People are actually siding with Iran on this one? You know, sodomy is a crime in Iran, too. I guess the best penalty for that would be to forcefully sodomize people found guilty of committing it, right? And that's just an eye for an eye. It's "fair," you know?
So if I rape your sister should you be allowed to rape my sister to punish me?
Nope, but if you are found guilty by being caught in the act, positively identified by my sister, proven by DNA, and admit it, I sure as hell would seek to have you physically [ as opposed to chemically ] castrated.
This is why victims are not responsible for sentencing in the US. People in states of grief routinely make poor decisions. I know, f'real, right?
I fail to see how castration of a rapist is a poor decision.
Whats the alternative? Prison? Where he can go rape other inmates, and hone his skill for when he gets put back out with an unprepared public?
And if the fucking government had stepped in when he was stalking her instead of waiting until he threw acid in her face, we wouldn't even need to be having this discussion right now.
So if I rape your sister should you be allowed to rape my sister to punish me?
Nope, but if you are found guilty by being caught in the act, positively identified by my sister, proven by DNA, and admit it, I sure as hell would seek to have you physically [ as opposed to chemically ] castrated.
This is why victims are not responsible for sentencing in the US. People in states of grief routinely make poor decisions. I know, f'real, right?
I fail to see how castration of a rapist is a poor decision.
Whats the alternative? Prison? Where he can go rape other inmates, and hone his skill for when he gets put back out with an unprepared public?
It's a poor decision because of the possibility of a false conviction.
So if I rape your sister should you be allowed to rape my sister to punish me?
Nope, but if you are found guilty by being caught in the act, positively identified by my sister, proven by DNA, and admit it, I sure as hell would seek to have you physically [ as opposed to chemically ] castrated.
This is why victims are not responsible for sentencing in the US. People in states of grief routinely make poor decisions. I know, f'real, right?
I fail to see how castration of a rapist is a poor decision.
Whats the alternative? Prison? Where he can go rape other inmates, and hone his skill for when he gets put back out with an unprepared public?
It certainly is lucky that all rapists* are inhuman monsters who think only of rape. If they were actual people we might have to give them the bare minimum of respect.
*insert whatever other crime you really hate here.
And if the fucking government had stepped in when he was stalking her instead of waiting until he threw acid in her face, we wouldn't even need to be having this discussion right now.
This woman is kind of lucky all he did was disfigure her. If he had raped her, she might be facing death by stoning for fornication or her male relatives might have killed her to preserve the family's honor.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
So if I rape your sister should you be allowed to rape my sister to punish me?
Nope, but if you are found guilty by being caught in the act, positively identified by my sister, proven by DNA, and admit it, I sure as hell would seek to have you physically [ as opposed to chemically ] castrated.
This is why victims are not responsible for sentencing in the US. People in states of grief routinely make poor decisions. I know, f'real, right?
I fail to see how castration of a rapist is a poor decision.
Whats the alternative? Prison? Where he can go rape other inmates, and hone his skill for when he gets put back out with an unprepared public?
It's a poor decision because of the possibility of a false conviction.
Also, rape isn't a skill you can hone.
Prisoners learning how to be worse in prison is an argument for improving prisons, not for physically castrating people. There is also little reason to use physical castration other than chemical castration except to be an ass.
Couscous on
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
It seems like a restraining order plus a willingness to go to the police and have them do something would be much more effective at actually stopping this stuff.
Even in America, there isn't a lot you can do to stop someone from ambushing you and throwing acid in your face short of moving away and not leaving a forwarding address.
So if I rape your sister should you be allowed to rape my sister to punish me?
Nope, but if you are found guilty by being caught in the act, positively identified by my sister, proven by DNA, and admit it, I sure as hell would seek to have you physically [ as opposed to chemically ] castrated.
This is why victims are not responsible for sentencing in the US. People in states of grief routinely make poor decisions. I know, f'real, right?
