Victim of acid attack wants her attacker blinded

[.lava]

it is unfortunate but i really do not care what they do to that guy. he and his kind make me sick

.

 

[bain-druie]

it is unfortunate but i really do not care what they do to that guy. he and his kind make me sick

.

Me too. The filmmaking on this was really effective - starting out with his message on her machine, telling her she 'doesn't understand what he's going through' and that he only did it so he could be with her because he loves her soooo much.... really set the tone for me.

Yeah, *you're* in pain, you sadistic bully. Come over here so I can help you get over your poor little sad hurt feelings. I promise you'll forget allllll about them. *dark cloud*

I've been mad about this all day. Sheesh!

 

[MissAlice]

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.

You make a very straight forward point and I must agree. :yes:

 

[Marble]

Just found this.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

No punishment can be undone, of course, without a time machine. However, certain punishments such as imprisonment can be discontinued. You can be released from prison. You will spend the rest of your life free. But no one can ever be released or pardoned from blindness. You will spend the rest of your life blind, even if new evidence were someday to prove your innocence.

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.

True, but a different level of cruelty is reached when the punishment is unnecessary. I am not going to shed any tears for this guy, of course. I cannot imagine how the victim feels. But it seems to me that, historically, societies have moved away from the law of retaliation, towards the law of justice and protecting the innocent. I think there were good reasons for this and we should avoid moving backwards.

Also, burning 'witches' was never any form of justice served, it was savagery.

That's true. That was a bad example. But there are many other examples to consider: the traitors, murderers, thieves, etc. who were subjected to cruel and unusual punishments throughout history -- being drawn and quartered, crucified, etc. This kind of retaliatory penal system accustoms a society to violence and retaliation. I can't find it now, but I read an article by a historian of torture .... and he put it very well. He said that public torture and violence of criminals, e.g. beheadings in France, did not make those societies more peaceful. Surprisingly, it seemed to have the opposite effect. Children learned from society's example the lesson that when you are wronged, retaliation is a good thing.

What if there is a dispute, between two parties who both believe retaliation = justice; and what happens when both of these parties sincerely believe they are the ones who have been wronged? Then of course we will have an endless cycle of revenge and counter-revenge. And this seems to be born out both historically, and in societies today. Endless cycles of revenge (at the individual and group level) is less of a problem in societies that do not equate revenge with justice.

But he does deserve it, and that makes a world of difference.

I am sure he does deserve it. But eventually someone will be convicted who doesn't deserve it. A punishment such as blindness and disfigurement, which cannot be discontinued once it is started, does not account for such eventualities, and is therefore very dangerous.

 

[Badran]

No punishment can be undone, of course, without a time machine. However, certain punishments such as imprisonment can be discontinued. You can be released from prison. You will spend the rest of your life free. But no one can ever be released or pardoned from blindness. You will spend the rest of your life blind, even if new evidence were someday to prove your innocence.

I understand the difference you're trying to emphasize, thats why i added that i still understand what you mean by there being no way back from blinding someone. My point simply was aiming to show that we still can't undo certain parts even when we use punishments like imprisonment.

Now, of course we can try to do something about that, either by making punishments revolved around prison, which can be discontinued at least, or by actually never punishing anyone unless we're 100% sure, or, never apply the second type of punishment (including death penalties which i don't oppose), unless we are 100% positive.

What i mean is, i don't think its a good idea, or fair, to oppose and eliminate such penalties just for the sake of the possible errors, that might be dealt with in other ways, rather than stop justice all together and replace it with an ineffective and unfitting punishment.

True, but a different level of cruelty is reached when the punishment is unnecessary. I am not going to shed any tears for this guy, of course. I cannot imagine how the victim feels. But it seems to me that, historically, societies have moved away from the law of retaliation, towards the law of justice and protecting the innocent. I think there were good reasons for this and we should avoid moving backwards.

In what way is it not necessary? Just because most or some societies moved away from it?

