Victim of acid attack wants her attacker blinded

[Badran]

Would we not, if doing so, become more and more like him?

I don't see it that way, mainly because intent is a major factor or difference to me when judging an act. You can kill and be a monster in one instance, and kill and be a hero in another.

The man did this to her for certain reasons, we would do it to him for completely different ones. In other words, even if we assume its actually bad for some reason, we're still not like him, as our motives are completely different.

One more thing is that the punishment in that case would either be carried out by the victim herself, or someone that has nothing personal with the attacker, so in either cases 'we' as a community don't really have much in common with the attacker.

If you're talking about the victim herself, i personally think revenge isn't a good idea, however there is still a world of difference between her and him, even if she did to him exactly what he did to her, as their motives and reasons for doing the same act are completely different like i mentioned.

 

[Father Heathen]

Would we not, if doing so, become more and more like him?

We wouldn't be victimizing an innocent person, so no. No, we would not.

 

[Father Heathen]

An eye for an eye, makes a lot of blind people.

So it's best that only the innocent are blinded (with impunity)?

 

[Marble]

So it's best that only the innocent are blinded (with impunity)?

No, but prison is a better puishment for the attacker than blinding him.

 

[Father Heathen]

No, but prison is a better puishment for the attacker than blinding him.

I didn't mean it literally, neither did Gandhi.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Funny how non-Christians think they know how to intepret and apply Christian Scriptures.

Someone's got to ... :cover:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If a man is convicted and later he is found innocent, he can be released from prison. What happens if you blind him, and later he is cleared of all charges? Can you release him from blindness? Can you parole him from blindness due to good behavior?

Cruel and violent punishments serve no real purpose, even when they are directed at people who "deserve" it, other than to make society more cruel and violent. Every crowd in history that cheered as a traitor was disemboweled or a witch was burned, felt the victim "deserved" it. The same crowd immediately turned to violence and cruelty any time they felt anyone deserved it, guilty or not. Bloodlust is not craving that should be satisfied, even on guilty people.

 

[monta]

What was done to that poor woman was obscene. Blinding her attacker would be equally obscene. That being said I can't help taking some satisfaction from the idea of him sitting in jail wondering if he is going to be blinded with acid for a bit. I also suspect the high profile of this case means that the number of women attacked in this way will drop.

 

[Father Heathen]

What was done to that poor woman was obscene. Blinding her attacker would be equally obscene.

Obscene, perhaps. But equally so? The fact that an innocent person was victimized and their rights violated is what made what happened to the women particularly heinous. If she got the revenge she wanted, there is no innocent person being victimized nor their rights violated (no one should ever be afforded a right they denied someone else) so while still bad it wouldn't be near the same level. That aside, I don't believe any government should torture or execute, but I would like to see him given life imprisonment.

 

[Sahar]

It seems her request is just. Let him be an example for any other animal dare to think to cause suffering like this.

 

[SageTree]

Said it once, will say it again. I hope that this 'resolution' doesn't leave her with any remorse or doubt in her action because you can't blind yourself or another to what you've done.

 

[McBell]

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

 

[Reptillian]

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter how the rest of us "feel" about the kind of punishment applied. A person was blinded and disfigured. SHE is the one who needs and has a right to justice, and that justice should be up to doing to her attacker exactly what he did to her, regardless of whether or not she might regret it later, thats up to her.

Thats not to mention, that actually prison for a certain period of time to me is a nonsensical punishment for this kind of crime. Completely ineffective and does not come even close to serving any supposed justice. At best if prisons actually worked in rehabilitating criminals, and the victim would be satisfied by her attacker being in prison, then it would've made some sense, but as it is, refusing to give this woman her justice or revenge and locking the man up is just another injustice towards her.