I fail to see how castration of a rapist is a poor decision.
Whats the alternative? Prison? Where he can go rape other inmates, and hone his skill for when he gets put back out with an unprepared public?
It's a poor decision because of the possibility of a false conviction.
Also, rape isn't a skill you can hone.
I disagree. Over time you can learn how to better approach, subdue, restrain and attack.
It seems like a restraining order plus a willingness to go to the police and have them do something would be much more effective at actually stopping this stuff.
How effective is a restraining order though? In my life I have witnessed many crazies interact with ones that I love and in all of those cases (3) restraining orders have done nothing.
In this case if a person is willing to perpetrate an assault that would disfigure someone for life I don't think breaking a restraining order would be high on his list of reasons not to do it. I don't really think that a restraining order would have stopped this guy.
There's no justice in stooping to the level of a criminal. In order for a justice system to have any validity, it has to be above perpetrating such violence. Otherwise, how would they be able to prohibit it. Who gets to decide when violence is a proper response.
This model of justice fails for the same reason that the argument that we should torture enemies because they would do the same to us fails. The moral superiority of a justice system in a sense depends on being about to say, "We are better than such behavior."
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
Despite the horribleness of what he did to her, torturing him will do nothing to bring her any closure. If the dude hasn't really gotten past the fact that what he did was wrong, throwing acid in his eyes wont really convince him anymore, whatever they are hoping to achieve with this, it won't work. I think he should finish his time and or get moved into some sort of Psych Ward for the Criminally Insane for possibly the rest of his life or some prolonged time (20 years?).
In the end, this woman is still going to be blind, and she is still going to hate him for what he did, the only way SHE will beable to get past this is by forgiving him for what he did( this doesn't mean letting him out of jail, he should still have his punishment) but for the closure she's looking for...unless she stops having ill feelings towards this guy, she's always going to be in pain...
Objectively rereading what I posted, I am getting far to heated. I still stand by my opinions however if I was not so heated I could have worded them better.
Restraining orders are wholly dependant upon the police and their reaction time, which is unfortunately in my experience at least, very poor.
Most of the time, violation of a restraining order is something the cops can use against the perp after he's done what he was going to do anyway. Generally, people who get a restraining order against them have self-restraint issues. A piece of paper is not going to do anything if they decide they want to assault or kill the person holding the order.
On top of that, there are a lot of grey areas- many times, the people who got the order issued against someone will not be consistent in their approach to the situation. They'll often let the other person violate the order in certain situations and they won't notify the authorities.
Restraining orders come about most often in broken relationships. Love is, in many ways, more dangerous than hate.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Objectively rereading what I posted, I am getting far to heated. I still stand by my opinions however if I was not so heated I could have worded them better.
No you can not word torture into any way that doesn't still come across as terribly, horribly wrong.
Actually, I think this sets a great precedent: the victims deciding how criminals should be punished.
I mean, really, that guy who made an illegal lane change and cut me off? I think he and his whole family should be tortured to death. Because I have a great, objective, rational viewpoint, right?
there is no rational justification for retributive justice like this
zero
it will not have any benefits over appropriate, effective criminal justice that deters, prevents and rehabilitates. it might make you feel better to take vengeance on your attacker, but at the end of the day you're still blind and maimed, and what have you gained? only more suffering, spread around.
you can argue that the current justice system is not appropriate or effective, but that does not justify doing something even worse.
Actually, I think this sets a great precedent: the victims deciding how criminals should be punished.
I mean, really, that guy who made an illegal lane change and cut me off? I think he and his whole family should be tortured to death. Because I have a great, objective, rational viewpoint, right?
Yeah, like I said earlier these types of systems will just eventually lead to vigilantism. Why wait for the court? You already know how you've been wronged.
I don't see how agreeing with the court's decision is agreeing with Iran - and therefore a poor choice for us to make.