It is most certainly necessary for the victim. Which is, or should be, what justice is revolved around in instances such as this. Also, just because societies today moved away from it doesn't necessarily mean it was a step for the better to begin with, i certainly see it the other way around, despite understanding to some level the reasons for such movement, i however disagree with it. Though of course i would choose this over a society that over punishes people, or use methods like strong punishments to unfitting crimes for deterrence or a society thats happy when they punish someone etc.... however those are not the only two options.

In other words, what we're doing today seems to me like an overreaction to move away from the barbarity many of our societies reached in older times. But by doing so, i think we're still not doing good at all, because by doing this we're in many instances adding injustice to victims, punishing people for certain crimes with lengthy prison time which is unfair, and finally i think we're also helping indirectly in increasing crime and not doing what we should be doing to try and deter such evil things, without i emphasize ever actually punishing someone more than they deserve.

That's true. That was a bad example. But there are many other examples to consider: the traitors, murderers, thieves, etc. who were subjected to cruel and unusual punishments throughout history -- being drawn and quartered, crucified, etc. This kind of retaliatory penal system accustoms a society to violence and retaliation. I can't find it now, but I read an article by a historian of torture .... and he put it very well. He said that public torture and violence of criminals, e.g. beheadings in France, did not make those societies more peaceful. Surprisingly, it seemed to have the opposite effect. Children learned from society's example the lesson that when you are wronged, retaliation is a good thing.

That is a very good point, and i think it helps me explain my point better. To begin with, i'm not saying punishments must be that way, or should be that way, i am saying however that we shouldn't also eliminate such punishments from our societies. In other words, retribution shouldn't be encouraged. However, when wanted by a victim, they should be allowed to get it, by the supervision of society. They have a right to it, it should be only a question of whether or not they want it.

Now, the main problem based on my poor knowledge in history with those societies you referenced and others like them, seems to me to be that they punished people severely for unfitting crimes, or in other words the real problem was still injustice, and the attitude or outlook they have on these things, not the punishments itself. People used to gather publicly to watch and cheer while supposed criminals where hanged or beheaded, thats the real problem. Thats what would make children learn that these things are good, and indeed it would be natural they might turn out even more violent. However, when we treat them as unfortunate necessary things for certain cases to give justice to victims, it would not have the same effect.

What if there is a dispute, between two parties who both believe retaliation = justice; and what happens when both of these parties sincerely believe they are the ones who have been wronged? Then of course we will have an endless cycle of revenge and counter-revenge. And this seems to be born out both historically, and in societies today. Endless cycles of revenge (at the individual and group level) is less of a problem in societies that do not equate revenge with justice.

Believe me, i know exactly what you're talking about, however again its not either this or that. I'm not talking about a society where ideals like that should be spread (that everybody should take the law into their own hands), or that revenge is equal to justice. Revenge is not equal to justice, justice is a wide concept that covers many things. However, revenge sometimes is justice (but not always).

I am sure he does deserve it. But eventually someone will be convicted who doesn't deserve it. A punishment such as blindness and disfigurement, which cannot be discontinued once it is started, does not account for such eventualities, and is therefore very dangerous.

I agree its dangerous, but justice and punishing certain people who destroy life is more than worthy enough of a cause. What i mean is, like i said, i think we should just make sure not to enforce such punishments based on our common level of evidence needed to convict someone, not just eliminating that form of justice all together. We can never be perfect, even with all our efforts to minimize the margin of error not only do we still unfairly punish people, but we in many cases crush victims by not giving them what they rightly deserve.

 

[Sahar]

Good post, Badran.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In what way is it not necessary?

It's not necessary to prevent or deter crime, or rehabilitate victims and criminals.

It is most certainly necessary for the victim. Which is, or should be, what justice is revolved around in instances such as this.