Finally, saying that one is against cruel punishments is just the exact opposite of justice to me, as of course some crimes are just that, cruel. Which means to give justice to the victim, we may have to do something cruel to the attacker, just like what he did. That aside, most punishments are to one level or another cruel. Locking a person for his entire life in prison is very cruel, yet people are okay with it. Problem is like i said most of the time such punishments don't really have anything to do with the crime committed.

The goal of justice isn't and shouldn't be retribution. Rehabillitation is desirable. The criminal should realize that what he or she did was wrong, feel guilty, and desire to pay for their crime and eliminate the negative behavior. Its never a good idea to let the victim of a crime determine the appropriate punishment. There is a reason that we in America have trials where we're judged by an impartial jury of our peers instead of the victims or the wronged party.

Heres a scenario that might help to explain why I think cruel and unusual punishment are bad and why victims shouldn't be allowed to determine punishments:

Imagine that a guy is out hunting deer and he accidentally shoots and kills a farmer's cow instead. I think we'd agree that justice would involve the hunter paying for the cow financially. Maybe if the farmer is nice he might let the hunter keep the meat from the cow. But suppose the farmer wants him to pay for half the cow and then come plant his corn for him. Is that still a just punishment? Perhaps... What if the farmer wants to shoot the hunter's favorite dog as payment? Well, thats tricky, I mean he might have really liked that cow I guess... Or suppose the farmer wants the hunter tied up in his field for a day where he pretends to be a scarecrow. Still a fitting punishment? Imagine that the hunter is a black man and the farmer doesn't like people with dark skin, do you think justice will be served for the hunter if the farmer is allowed to decide the appropriate response? Suppose he wants the hunter's trigger finger cut off? Still justice?

I don't see it that way, mainly because intent is a major factor or difference to me when judging an act. You can kill and be a monster in one instance, and kill and be a hero in another.

The man did this to her for certain reasons, we would do it to him for completely different ones. In other words, even if we assume its actually bad for some reason, we're still not like him, as our motives are completely different.

One more thing is that the punishment in that case would either be carried out by the victim herself, or someone that has nothing personal with the attacker, so in either cases 'we' as a community don't really have much in common with the attacker.

If you're talking about the victim herself, i personally think revenge isn't a good idea, however there is still a world of difference between her and him, even if she did to him exactly what he did to her, as their motives and reasons for doing the same act are completely different like i mentioned.

Be warned in thinking that intent behind actions makes actions acceptable, theres an old saying that "The road to perdition is paved with good intentions". Sometimes a bad action is always a bad action. I don't see motivations, but actions have observable consequences.

 

[Badran]

If a man is convicted and later he is found innocent, he can be released from prison. What happens if you blind him, and later he is cleared of all charges? Can you release him from blindness? Can you parole him from blindness due to good behavior?

That is something to consider with any punishment, however its not an excuse to say we can't have certain punishments due to this reason, in my opinion.

Even when you release an innocent man from prison, you can't give him back the years you took away from him and left him locked up with criminals and being treated like scum. However, i understand of course what you mean about there being no way back from a punishment like that at all, even more than other kinds of punishments.

Cruel and violent punishments serve no real purpose, even when they are directed at people who "deserve" it, other than to make society more cruel and violent. Every crowd in history that cheered as a traitor was disemboweled or a witch was burned, felt the victim "deserved" it. The same crowd immediately turned to violence and cruelty any time they felt anyone deserved it, guilty or not. Bloodlust is not craving that should be satisfied, even on guilty people.

First, prison is cruel. I don't understand what people mean when they say they are against cruel punishments, almost all of punishments are cruel to some level.

Also, burning 'witches' was never any form of justice served, it was savagery. Nobody said we should cheer when the man is given that punishment, or be happy about it, its still unfortunate. But he does deserve it, and that makes a world of difference. Like i said earlier i would still rather we didn't go that far, but that is up to the victim. She is the one who has to spend her life blind and disfigured, it shouldn't be up to you and me.

