posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by elevatedone
Assuming a confession or beyond a reasonable doubt conviction in a proper court with legal standing, not a lynch mob; I think that an eye for an eye
is an acceptable solution on a couple of conditions:
1. The victim(or victim's next of kin in a homicide or persistent vegetative state) must request "the eye for an eye special" in lieu of the prison
sentence. It can't be given out by prosecutors and judges and cops and juries. Only by the victim or next of kin.
2. The victim or next of kin must administer the punishment themselves.
I say this because if the victim truly wants to make this person suffer as they did, they must be willing to dole out the justice themselves. There is
no reason the burden of the act should fall on a civil servant. If the person must administer the punishment themselves, they will also think more
seriously about what it is they are doing and why they are doing it.
3. The victim or next of kin may decrease the severity of the punishment at their choosing, but NOONE may punish more than the severity of the initial
If the justice for the crime exceeds the harm caused by the crime, the justice is crime in itself. The victim should have the option to harm up to 1:1
ratio of harm done to them, but should be able to lessen the harm done to the convict. Having 3 or 4 months to think about what you are going to do
and why you feel it is necessary and maybe why you should have mercy could do something for most people.
So for instance, if this girl was standing over him with acid and only burned one of his eyes out, because she feels that he learned his lesson,
although it is unlikely that that would be the case in this situation since she won't be able to see his pain, but maybe his blood curdling screams
will give her pause...maybe not.