First, I don't believe it is necessary for the victim of blinding to have the perpetrator blinded. Here is why: many victims of violent crimes are satisfied that justice has been done by a sentence of life imprisonment, as long as they know that is the maximum sentence. If there is another, more severe sentence allowed by law, only then do they feel dissatisfied, not because they must have violent revenge, but because they want the maximum sentence to be carried out -- whatever that is, within accepted bounds of justice and decency. When society declares that blinding a person is within those bounds, it unnecessarily creates the desire to carry out this punishment, in victims who would otherwise be satisfied by imprisonment. So blinding (rather than imprisonment) is not necessary for these victims. Other victims, of course, will always feel any punishment is not cruel enough. Again, blinding is unnecessary to satisfy them because nothing will satisfy them.

Second, the need of the victim is not the only thing to consider. A victim might "need" a punishment which is unfair and indecent; that's why a level-headed judge decides the sentence, not the victim. We must also consider people who may be victimized in the future, if no room is allowed for the criminal to become a rehabilitated and productive member of society.

That is a very good point, and i think it helps me explain my point better. To begin with, i'm not saying punishments must be that way, or should be that way, i am saying however that we shouldn't also eliminate such punishments from our societies. In other words, retribution shouldn't be encouraged. However, when wanted by a victim, they should be allowed to get it, by the supervision of society. They have a right to it, it should be only a question of whether or not they want it.

My concern is that if you don't eliminate cruel and indecent punishments from society, victims will usually want it. Victims will usually want the maximum sentence. By allowing cruel and unusual punishment, you encourage it.

And why wouldn't you encourage it? If it's just and decent to use retaliation against violent criminals, why would you want to discourage it? You seem to be conceding that such punishments are wrong, after all. Victims should not be allowed to enforce wrong punishments on criminals.

 

[Badran]

It's not necessary to prevent or deter crime, or rehabilitate victims and criminals.

Those are not the only things that determine whether or not its necessary, you missed the part about compensating the victim (particularly those who want something equal to whats done to them, just to put in mind what you said in this post).

First, I don't believe it is necessary for the victim of blinding to have the perpetrator blinded. Here is why: many victims of violent crimes are satisfied that justice has been done by a sentence of life imprisonment, as long as they know that is the maximum sentence. If there is another, more severe sentence allowed by law, only then do they feel dissatisfied, not because they must have violent revenge, but because they want the maximum sentence to be carried out -- whatever that is, within accepted bounds of justice and decency. When society declares that blinding a person is within those bounds, it unnecessarily creates the desire to carry out this punishment, in victims who would otherwise be satisfied by imprisonment. So blinding (rather than imprisonment) is not necessary for these victims. Other victims, of course, will always feel any punishment is not cruel enough. Again, blinding is unnecessary to satisfy them because nothing will satisfy them.

Good points, but again you missed those who merely want an equal punishment to what is done to them, which makes it necessary in that case. Like i said though, this is a good point, about this encouraging some other people to seek the maximum penalty allowed by the law, however to me it does not come even close to result in eliminating those punishments altogether, as all this results you're talking about will be criminals getting punishments they deserve, it was just a question of whether or not such punishments are allowed. In other words, what you raised despite being a very likely outcome, its still not in itself an evil or bad thing, or worthy of its own of eliminating one form of justice, because those outcomes don't victimize anybody, unlike not allowing the punishments.

Second, the need of the victim is not the only thing to consider. A victim might "need" a punishment which is unfair and indecent; that's why a level-headed judge decides the sentence, not the victim. We must also consider people who may be victimized in the future, if no room is allowed for the criminal to become a rehabilitated and productive member of society.

I did clarify earlier that i never said or implied that the victim's needs are to be satisfied unconditionally.

For your other point, i think you're categorizing this way too simply. What i mean is, again, its not either this or that. There will still be rehabilitation, not all crimes that are punished with something equal or equivalent to it will result in the criminal being beyond rehabilitation. And again, rehabilitation is important, but not more important than justice served, in my view.

Just so you know, i'm not of the opinion of labeling anyone 'beyond rehabilitation', we can only speculate, but technically anyone could be rehabilitated. However, also the same goes for people who are punished severely.

