If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
an eye for an eye.
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3313207.stm
My immediate views on this is `how can you argue with that`.
Is this sort of thing wrong? If so, Why?
If you agree with it, why?
My immediate views on this is `how can you argue with that`.
Is this sort of thing wrong? If so, Why?
If you agree with it, why?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Yes, critics say it is nothing but revenge, but thats what the people want, revenge on their attackers.
But in a civilised legal society there is no place for revenge. A revenge action is not just, a revenge action is not even punishment, though I suppose it makes the victim feel better.
Not exclusively.
Justice in the West is not focused solely on the destruction of the offender, it focuses on punishing them enough to provide a deterrent from the crime whilst also attempting to rehabilitate the offender as well. That is why in the UK parole is granted early to those who have responded well to rehabilitation treatment, and have expressed genuine remorse for the crime.
Throwing acid in this guys face gives him no chance to repent, no chance to be remorseful and never do anything like it again. People can repent, people can become good, and any justice system has to acknowledge that fact- its why the death penalty is so abhorrent too.
The courts are listening to the human rights lawyers and not the people.
Vinnie Jones for example, recieving community service and a £300 fine isn't a deterrent or punishment for his crimes.
The failed asylum seeker being sent to prison for 4 fucking months for knocking over and killing a small child, when he should have been sent back to the shithole from whence he came.
These are just 2 examples of why people are beginning to favour revenge instead of "justice". At the moment there is no justice, and it is sickening.
Careful there, Whowhere... :crazyeyes
You might get confused with being...
ME! :eek:
Because if it was wrong for them to do it, why is it right for the state to do it?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Of course its supposedly easy to repent after damaging someone elses life, but is there anyone out there who HASNT done anything in anger or on the spur of the moment...if there is, could they step forward now. What this man did was just the extreme end of that, its not excusing it but it is explaining it.
People should be given second chances unless they demonstrate otherwise. Such as with Vincent Jones, who should be in jail for what he did, especially seeing as Ian Brown got sent down for a lot less. But the mistakes of the justice system in this country doesnt mean that other systems are better, they are invariably worse- our problems are personal not systematic.
Oh, and it is still revenge because it is being carried out on behalf of the victim- the victim or her family could stop it if they chose to, but they dont choose to. Therefore it is on her behalf, therefore it is revenge.
Its not like you hear "man got 5 years in jail and family of victim feel this was right" on the news, but that doesnt mean it doesnt happen.
Reverting to a revenge based justice system is a dangerous move, it brings out a very dangerous edge in people I think. You only have to look at the crowds that gather outside the jails in the US when someone is put to death to see something is grossly wrong there. This kind of action shouldnt be encourged, it brings out the worst in people.
People should of course be punished for their crimes, but there is a difference between that and revenge. The state should organise it because the victim is not in a rational state to be able to decide the outcome.
Bet he does actually, in for a penny in for a pound. What would they do, blind him with acid again?
Maybe not but he is likely to be bitter and hateful for the rest of his days, like kermit suggest maybe he or friends/family will look for further revenge on the other family, a cycle of vioence may only just be beginning with this......
As mentioned above his decision to commit the crime was taken alone and probably in the heat of anger and enmotion.
The decision for his punishment is taken collectively with the ability to make a rational decision, how can the two be compared/
Furthermore if the punsihmnet is to truly fit the crime then surely this man should not be put in prison?
Would this be sensible?
Rainbow Bright, if you wouldnt approve of it here, why is it alright to be carried out anywhere else?
As for tougher sentances here, I think you'll get your way, the pendulum always swings one way then the other. It was tough on crime etc. under the tories and then slightly the other way with Labour. But now, even though the crime rates are down everyone thinks we are a drift in a sea of drug dealing child murders. So sentances will go up. Its the way of things, always has been.
I am accepting of it over there in the same way that I shed no tears if a convicted rapist gets done over whilst hes in jail in this country.
If someone gets their just desserts for what theyve done then I generally dont have a problem with it. The only thing that makes me feel uneasy about this case is the fact that its the state doing it . I cant imagine anyone wanting that job.
My views dont change acording to country, but i admit it is easier to look at it objectively if it is something thats not likely to happen to anyone I know (because its in a faraway country).
I can see what you are saying about it being "fair" because he is getting exactly what he did back in return. But, well there is something deeply un-nerving about a State getting involved in such actions.
This is torture, theres no getting away from that, whether it is called punishment or not.
I do agree, the state involvement is the thing I have issue with. I can see why you say its torture, but to me, being locked up in a jail would be torture, yet if id done something to warrant it then its fair. I think its a very scary thought that the state would flick acid in someones eyes, but I see this as less problematic than the state cutting off somones hand for stealing, or stoning someone for adultery, because in those two cases the punishment is far far worse than the crime. This man is getting nothing worse than what he did to someone else