I also don't see how you can look at imprisonment and NOT view it as a form of torture. That being said, blind the jackass. If he dies, one less douchebag in the the world. He has the same chance of dying from it as she did. Fair's fair. Fairness is not always justice - but in this scenario I believe it is.
Deterring crime is a good thing in my book. Is there a chance that they could do this and convict an innocent person? Yes. Yes there is. I can't imagine the horror of going through that but I also can't think of a justice system that is fail proof.
This is a true story:
Several armed men broke into a house where 3 single women lived. One of the women was upstairs, heard the commotion, and called 911. About an hour or so later a car pulled up to the house and after some commotion, it got quiet downstairs. The woman went downstairs to give her report to the cops...but it wasn't the cops that had pulled up. The woman was then bound with her friends and all three were raped and tortured for hours. Not 2 or 3 hours. More than 12. Finally the cops showed up and caught the assholes in the act.
It was an open and shut trial. The women sued the police department for not responding in an appropriate time frame and were told basically that the police are not responsible for the safety of the public and the case was dismissed.
This did not happen in Iran, this happened in the good ole US of A.
Warms the heart doesn't it? How's this for an idea: drag the rapists out of the courtroom and publicly read their crimes and castrate them. Harsh? Yes. Without a doubt. However, there was no room for error in the investigation. The women testified, the police caught the wrongdoers in the act.
Maybe I'm just a cold hearted asshole. I'm willing to admit that.
there is no rational justification for retributive justice like this
zero
it will not have any benefits over appropriate, effective criminal justice that deters, prevents and rehabilitates. it might make you feel better to take vengeance on your attacker, but at the end of the day you're still blind and maimed, and what have you gained? only more suffering, spread around.
you can argue that the current justice system is not appropriate or effective, but that does not justify doing something even worse.
Yeah, there's a reason why my criminal law textbook doesn't even touch eye-for-an-eye type punishment in the chapter on punishment theory. Even when discussing retributive punishment. It's just nowhere close to a possibility in a society with rule of law.
Actually, I think this sets a great precedent: the victims deciding how criminals should be punished.
I mean, really, that guy who made an illegal lane change and cut me off? I think he and his whole family should be tortured to death. Because I have a great, objective, rational viewpoint, right?
Yeah, like I said earlier these types of systems will just eventually lead to vigilantism. Why wait for the court? You already know how you've been wronged.
Couldn't you just as easily make the opposite argument? Why wait for the court? You know they won't be REALLY punished.
SageinaRage on
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
I'd be pretty destroyed/furious if someone put my life in danger, caused me excruciating pain, blinded me, ensured I would have endless painful surgeries and in the process of all this made me into someone who would scare small children for life just because I didn't want him. I'd like to say I'd take the high ground but if someone told me I could legally make the attacker suffer even a fifth of what I did… Well, I’ll be honest and say I’d take that option.
She could have accepted “blood money”, basically a bribe to let the whole thing go. She wants to see real punishment. His punishment, a drop of acid in each eye, still doesn't compare to what that girl went through and will continue to go through.
I’m not saying it’s right, or humane, I’m saying I can see where she is coming from.
mystikspyral on
"When life gives you lemons, just say 'Fuck the lemons,' and bail" :rotate:
I don't see how agreeing with the court's decision is agreeing with Iran - and therefore a poor choice for us to make.
I also don't see how you can look at imprisonment and NOT view it as a form of torture. That being said, blind the jackass. If he dies, one less douchebag in the the world. He has the same chance of dying from it as she did. Fair's fair. Fairness is not always justice - but in this scenario I believe it is.
Deterring crime is a good thing in my book. Is there a chance that they could do this and convict an innocent person? Yes. Yes there is. I can't imagine the horror of going through that but I also can't think of a justice system that is fail proof.