 

[Badran]

The goal of justice isn't and shouldn't be retribution. Rehabillitation is desirable. The criminal should realize that what he or she did was wrong, feel guilty, and desire to pay for their crime and eliminate the negative behavior.

I agree that rehabilitation is desirable, as its good for society, however its not a substitute for punishments, or shouldn't be, as that is clear injustice, to not allow people to get retribution when and if needed. Sometimes thats exactly what justice is.

Like i said, it shouldn't be up to you and me to decide neither.

Its never a good idea to let the victim of a crime determine the appropriate punishment. There is a reason that we in America have trials where we're judged by an impartial jury of our peers instead of the victims or the wronged party.

Heres a scenario that might help to explain why I think cruel and unusual punishment are bad and why victims shouldn't be allowed to determine punishments:

Imagine that a guy is out hunting deer and he accidentally shoots and kills a farmer's cow instead. I think we'd agree that justice would involve the hunter paying for the cow financially. Maybe if the farmer is nice he might let the hunter keep the meat from the cow. But suppose the farmer wants him to pay for half the cow and then come plant his corn for him. Is that still a just punishment? Perhaps... What if the farmer wants to shoot the hunter's favorite dog as payment? Well, thats tricky, I mean he might have really liked that cow I guess... Or suppose the farmer wants the hunter tied up in his field for a day where he pretends to be a scarecrow. Still a fitting punishment? Imagine that the hunter is a black man and the farmer doesn't like people with dark skin, do you think justice will be served for the hunter if the farmer is allowed to decide the appropriate response? Suppose he wants the hunter's trigger finger cut off? Still justice?

I never said the victim has a right to call for whatever punishment as they see fit, or punish others related to the attacker or perpetrator (including his dog like in your example), that would be injustice. Your example is a tricky situation, where 'an eye for an eye' would be flat out wrong, as it would include hurting someone else other than the perpetrator, so we can't do that.

Thats not the case though in this woman's situation, and many others.

Be warned in thinking that intent behind actions makes actions acceptable, theres an old saying that "The road to perdition is paved with good intentions". Sometimes a bad action is always a bad action. I don't see motivations, but actions have observable consequences.

I'm not saying it always justifies, or even necessarily justifies, however intent does make a difference in the value or level of how wrong or right an action is.

 

[Father Heathen]

Imagine that a guy is out hunting deer and he accidentally shoots and kills a farmer's cow instead. I think we'd agree that justice would involve the hunter paying for the cow financially. Maybe if the farmer is nice he might let the hunter keep the meat from the cow. But suppose the farmer wants him to pay for half the cow and then come plant his corn for him. Is that still a just punishment? Perhaps... What if the farmer wants to shoot the hunter's favorite dog as payment? Well, thats tricky, I mean he might have really liked that cow I guess... Or suppose the farmer wants the hunter tied up in his field for a day where he pretends to be a scarecrow. Still a fitting punishment? Imagine that the hunter is a black man and the farmer doesn't like people with dark skin, do you think justice will be served for the hunter if the farmer is allowed to decide the appropriate response? Suppose he wants the hunter's trigger finger cut off? Still justice?

For one, it was an accident and not deliberate, and thus entirely different. Two, harming another innocent (in this case a dog) would never be justice. The only fitting justice would be monetary compensation.

 

[monta]

Obscene, perhaps. But equally so? The fact that an innocent person was victimized and their rights violated is what made what happened to the women particularly heinous. If she got the revenge she wanted, there is no innocent person being victimized nor their rights violated (no one should ever be afforded a right they denied someone else) so while still bad it wouldn't be near the same level. That aside, I don't believe any government should torture or execute, but I would like to see him given life imprisonment.

At least equally obscene, he is obviously a twisted person, but the law needs to be dispassionate when we can't, that is the point of it. Ideally the law would restore the victim to the point before the crime but some things cannot be compensated for, nothing can fix this poor woman's life. However, if you say there are some situations where pouring acid into a persons face is the right thing to do, then we are just quibbling over who has the right to do it, can the woman's father turn around and say ''you blinded my daughter, so I can blind yours'' of course not! This makes as little sense to me as the idea of blinding this man.

