It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Blinded woman demands 'eye for eye' punishment

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellish-D
 


So, there's no crime horrific enough to justify death?

There's no crime inhumane enough to warrant any inhumane treatment in return?

Or, is it just that the people who commit the horrific crimes deserve better than those they hurt??




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Hi ! If you look at your last post you might find the answer to your question. Do you want to be inhumane? Regards .



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Oh there are times when eye for an eye is quite justifiable. Sometimes I even think that for certain cases, we should reinstate public executions. That might actually drop crime rates down like a stone.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Some states of america have had capital punishment for years . Wouldn't you prefer that it had an effect on the murder rates rather than make some people get their revenge kick . People just want to keep killin'. Join in.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Bedtime in England ! Bye ! Keep threadin'.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Countries that practice capitol punishment.


Murder rates per 100,000


Thought that might add a new dimension to the conversation.

Please continue.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
In micro justice, sure. At the macro level. No. Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind...But the punishment should fit the crime in this case.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I’m against capital punishment on a practical level and have a logical argument to back up my position. I don’t consider it a matter of personal belief, this isn’t about a God you can neither prove nor disprove, it’s about a judicial and punitive system that either works or does not. There is clear evidence that no process can be relied on to prove absolute guilt 100% of the time, not even DNA. The consistent appearance of false convictions in the judicial system shows this definitively. So you absolutely cannot be certain that no innocent person will ever suffer such a punishment.

The question therefore becomes would a small number of innocent people going through an extreme eye for an eye system be justified by the corresponding drop in violent crime. As the statistics do not show a correlation between low violent crime and this very harsh punishment the answer, unless better information can be found, is no.

I’m looking at this from a purely pragmatic perspective not a moral one. Morally an eye for an eye is somewhat defensible imho but since it can’t be implemented in the real world it’s irrelevant to anyone but a philosopher.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


Your approach to this problem is to "fix" it. In other words, repair the woman's face, counsel and rehabilitate the man responsible.

Okay, but that line of action completely ignores something that you cannot possibly ignore - the woman went through a great deal of pain and suffering because her attacker was jealous. Should that simply be ignored? Are the emotional scars and memories of the pain something that you think will just go away with your enlightened idealism? Because I'm here to tell you that if that's what you think, you are absolutely WRONG. The reason you are wrong is because it's not human nature to forget pain we've gone through. We associate that pain with people, places and events and that forever changes who we are.

The woman in question may recover her face, but now because of what she's been through, she has completely changed and her quality of life is different, all because of the weakness of this one man. And you profess to have all the answers that will FIX this situation?

Here's something else you fail to take into account: What if counseling and rehab on the guilty man work only for a short time and he regresses back into a jealous, violent state? What if the next attack on this woman kills her? What if he kills someone else because you insisted on rehabilitating him?

At this point, I don't know which is more reprehensible - the man who did this to that innocent woman or people like you who claim to be enlightened and better than the rest of us "barbarians" and tell us how we should evolve. It's clear that you haven't given half as much thought as you should have to situations like these. Thanks, but I'll evolve just fine without your kind of influence.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
She seems like one of those 'revenge' type folks you see in the movies. If it were me, I'd forgive him if he apologised but I guess her moral values are different from mine.

Then again, I'd be pissed off too if I looked like the Phantom of the Opera.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
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 crime.
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.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


The feelings that others display: jealousy, rage, disfunction, hate, contempt, etc. these are symptoms and they don't need anything but healing. The person needs to be removed from society if dangerous (because I don't beleive in putting people away for anything less than violent crimes that endanger others) and healed.
The feelings he has can be explained by the kind of society he lives in, his conditions, his temperament, his genetics, his patriarchal brainwashing, in short, it is our leaders that delight to create a system that makes our children turn criminal and leads to their control of us.

The worst criminals of this planet to me are the cartel and they are directly responsible for most of the crimes we see.

Norway, has a much better solution to crimes, of course there system is almost ascended, as far as a monetary system goes. I included the link in my post. Anything else is child abuse. We have to free this planet from the cartels and work to educate people, equalize people and heal the traumatized broken hearts of this planet, both the victims and the victimizers who are also victims.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by mystiq]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


The man threw acid in this woman's face because he was obsessed with her and she didn't return his "love". He shows no remorse.

