A man will be punished by dripping acid into his eyes in Tehran on Saturday May 14- Norway condemns

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

Closure via revenge is mostly a myth. I'm not saying it NEVER allows closure because everyone is different, but for the most part, grief only fades with time.

reply to post by pityocamptes


It will not bring it to an end. She will still be blind in one eye and she will always remember the man's screams as she dripped acid into his eyes. He will have to live with those memories; I cannot imagine why she would want to bring that onto herself.

Originally posted by vor78

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.

I think it basically has no effect on crime rates. My somewhat educated guess is that the death penalty causes a little bit of deterrence, but that it's cancelled out by the revenge murders it promotes, and the hostility it produces in the society (societies that condone capital punishment are as a whole more likely to believe violence is the 'answer').

So it's an UN-necessary evil. and thus, should be abolished from the face of the Earth as a practice.

reply to post by Maxmars






If that is revenge......................What would be justice?

Originally posted by descartes90
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.

So you go with the "humane" option of incarcerating this individual for LIFE?

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by vor78

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.

I think it basically has no effect on crime rates. My somewhat educated guess is that the death penalty causes a little bit of deterrence, but that it's cancelled out by the revenge murders it promotes, and the hostility it produces in the society (societies that condone capital punishment are as a whole more likely to believe violence is the 'answer').

So it's an UN-necessary evil. and thus, should be abolished from the face of the Earth as a practice.

It has no affect on rates because they no longer conduct PUBLIC executions.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by pityocamptes

 

It will not bring it to an end. She will still be blind in one eye and she will always remember the man's screams as she dripped acid into his eyes. He will have to live with those memories; I cannot imagine why she would want to bring that onto herself.

I'm sure they will silence him with drugs. Why would he have to live with the memories of what he did? Its obvious he didn't give a sh!t or he would not have acted violent towards her!!!

Originally posted by pityocamptes

So you go with the "humane" option of incarcerating this individual for LIFE?

It's better than killing them. Who knows, technology is rapidly improving, we might eventually find a way to re-wire their brains. Most dangerous violent people have brain problems that are very clear in a scan (it has something to do with their inhibiting area being damaged, i saw it on the show Most Evil, pretty interesting).

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


Its based on the porinciple of an eye for an eye under sharia law. In this case, the guy threw acid into her eyes because she would now marry him. It went to court, he was gound guilty, so under law, he gets the same punishment he inflicted on his victim, so in this case, blinding by acid.

There is a reason the victim is not allowed to carry out punishment in western law.

reply to post by pityocamptes


Criminals do sometimes have remorse. Perhaps this guy does, we don't know. Even if they silence him with drugs, she will have to live with the memory of doing this to him. This will not be "over."

It has no affect on rates because they no longer conduct PUBLIC executions.


Where is the evidence public execution stops crime?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross

 

Its based on the porinciple of an eye for an eye under sharia law. In this case, the guy threw acid into her eyes because she would now marry him. It went to court, he was gound guilty, so under law, he gets the same punishment he inflicted on his victim, so in this case, blinding by acid.

There is a reason the victim is not allowed to carry out punishment in western law.

Yeah isn't it funny a lot of people who hate everything about Islam actually agree with their punishment system?

reply to post by descartes90


That had occurred to me. Very interesting indeed.

as the saying goes...

an eye for an eye... in this case both eyes.

reply to post by descartes90


I think the real reason why the effect is muted is because it takes years, if not decades, to carry out the sentence, as well as the fact that some offenders would actually prefer it to life in prison. Whatever the case may be, I actually do agree that the death penalty is at best only somewhat effective.

My intention here isn't to say that I support 'cruel and unusual' punishment, because I don't. I guess what I'm saying though is that when I hear of a case like this, where his actions were particularly heinous and cruel in their own right, I don't have any sympathy for him.

Originally posted by MrB0B
This is completely horrific!

No-one is saying that this bloke is innocent, but to decide by law that he is to be blinded by the 'victim' is so far along the path of wrong I am surprised that anyone here could believe this 'sentence' to be just.

It's stories like this that make me wonder whether humanity stands any chance of making it.

Same type of "justice" is used in Haiti...may not be officially sanctioned, but it very much exists there to this day in some parts of the country. Steal an item from someone's house, you lose a hand; steal someone's wife, and you lose....well you can figure that one out...

For a country such as Iran which is trying to show the world that they are supposedly such a shining example of that part of the world for all to emulate, or envy, they are still a thousand years behind the times.

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by descartes90

 

I think the real reason why the effect is muted is because it takes years, if not decades, to carry out the sentence, as well as the fact that some offenders would actually prefer it to life in prison. Whatever the case may be, I actually do agree that the death penalty is at best only somewhat effective.

My intention here isn't to say that I support 'cruel and unusual' punishment, because I don't. I guess what I'm saying though is that when I hear of a case like this, where his actions were particularly heinous and cruel in their own right, I don't have any sympathy for him.

^But still, I don't see any evidence instant carry-out would cause deterrence. Ironically, the type of murder it would likely cause the most deterrence in would be the kinds of murders many people would find 'justifiable', such as murdering the man who molested your daughter. A lot of people who are otherwise not criminals would commit murder like that, but if there was a death penalty, I doubt they would. The truth is most murderers are just crazy and are not gonna stop and think 'oh i might get the death penalty for this, so im not gonna do it'. I mean sure, the death penalty might cross their mind, but it will probably only deter a very small number of murders.

On your second point - hey man, I understand. The guy is a bastard. It's very easy to hate him. But I do think we should have standards, because if we don't have solid standards, we don't have any standard at all, right? You either have cruel and unusual punishment or you don't. Spare him torture not for his sake, but for the sake of the standard.

reply to post by manta78


What is even sadder that the last part of your post is the fact that so many Americans actually agree with this.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by pityocamptes

 

Criminals do sometimes have remorse. Perhaps this guy does, we don't know. Even if they silence him with drugs, she will have to live with the memory of doing this to him. This will not be "over."

Remorse? From doing the deed or getting caught? I lean towards the prior...

Originally posted by descartes90
It has no affect on rates because they no longer conduct PUBLIC executions.


Where is the evidence public execution stops crime?

How about the public canning of that kid in thialand or some country for graffiti? Bet you he ain't painting walls anymore... funny how that country has virtually NO graffiti...