My concern is that if you don't eliminate cruel and indecent punishments from society, victims will usually want it. Victims will usually want the maximum sentence. By allowing cruel and unusual punishment, you encourage it.

I understand your point about the possibility or even inevitably of some victims going for the maximum anyway, but again, i see nothing indecent about us doing that punishment, as long as it fits the criteria i mentioned. And again, all or most punishments are cruel to start with. And actually in many cases some punishments that you might consider crueler than other punishments will be seen differently by other people.

And why wouldn't you encourage it? If it's just and decent to use retaliation against violent criminals, why would you want to discourage it? You seem to be conceding that such punishments are wrong, after all. Victims should not be allowed to enforce wrong punishments on criminals.

Not even slightly, i don't think its wrong at all. Its not either encouragement or discouragement, it could be neither. As to why i don't think we should encourage, like i said earlier, i think forgiveness is better, and not necessarily forgiveness to mean that the criminal goes untouched, but in some cases just not punished as severely as he/she deserved, not necessarily always though.

However, that is not the same as not allowing others to get justice, if they want it.

 

[gnomon]

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.

I'm glad to hear that such attacks have dropped. The most important message to send is that the culture will not tolerate such actions.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Badran,

What you seem to be suggesting is that any act, no matter how horrible, can be justified, as long as someone deserves it. This includes torture, rape, disfigurement, etc. There's no crime so heinous that you would say, "That's too awful; no one should ever do that to another human being, even if they deserve it." It seems your focus is not to rid the world of violent, depraved acts against human beings; your focus is to make sure all cruelties are exactly repaid, all scores are exactly settled (unless the victim waives their right to retaliation). And to accomplish this goal, no act committed by a criminal is too monstrous for society to imitate. It might not be ideal, it might be discouraged ... but in your view, no act should be out of the question. To me, it's disturbing that there would be no limit here.

So I'm noticing that this is one point on which we differ. I think we want to get rid of acts such as rape in the world. If you rape a rapist, in my view you have doubled the amount of rape in the world. In your view, on the other hand, if two people are raped--an innocent person and a rapist--somehow these two wrongs cancel out and restore justice. In a sense, I agree with you. I guess you could say my goal is "peace" and yours is "justice".

In school, if you punch a kid in the face, the teachers do not hold your hands behind your back and allow the other kid to punch you in the face. Instead, you go to detention. Maybe you are kicked out of school. But according to your (Badran's) view, if the kid was prevented from retaliating, this is unjust? Do you think schools should be run differently? I wonder how a "just" school would be run, and what the consequences would be.

Those are not the only things that determine whether or not its necessary, you missed the part about compensating the victim (particularly those who want something equal to whats done to them, just to put in mind what you said in this post).

Right but as I tried to argue, society is not obliged to give victims everything they want. As I am sure you agree, victims can only reasonably expect their attackers to be punished within the bounds of what is right, and just, and fair. You feel it's not beyond these bounds to butcher a butcher, rape a rapist, etc. I disagree because I think those are inherently wrong acts. So we agree that victims should be compensated within reasonable bounds; we disagree on what those bounds should be. (I'm not trying to persuade you that my view is correct here, I'm just trying to identify where I think our views diverge. I hope I've described our difference accurately and fairly .... ?)

 

[Badran]

Badran,

What you seem to be suggesting is that any act, no matter how horrible, can be justified, as long as someone deserves it. This includes torture, rape, disfigurement, etc. There's no crime so heinous that you would say, "That's too awful; no one should ever do that to another human being, even if they deserve it."

Yep, at least in the sense that i won't pass a judgment on the person doing these things as long as they have been done to them by the person they're doing it to.

It seems your focus is not to rid the world of violent, depraved acts against human beings; your focus is to make sure all cruelties are exactly repaid, all scores are exactly settled (unless the victim waives their right to retaliation).