How exactly do you go about healing someone who is not sorry for what he did?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Burn his God damn eyes out.
Second line.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
if everybody wanted an eye for an eye...the whole world would be blind



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Yes, he did that in a country where it was taught him that women were non-citizens and chattel and someone owned. Who taught him this? His leaders? Sharia law? Enki's group of renegades that rule this planet through our cartel and by the Scriptures that are a joke when compared to Human Rights and Enlightenment.

I'm sorry, this world is tragic, but all the common people in it need healing and they also need freedom from the cartel and whoever rules them. We need a completely different system. As this one stands, removal of dangerous people and healing of both the victim and victimizer, and changing the entire system is whats needed.

I almost feel the need to put shield's up just coming on here and reading some of these posts. This is the cartel's agenda to try and create a Christian version of Sharia law here and reduce us to primitive, hate filled barbarians, a blast to our ancient past. This luciferean agenda is unbelievable. NWO is not going to last, its going to be kicked back to the dino days where it belongs. This planet needs to be free and raise its consciousness enormously.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Yes, he did that in a country where it was taught him that women were non-citizens and chattel and someone owned. Who taught him this? His leaders? Sharia law? Enki's group of renegades that rule this planet through our cartel and by the Scriptures that are a joke when compared to Human Rights and Enlightenment.

I'm sorry, this world is tragic, but all the common people in it need healing and they also need freedom from the cartel and whoever rules them. We need a completely different system. As this one stands, removal of dangerous people and healing of both the victim and victimizer, and changing the entire system is whats needed.

I almost feel the need to put shield's up just coming on here and reading some of these posts. This is the cartel's agenda to try and create a Christian version of Sharia law here and reduce us to primitive, hate filled barbarians, a blast to our ancient past. This luciferean agenda is unbelievable. NWO is not going to last, its going to be kicked back to the dino days where it belongs. This planet needs to be free and raise its consciousness enormously.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Yes, he did that in a country where it was taught him that women were non-citizens and chattel and someone owned. Who taught him this? His leaders? Sharia law? Enki's group of renegades that rule this planet through our cartel and by the Scriptures that are a joke when compared to Human Rights and Enlightenment.

I'm sorry, this world is tragic, but all the common people in it need healing and they also need freedom from the cartel and whoever rules them. We need a completely different system. As this one stands, removal of dangerous people and healing of both the victim and victimizer, and changing the entire system is whats needed.

I almost feel the need to put shield's up just coming on here and reading some of these posts. This is the cartel's agenda to try and create a Christian version of Sharia law here and reduce us to primitive, hate filled barbarians, a blast to our ancient past. This luciferean agenda is unbelievable. NWO is not going to last, its going to be kicked back to the dino days where it belongs. This planet needs to be free and raise its consciousness enormously.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
The Sharia Law talks about hate and revenge. Don't think that comes from a God of Mercy. Listen to this instead from Jesus:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39)



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


I think I'll avoid the little side battle going on and answer you directly.

I think the real question is do two wrongs under any circumstance make a right? Is punishment that is a result of vengeance the direction society should go?

I personally think that the act of throwing acid in the mans eyes is the exact same act as when he threw the acid in the eyes of the woman. I believe the eye for an eye concept is flawed on its face. The purpose of laws is to help maintain a civil society, not to exact vengeance against those who break the law. Any act of torture, disfigurement or killing makes those doing the punishing the same as the criminal who did wrong in the first place.

I see the purpose of punishment for crime first and foremost to protect society from the criminal. Acts of Barbarism have nothing to do with that and are pure acts of vengeance. At no point should we ever condone throwing acid in anyone's eyes and then call it justified for any reason.

I think in Western Society we have gone to far the other way though as evidenced by our constantly releasing people back into society we know will repeat their crimes and those who are just plain dangerous and violent.

Many here would not like my solution at all. Commit an act of violence, spend the rest of your life contained with other violent people away from society were you can not hurt other innocent people.

For something as heinous as throwing acid in anyone's eyes; I think life behind bars or contained so you could not hurt more people and humane treatment is the answer. We teach by example I think also means we rehabilitate by example. We should always treat everyone humanely and not be drawn into an act of vengeance and pretend that is somehow justice. It is not.

To resort to vengeance demeans us as people and is always wrong. How could we ever hope to advance towards a peaceful society if our first thought is to punish criminals by committing crimes against them. Contain dangerous people, yes. Throw acid in there eyes, never.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join