I have a better idea. We are now getting close to restoring people's eyesight via technology. Why not sue the guy and make him pay for the treatment for the woman once the tech is available?

Lawyers have made our legal system soft. No one cares and in fact the flaunt the system because they know nothing will happen to them. We need to go back to public hangings where little Johnny got to see someone get their neck stretched and thought twice about committing an illegal act against his fellow human/civilization.

I always wondered if this was how the judicial system SHOULD be. Say someone killed my mother, I used to wonder if it would be a better punishment to put a gun in my or my siblings hands and leave it up to us. If we chose not to kill him then he can go to jail like the rest of them. The love in me tells me this is wrong, but I've gotta say, if someone deliberately blinded my daughter, and I got a hold of this person, chances are I would physically remove both of their eyes. Wrong as it may be, can you honestly say that person doesn't deserve it? People who deliberately cause life lasting injuries to others, both mentally and physically and possibly even spiritually, deserve no sympathy in my opinion. The punishment should fit the crime. Is there a better fitting punishment for this man? What about the poor girl he blinded? Sure it's not going to give her eyesight back, but I guarantee he won't soon forget the monstrous act he committed to this INNOCENT woman. He is no longer innocent, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Originally posted by AnteBellum

What did they do to get this punishment?

I can't quite figure it out.

Short and skinny:

He poured acid in her face because she wouldn't date him. She's blind and disfigured. He will be blinded by her or the state tomorrow morning, ten drops each eye, she has the right to do it herself. International outrage. Islamic law.

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by pityocamptes
Lawyers have made our legal system soft. No one cares and in fact the flaunt the system because they know nothing will happen to them. We need to go back to public hangings where little Johnny got to see someone get their neck stretched and thought twice about committing an illegal act against his fellow human/civilization.

Ahhhh, the good old days.

Originally posted by descartes90
I have a better idea. We are now getting close to restoring people's eyesight via technology. Why not sue the guy and make him pay for the treatment for the woman once the tech is available?

Because the victim reportedly did not want "blood money". In court she adamantly fought for a sentence in the way of retribution.

Originally posted by Caji316
Even though I don't hold for the bibles "an eye for an eye" for punishment, it sure would get America straitened out really quick....The jails and prisons would be quickly emptied....save us a lot of money also....

i'm told a huge portion of USA prisoners are doing time because of maryjane and street substances. so what is their eye for an eye? may also want to consider the portion of the prison population that has been wrongly accused/convicted; The Innocence Project is proving there are wrongly imprisoned people doing time pretty steadily.

if we really had a justice system in America i'd be right with you. but we're far from just and humane treatment as it is, with our system punishing instead of rehabilitating while privatization is lining the pockets of people who already have more money than they need. we also have a portion of people in jail that should be in mental institutions getting the supervision and help they desperately need. it's a real mess and more harsh treatment isn't going to make things better.

Sounds fair to me, litterally an eye for a eye .True justice .Holding someone accountable is one thing, such as a jail sentance.1 year,3,5 or 10 it does not matter to me .The offender should suffer the same fate he forced on another ! No taking his eyes does not bring back the eyes of the victim .But he must experience what the victim does.He should expect nothing less ?

Originally posted by Ear-Responsible
I always wondered if this was how the judicial system SHOULD be. Say someone killed my mother, I used to wonder if it would be a better punishment to put a gun in my or my siblings hands and leave it up to us. If we chose not to kill him then he can go to jail like the rest of them. The love in me tells me this is wrong, but I've gotta say, if someone deliberately blinded my daughter, and I got a hold of this person, chances are I would physically remove both of their eyes. Wrong as it may be, can you honestly say that person doesn't deserve it? People who deliberately cause life lasting injuries to others, both mentally and physically and possibly even spiritually, deserve no sympathy in my opinion. The punishment should fit the crime. Is there a better fitting punishment for this man? What about the poor girl he blinded? Sure it's not going to give her eyesight back, but I guarantee he won't soon forget the monstrous act he committed to this INNOCENT woman. He is no longer innocent, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Nobody is innocent. I think we fool ourselves with this guilty/innocent dictonomy. It pretty much destroys anyone's chance to reform if they commit evil acts. Even though this woman probably never did anything as bad as blind someone out of spite, the fact that she wants revenge so badly shows she is not an 'innocent'. Nobody is though. Even children are not innocent, if that were true, there would be no such thing as schoolyard bullying, right?

Nobody is innocent and nobody is a monster. We are all human, and we are all entitled to inalienable human rights.

Originally posted by pityocamptes



Yes, why not? Crime was lower, especially out in the old west. Our laws today ensure nothing happens to you if you do something bad. Hell, I know people who have gotten shorter sentences on murder than drugs. Yea, where is the "justice" there?

have you ever thought of all the murder, rape, and mayhem that went on then but was never reported? today we have the technology that it's a lot rarer to 'get away' with stuff. today is much safer, people who say the past was a more innocent time than today are merely idle-talking.

Does he deserve it? yes, should it be done? no.
That kind of punishment is wrong on so many levels