This is a true story:
Several armed men broke into a house where 3 single women lived. One of the women was upstairs, heard the commotion, and called 911. About an hour or so later a car pulled up to the house and after some commotion, it got quiet downstairs. The woman went downstairs to give her report to the cops...but it wasn't the cops that had pulled up. The woman was then bound with her friends and all three were raped and tortured for hours. Not 2 or 3 hours. More than 12. Finally the cops showed up and caught the assholes in the act.
It was an open and shut trial. The women sued the police department for not responding in an appropriate time frame and were told basically that the police are not responsible for the safety of the public and the case was dismissed.
This did not happen in Iran, this happened in the good ole US of A.
Warms the heart doesn't it? How's this for an idea: drag the rapists out of the courtroom and publicly read their crimes and castrate them. Harsh? Yes. Without a doubt. However, there was no room for error in the investigation. The women testified, the police caught the wrongdoers in the act.
Maybe I'm just a cold hearted asshole. I'm willing to admit that.
You're conflating the policy decision that you can't sue police departments for inadequate responses with how rapists should be punished. How are the two related?
How can you punish someone for treating someone inhumanely by treating them inhumanely yourself? You lose all moral authority by doing so.
Blinding the perp doesn't give her back her sight.
It is a barbaric form of "fairness" being confused for "justice".
Jailing him won't bring her sight back either.
What would you recommend in its place?
rehabilitation
if that is impossible, removal from society
disfiguring criminals serves no purpose other than sating blood-lust, and that is not a purpose that any governmental service should be working towards.
Warms the heart doesn't it? How's this for an idea: drag the rapists out of the courtroom and publicly read their crimes and castrate them. Harsh? Yes. Without a doubt. However, there was no room for error in the investigation. The women testified, the police caught the wrongdoers in the act.
Maybe I'm just a cold hearted asshole. I'm willing to admit that.
The problem with that is, there's no way to have an objective legal standard as to what qualifies as an open and shut case with no room for error.
That's the problem with case-by-case punishment- it can lead to massive unfairness in the punishment doled out to different defendants.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Actually, I think this sets a great precedent: the victims deciding how criminals should be punished.
I mean, really, that guy who made an illegal lane change and cut me off? I think he and his whole family should be tortured to death. Because I have a great, objective, rational viewpoint, right?
Yeah, like I said earlier these types of systems will just eventually lead to vigilantism. Why wait for the court? You already know how you've been wronged.
Couldn't you just as easily make the opposite argument? Why wait for the court? You know they won't be REALLY punished.
Notice how both cases involve making a terrible decision in a highly emotional state?
And no, you can't reverse the argument just as easily since you have no rational reason to think the court wont provide justice whereas you do have a rational reason to think you can provide the same punishment that the court would.
* Do you think the confessed perpetrator of this incident's human rights are being violated like one "blogger" says in the aforementioned story?
Yes, but people still get put to death in the USA, I don't think human rights is really he issue here.
* If this were to happen to you would you seek similar justice?
At first yes, because I'm fucking human and I'd be pissed the fuck off, not thinking clearly and as Thanatos just said that's exactly why victims shouldn't be deciding punishments.
* Do you think the Iranian Court's decision to uphold the victim's request was the correct one, or should the courts attempt to rehabilitate him?
Deciding to blind someone as a punishment is fucking stupid. It's a religious state, what did you expect? If you're going to get creative with the sentencing they should have him constructing schools for the blind for the rest of his life and give everything he has and the equivalent of the money he would be paid if he wasn't slave labour to the woman he blinded.
I'd be pretty destroyed/furious if someone put my life in danger, caused me excruciating pain, blinded me, ensured I would have endless painful surgeries and in the process of all this made me into someone who would scare small children for life just because I didn't want him. I'd like to say I'd take the high ground but if someone told me I could legally make the attacker suffer even a fifth of what I did… Well, I’ll be honest and say I’d take that option.
She could have accepted a “blood moneyâ€, basically a bribe to let the whole thing go. She wants to see real punishment. His punishment, a drop of acid in each eye, still doesn't compare to what that girl went through and will continue to go through.
