He keeps his vision, but still gets the retribution aspect of it.

o. o
 
You know some would argue forcing someone into a building where they will be raped, mutilated, humiliated and traumatized is far more barbaric than blinding someone.

If I knowingly and maliciously blinded someone, I'd rather have my eyesight taken than be imprisoned.
People keep talking about "rights" with this. How is taking someone's sight a violation of rights where, like I said earlier, locking them in a building to be raped, mutilated, humiliated and traumatized is not?

In my mind the latter is far more barbaric.
 
Do you know what it feels like have your eyes burnt off/out with acid? If not, I'm guessing it's pretty easy to say you'd plump for that. Your opinion may be slightly different should you find out what both are like. Then you could make a better comparison, lol.

Apologies if you indeed have lost your eyesight at some point
 
I don't know what it's like to be repeatedly raped, beaten, mutilated and traumatized either.
 
bigbroon said:
The death sentence is pushing it already in terms of human rights, let alone violent, and "heinous" punishments matching the crimes. I'd like to think there are more civilized ways to punish people than that.
Click to expand...

Not to sound smug in this post, but "Such as?"

Acutie said:
You know some would argue forcing someone into a building where they will be raped, mutilated, humiliated and traumatized is far more barbaric than blinding someone.
Click to expand...

That really depends though doesn't it? I mean in prison (US prison anyway) has a hierarchy. Cop killers on top, then murderers, then at the bottom are the baby killers and rapists. Sure if someone goes to jail as a baby killer/rapist they are going to go through the worst things imaginable, but if they killed a cop they are treated like a king. So wheres the justice there?

Eye for an eye may be old testament, but if it works why reinvent the wheel? I mean a murderer cant kill again if they're dead, a rapist cant rape again if they, say have the "twig & berries" removed (from what i've heard they loose the urge to have sex, therefore no threat of rape; again what i've heard i havent done years of research into this topic) and a person who likes to blind people with acid cant toss acid at people who they cant see.

Is it "barbaric"? It can be, but its easy to say that when we havent been through what these people have been through. I havent done the research on it, but how many family members of those who have been murdered have said "be kind to my childs/parents/siblings murderer!" none that I have heard of. Same can be said of any other victim of a heinous crime.
 
The middle east already has a barbaric justice system. It might as well be barbaric and fair. They already treat women like garbage. This situation isn't ideal when taken out of context. An eye for an eye IS barbaric. But, the idea that a man is being severely punished for violating a woman in the middle east is a step in the right direction. It's a small step towards equal protection under the law, which is a big step towards equality in general. I'll look at the middle east as equals once they straighten out their treatment of women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top