This is not justice; it's revenge.

All it accomplishes is to serve the baser sense of retribution... the kind some vainly attribute to their various and sundry 'gods.'

Of course, there's the whole debate about doctors 'doing no harm'.... but that's so old-fashioned....

Originally posted by Droogie

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.

If she would rather have revenge than a chance of getting her vision back, she is crazy! Though I doubt anyone ever brought up the fact the technology is getting close to being here.

Originally posted by PlayeR87
Does he deserve it? yes, should it be done? no.
That kind of punishment is wrong on so many levels

This reminds me of The Lord of the Rings.

“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least.” - Gandalf

Originally posted by descartes90

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.

Well, "back then" people took of their own sh!t and did not rely on the courts for "justice"...

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Well, "back then" people took of their own sh!t and did not rely on the courts for "justice"...

which is exactly why you can't claim crime was low in those days

Originally posted by Maxmars
This is not justice; it's revenge.

All it accomplishes is to serve the baser sense of retribution... the kind some vainly attribute to their various and sundry 'gods.'

Of course, there's the whole debate about doctors 'doing no harm'.... but that's so old-fashioned....

What?!?!?!? So if I kill your kids, wife, dog, set fire to your house, and break your legs, and given the opportunity to "revenge" yourself, your telling me you would not agree to "punishment"?

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Well, "back then" people took of their own sh!t and did not rely on the courts for "justice"...

which is exactly why you can't claim crime was low in those days

No, but it was JUST. You got what you deserved. You paid the piper, not three hots and a cot forever in a comfy jail reading books, playing games, weight lifting, etc. Even 150 years ago prison was feared... and death was a better option.

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by Maxmars
This is not justice; it's revenge.

All it accomplishes is to serve the baser sense of retribution... the kind some vainly attribute to their various and sundry 'gods.'

Of course, there's the whole debate about doctors 'doing no harm'.... but that's so old-fashioned....

What?!?!?!? So if I kill your kids, wife, dog, set fire to your house, and break your legs, and given the opportunity to "revenge" yourself, your telling me you would not agree to "punishment"?

well at that point I would be insane with grief. but the law would have every right to stop me getting revenge. and speaking here at a standpoint of not having that happen to me (thank God!) i would hope they would. of course someone that nuts to do all that should never be a free man.

How can she carry this out if she's blind herself ? What he did is illegal yes, but you cannot 'legalise' an illegal act like that just for retribution. If he dies as a result of this then will they make her commit suicide ? Lets just do away with jails altogether !

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Well, "back then" people took of their own sh!t and did not rely on the courts for "justice"...

which is exactly why you can't claim crime was low in those days

No, but it was JUST. You got what you deserved. You paid the piper, not three hots and a cot forever in a comfy jail reading books, playing games, weight lifting, etc. Even 150 years ago prison was feared... and death was a better option.

what positive does retributive justice create? aside from a feel-good cowboy satisfaction that the "bastard got it coming"? (that never lasts very long)

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by Maxmars
This is not justice; it's revenge.

All it accomplishes is to serve the baser sense of retribution... the kind some vainly attribute to their various and sundry 'gods.'

Of course, there's the whole debate about doctors 'doing no harm'.... but that's so old-fashioned....

What?!?!?!? So if I kill your kids, wife, dog, set fire to your house, and break your legs, and given the opportunity to "revenge" yourself, your telling me you would not agree to "punishment"?

well at that point I would be insane with grief. but the law would have every right to stop me getting revenge. and speaking here at a standpoint of not having that happen to me (thank God!) i would hope they would. of course someone that nuts to do all that should never be a free man.

...the bigger question is what is wrong with bring closure to a situation wherein you honor yourself and your family? Its funny how EVERY single culture from the beginning of time, and even today, went by these rules (eye for an eye), yet, English/Amero law is somehow above this? Its not!!!! Its the freaking lawyers who have made justice and the law a mockery!

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Well, "back then" people took of their own sh!t and did not rely on the courts for "justice"...

which is exactly why you can't claim crime was low in those days

No, but it was JUST. You got what you deserved. You paid the piper, not three hots and a cot forever in a comfy jail reading books, playing games, weight lifting, etc. Even 150 years ago prison was feared... and death was a better option.

what positive does retributive justice create? aside from a feel-good cowboy satisfaction that the "bastard got it coming"? (that never lasts very long)

The flip side, is whats the negative? The positive is the situation is brought to an end - closure.

I would much rather honor my family through an act of extraordinary forgiveness than through an act of retributive violence.

And what do you mean every society? Kievan Rus (the early form of Russia/Ukraine) abandoned the death penalty in like 1000 AD. In that sense, Russia 1,000 years ago was more advanced than modern Russia LOL.

Originally posted by MrB0B
Strange then that countries with the death penalty have a higher murder rate than those without...

Its only strange if you believe that the death penalty is the only factor involved in the homicide rate. Its as much a cultural issue as it is one of crime and punishment. This is obvious just from observing the differences in homicide rates within the US, especially when comparing homicide rates in the inner cities to those of the suburbs, small towns and rural areas. Its the same legal system, but with completely different results and attitudes towards it.