I’m not saying it’s right, or humane, I’m saying I can see where she is coming from.
I don't think anyone is blaming her for this; I think many, many people would feel similarly in her position.
This is why we let courts--and not victims--decide what the punishment for criminals should be.
Deciding to blind someone as a punishment is fucking stupid. It's a religious state, what did you expect? If you're going to get creative with the sentencing they should have him constructing schools for the blind for the rest of his life and give everything he has and the equivalent of the money he would be paid if he wasn't slave labour to the woman he blinded.
I really wouldn't want him back on the streets, though.
As for the human rights bit, it feels almost moot considering Iranian prisoners seem to routinely have their rights violated, often to the point of being beaten to death. Is that better than getting acid in your eye? Personally, I can't answer that. It's like apples to oranges.
If being blinded and being put in an Iranian prison are comparable, though, then yes I'd favor the former because it strikes me as the more effective deterrent.
Emotionally satisfying? Perhaps, with a sufficient lack of empathy even for monsters.
Just or a legitimate act of a justice system? No.
Barbaric? Definitely.
An eye for an eye is a stupid system of justice when it comes down to it.
So if I rape your sister should you be allowed to rape my sister to punish me?
Nah, the sister gets to rape you. Maybe your sister gets to rape you... Maybe some large inanimate objects get to rape you. I think they could get pretty creative with this.
Brainstorming session in the conference room at 3! There will be cake!
Posts
I fail to see how castration of a rapist is a poor decision.
Whats the alternative? Prison? Where he can go rape other inmates, and hone his skill for when he gets put back out with an unprepared public?
It's a poor decision because of the possibility of a false conviction.
Also, rape isn't a skill you can hone.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Hone his skill at rape? Seriously?
It certainly is lucky that all rapists* are inhuman monsters who think only of rape. If they were actual people we might have to give them the bare minimum of respect.
*insert whatever other crime you really hate here.
Rigorous Scholarship
Sorry, I was being facetious.
I disagree. Over time you can learn how to better approach, subdue, restrain and attack.
How effective is a restraining order though? In my life I have witnessed many crazies interact with ones that I love and in all of those cases (3) restraining orders have done nothing.
In this case if a person is willing to perpetrate an assault that would disfigure someone for life I don't think breaking a restraining order would be high on his list of reasons not to do it. I don't really think that a restraining order would have stopped this guy.
This model of justice fails for the same reason that the argument that we should torture enemies because they would do the same to us fails. The moral superiority of a justice system in a sense depends on being about to say, "We are better than such behavior."
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
In the end, this woman is still going to be blind, and she is still going to hate him for what he did, the only way SHE will beable to get past this is by forgiving him for what he did( this doesn't mean letting him out of jail, he should still have his punishment) but for the closure she's looking for...unless she stops having ill feelings towards this guy, she's always going to be in pain...
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
Objectively rereading what I posted, I am getting far to heated. I still stand by my opinions however if I was not so heated I could have worded them better.
On top of that, there are a lot of grey areas- many times, the people who got the order issued against someone will not be consistent in their approach to the situation. They'll often let the other person violate the order in certain situations and they won't notify the authorities.
Restraining orders come about most often in broken relationships. Love is, in many ways, more dangerous than hate.
Rigorous Scholarship
I mean, really, that guy who made an illegal lane change and cut me off? I think he and his whole family should be tortured to death. Because I have a great, objective, rational viewpoint, right?
there is no rational justification for retributive justice like this
zero
it will not have any benefits over appropriate, effective criminal justice that deters, prevents and rehabilitates. it might make you feel better to take vengeance on your attacker, but at the end of the day you're still blind and maimed, and what have you gained? only more suffering, spread around.
you can argue that the current justice system is not appropriate or effective, but that does not justify doing something even worse.
what possible purpose could it serve for the perpetrator to "feel some of the victim's pain?"
if you want to stop him from doing it again, you imprison him.