 

[Father Heathen]

can the woman's father turn around and say ''you blinded my daughter, so I can blind yours'' of course not! This makes as little sense to me as the idea of blinding this man.

The other daughter would be innocent, so punishing her for something she didn't do would obviously be an injustice, and so it's not even remotely comparable.

And I've said before I wouldn't want any government to use torture or execution, but I totally sympathize with the victim's sentiments and see nothing wrong with them.

 

[bain-druie]

According to the last part of the second video, acid-throwing has dropped to an all-time low since this case went public. Acid-throwing has been around for a long time, as was pointed out on the thread, I believe; so what's different? The threat of retribution.

Here you have a criminal who causes unimaginable suffering to someone - why? His feelings were hurt. He poured *FOUR LITERS* of acid over her head and face; think about that. Her skin melted off when she put water on her face.

So I don't give a flying **** how much he sobs in court and begs forgiveness - there is no rehabilitation for someone like that. All he is useful for is an object lesson. I admire Gandhi very much, but using his expression about making the whole world blind is not much to the point here, IMHO.

Talking about the attacker's eyes and his victim's eyes as if there's no qualitative difference, as if all eyes were on an assembly line together and just by multiplying the number of blind people in the world we're automatically all poorer for it, honestly makes no sense to me.

The court's sentence is that he will be anesthetized and then have a few drops of acid poured into each eye; this is by NO MEANS 'an eye for an eye' in the biblical phraseology. His suffering would be miniscule in comparison.

They can't even manage to carry out this puny sentence so far, but consider it on its merits. Just the threat to potential acid-attackers that what they do may be done to them in return (even on a much smaller scale) was enough to drop the acid attacks to an all-time low, according to that report. I'd say that's an effective deterrent.

But then I'm on the side of the Furies; I'm one of those who thinks it would be an appropriate punishment of brutal rapists to administer a paralytic drug (not so they're sedated, just paralyzed), castrate them, and force them to watch a video re-enactment of their crime for 8 hours every day for at least five years. That's a rough approximation of what their victims endure, after all.

 

[Father Heathen]

According to the last part of the second video, acid-throwing has dropped to an all-time low since this case went public. Acid-throwing has been around for a long time, as was pointed out on the thread, I believe; so what's different? The threat of retribution.

Here you have a criminal who causes unimaginable suffering to someone - why? His feelings were hurt. He poured *FOUR LITERS* of acid over her head and face; think about that. Her skin melted off when she put water on her face.

So I don't give a flying **** how much he sobs in court and begs forgiveness - there is no rehabilitation for someone like that. All he is useful for is an object lesson. I admire Gandhi very much, but using his expression about making the whole world blind is not much to the point here, IMHO.

Talking about the attacker's eyes and his victim's eyes as if there's no qualitative difference, as if all eyes were on an assembly line together and just by multiplying the number of blind people in the world we're automatically all poorer for it, honestly makes no sense to me.

The court's sentence is that he will be anesthetized and then have a few drops of acid poured into each eye; this is by NO MEANS 'an eye for an eye' in the biblical phraseology. His suffering would be miniscule in comparison.

They can't even manage to carry out this puny sentence so far, but consider it on its merits. Just the threat to potential acid-attackers that what they do may be done to them in return (even on a much smaller scale) was enough to drop the acid attacks to an all-time low, according to that report. I'd say that's an effective deterrent.

But then I'm on the side of the Furies; I'm one of those who thinks it would be an appropriate punishment of brutal rapists to administer a paralytic drug (not so they're sedated, just paralyzed), castrate them, and force them to watch a video re-enactment of their crime for 8 hours every day for at least five years. That's a rough approximation of what their victims endure, after all.

:yes::clap