An eye for an eye is sometimes appropriate for our criminal justice system.

[RandomPoster]

Justice Is Blind: Why 'An Eye for an Eye' Never Dies In Iran

I believe this one aspect of Sharia Law actually makes sense. A woman threw acid in another woman's face and blinded her for life. The court sentenced the perpetrator to be blinded. The defendant exercised her right to offer the victim "blood money" instead of punishment, which the victim does not have to accept. The two eventually came to a mutual agreement that the defendant pays the victim a specified amount of money and loses one eye instead of two. I believe this is the optimal solution to the problem in that particular situation. Agree or disagree?

 

[occupied]

Vengeance has no place in a civilized justice system.

 

[Timmy]

Justice Is Blind: Why 'An Eye for an Eye' Never Dies In Iran

I believe this one aspect of Sharia Law actually makes sense. A woman threw acid in another woman's face and blinded her for life. The court sentenced the perpetrator to be blinded. The defendant exercised her right to offer the victim "blood money" instead of punishment, which the victim does not have to accept. The two eventually came to a mutual agreement that the defendant pays the victim a specified amount of money and loses one eye instead of two. I believe this is the optimal solution to the problem in that particular situation. Agree or disagree?

Disagree . It’s barbaric and allows the wealthy to escape punishment .

But let’s go with it. What if your victim is really religious and forgives the perp. The criminal walks free?

 

[RandomPoster]

Justice Is Blind: Why 'An Eye for an Eye' Never Dies In Iran

I believe this one aspect of Sharia Law actually makes sense. A woman threw acid in another woman's face and blinded her for life. The court sentenced the perpetrator to be blinded. The defendant exercised her right to offer the victim "blood money" instead of punishment, which the victim does not have to accept. The two eventually came to a mutual agreement that the defendant pays the victim a specified amount of money and loses one eye instead of two. I believe this is the optimal solution to the problem in that particular situation. Agree or disagree?

Disagree . It’s barbaric and allows the wealthy to escape punishment .

But let’s go with it. What if your victim is really religious and forgives the perp. The criminal walks free?

The wealthy can only escape the retribution aspect of the punishment and only if the victim values the money more than they value retribution. In this case, the 7 year prison sentence still stands. She loses an eye, pays money, and serves 7 years in prison. If you don't like it, don't throw acid in people's faces.

Imagine you lost an arm in a car accident and the other driver was extremely drunk and caused the accident outright. He gets sentenced to a couple years in prison and having an arm amputated. He can offer you money to avoid the arm amputation, which you do not have to accept. You can ask for more money, you can counter that you will accept half the amount and he loses a hand instead, or you can simply tell him to go F himself and lose an arm. Wouldn't you prefer that?

There are, of course, other situations where an aye for an eye doesn't work.

 

[harmonica]

if the bad person is blinded, who pays to take care of them?

 

[Dekster]

When I was a kid my grandpa had a rule that if you misbehaved toward someone, that someone got to go pick the switch he was going to tan you with and how big the switch was would naturally reflect how big your harm was to them. One day when my brother and I got into, he sent me to get the switch, I came back with a 2 X 4. My family still laughs about that.

Anyway, an eye for an eye is sometimes not enough.

 

[Mr Natural]

Death penalty for all violent crimes.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Justice Is Blind: Why 'An Eye for an Eye' Never Dies In Iran

I believe this one aspect of Sharia Law actually makes sense. A woman threw acid in another woman's face and blinded her for life. The court sentenced the perpetrator to be blinded. The defendant exercised her right to offer the victim "blood money" instead of punishment, which the victim does not have to accept. The two eventually came to a mutual agreement that the defendant pays the victim a specified amount of money and loses one eye instead of two. I believe this is the optimal solution to the problem in that particular situation. Agree or disagree?

Disagree . It’s barbaric and allows the wealthy to escape punishment .

But let’s go with it. What if your victim is really religious and forgives the perp. The criminal walks free?

The wealthy can only escape the retribution aspect of the punishment and only if the victim values the money more than they value retribution. In this case, the 7 year prison sentence still stands. She loses an eye, pays money, and serves 7 years in prison. If you don't like it, don't throw acid in people's faces.

Imagine you lost an arm in a car accident and the other driver was extremely drunk and caused the accident outright. He gets sentenced to a couple years in prison and having an arm amputated. He can offer you money to avoid the arm amputation, which you do not have to accept. You can ask for more money, you can counter that you will accept half the amount and he loses a hand instead, or you can simply tell him to go F himself and lose an arm. Wouldn't you prefer that?

There are, of course, other situations where an aye for an eye doesn't work.

In Saudi Arabia if you steal for the 1st time, you right ear is notched, very hard to fix that cosmetically. If you steal for the 2nd time, your right hand is cut off, or the one you eat with, because this is to punish your for taking what isnt yours. If you steal a 3rd time, your other hand is cut off, and you are left to beg on the streets for any help, compassionate people will give, no government help at all. It is very hard to walk into a store and steal with your feet without being obvious. For 5 1/2 years , I didnt have to lock the door to my house or car. But there were still a few 3rd world nationals, who tried each year, and when the eating hand was removed for the 2nd attempt, they didnt steal again.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Death penalty for all violent crimes.

I agree, even though the death penalty isnt a deterrent to others who wish to do violent crimes, it does stop the repeat offender..

 

[RandomPoster]

Death penalty for all violent crimes.

Death penalty for murder when no justification can be found.