Yeah, like I said earlier these types of systems will just eventually lead to vigilantism. Why wait for the court? You already know how you've been wronged.
I also don't see how you can look at imprisonment and NOT view it as a form of torture. That being said, blind the jackass. If he dies, one less douchebag in the the world. He has the same chance of dying from it as she did. Fair's fair. Fairness is not always justice - but in this scenario I believe it is.
Deterring crime is a good thing in my book. Is there a chance that they could do this and convict an innocent person? Yes. Yes there is. I can't imagine the horror of going through that but I also can't think of a justice system that is fail proof.
This is a true story:
Several armed men broke into a house where 3 single women lived. One of the women was upstairs, heard the commotion, and called 911. About an hour or so later a car pulled up to the house and after some commotion, it got quiet downstairs. The woman went downstairs to give her report to the cops...but it wasn't the cops that had pulled up. The woman was then bound with her friends and all three were raped and tortured for hours. Not 2 or 3 hours. More than 12. Finally the cops showed up and caught the assholes in the act.
It was an open and shut trial. The women sued the police department for not responding in an appropriate time frame and were told basically that the police are not responsible for the safety of the public and the case was dismissed.
This did not happen in Iran, this happened in the good ole US of A.
Warms the heart doesn't it? How's this for an idea: drag the rapists out of the courtroom and publicly read their crimes and castrate them. Harsh? Yes. Without a doubt. However, there was no room for error in the investigation. The women testified, the police caught the wrongdoers in the act.
Maybe I'm just a cold hearted asshole. I'm willing to admit that.
Yeah, there's a reason why my criminal law textbook doesn't even touch eye-for-an-eye type punishment in the chapter on punishment theory. Even when discussing retributive punishment. It's just nowhere close to a possibility in a society with rule of law.
Couldn't you just as easily make the opposite argument? Why wait for the court? You know they won't be REALLY punished.
She could have accepted “blood money”, basically a bribe to let the whole thing go. She wants to see real punishment. His punishment, a drop of acid in each eye, still doesn't compare to what that girl went through and will continue to go through.
I’m not saying it’s right, or humane, I’m saying I can see where she is coming from.
By blinding the perp as well, aren't you just causing a greater amount of harm?
There are ways to deter criminals without resulting to maiming them.
As for the excuse of "it's just doing to him what he did to her." I'm of a belief that justice systems should be on a higher standard than criminals.
You're conflating the policy decision that you can't sue police departments for inadequate responses with how rapists should be punished. How are the two related?
How can you punish someone for treating someone inhumanely by treating them inhumanely yourself? You lose all moral authority by doing so.
rehabilitation
if that is impossible, removal from society
disfiguring criminals serves no purpose other than sating blood-lust, and that is not a purpose that any governmental service should be working towards.
That's the problem with case-by-case punishment- it can lead to massive unfairness in the punishment doled out to different defendants.
Rigorous Scholarship
Notice how both cases involve making a terrible decision in a highly emotional state?
And no, you can't reverse the argument just as easily since you have no rational reason to think the court wont provide justice whereas you do have a rational reason to think you can provide the same punishment that the court would.
This is why we let courts--and not victims--decide what the punishment for criminals should be.
I really wouldn't want him back on the streets, though.
As for the human rights bit, it feels almost moot considering Iranian prisoners seem to routinely have their rights violated, often to the point of being beaten to death. Is that better than getting acid in your eye? Personally, I can't answer that. It's like apples to oranges.
If being blinded and being put in an Iranian prison are comparable, though, then yes I'd favor the former because it strikes me as the more effective deterrent.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Just or a legitimate act of a justice system? No.
Barbaric? Definitely.
An eye for an eye is a stupid system of justice when it comes down to it.
Brainstorming session in the conference room at 3! There will be cake!
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+