No, thats not my focus. I do want to rid the world of violent acts, however i'm not going to take a moral high ground and disallow people from doing these things when they're done to them. I refuse to say to a woman who have been blinded and disfigured for the rest of her life without even slightly deserving it that she can't get her justice or retribution or revenge or whatever from the criminal who did that to her. There is a difference between what i'd rather have, or what i personally see as better, and between what i allow and what i don't. And thats not to say again just to clarify that she's wrong in doing this, just that i think its better to forgive.

And to accomplish this goal, no act committed by a criminal is too monstrous for society to imitate. It might not be ideal, it might be discouraged ... but in your view, no act should be out of the question. To me, it's disturbing that there would be no limit here.

To you it might be, i fail to see where does that translate into us forbidding others from doing these things because we think they are disturbing.

So I'm noticing that this is one point on which we differ. I think we want to get rid of acts such as rape in the world. If you rape a rapist, in my view you have doubled the amount of rape in the world. In your view, on the other hand, if two people are raped--an innocent person and a rapist--somehow these two wrongs cancel out and restore justice. In a sense, I agree with you. I guess you could say my goal is "peace" and yours is "justice".

Both are my goals. The difference is i just don't want to force "peace" on the victims, i would however aim to choose peace if it were me.

In school, if you punch a kid in the face, the teachers do not hold your hands behind your back and allow the other kid to punch you in the face. Instead, you go to detention. Maybe you are kicked out of school. But according to your (Badran's) view, if the kid was prevented from retaliating, this is unjust? Do you think schools should be run differently? I wonder how a "just" school would be run, and what the consequences would be.

For one thing its different in this scenario in that children aren't exactly accountable for what they do, or mostly until a certain age, i think this example over complicate the matter.

Right but as I tried to argue, society is not obliged to give victims everything they want. As I am sure you agree, victims can only reasonably expect their attackers to be punished within the bounds of what is right, and just, and fair.

And those bounds simply should be up to doing to their attacker exactly what they did to them. Thats a very basic idea for me, justice is often resembled by a scale, and based on what i understood from your post you do agree to this part at least.

You feel it's not beyond these bounds to butcher a butcher, rape a rapist, etc. I disagree because I think those are inherently wrong acts.

Even if we assume they are wrong, they would not be wrong in the sense that warrants intervention from society. Meaning that if we consider them wrong in the sense that the victim would be doing something inherently evil (which is bad to the victim in whatever sense you want to describe it), its still not victimizing the perpetrator, since they did exactly that to the other person. So there are no grounds for society to forbid the victim from getting such justice.

In other words, the only possible way this is wrong is related to the victim (as expressed by others earlier in the thread as well), i personally refuse to pass such judgment, however in either case i don't see any grounds to intervene and enforce something. Neither do your other points warrant that intervention for me, because they are either issues that can be dealt with in other ways, or because they're not more important than justice.

EDIT: I'm not trying to change your view either by the way. I'm just trying to explain my position more as i think some parts were still not clear.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I refuse to say to a woman who have been blinded and disfigured for the rest of her life without even slightly deserving it that she can't get her justice or retribution or revenge or whatever from the criminal who did that to her.

Well, I certainly understand the way you feel. I don't blame such a woman one bit for feeling that way. I can't even imagine what I would want to do to someone who did that to a woman in my family.

 

[Mathematician]

It saddens me that emotional appeals and blood-lust always tend to triumph over fair logic and empathy for all people.

 

[Father Heathen]

It saddens me that emotional appeals and blood-lust always tend to triumph over fair logic and empathy for all people.

Perhaps you might explain why one should feel obliged to show empathy towards those who show none themselves? Why cheapen and diminish empathy and spread it so thin that it becomes meaningless? Why downplay and dismiss the victimization of innocent people while rewarding and reinforcing the perpetrators with a kiss on the cheek and a slap on the ***? That's neither fair nor logical.

 

[Badran]

It saddens me that emotional appeals and blood-lust always tend to triumph over fair logic and empathy for all people.

Since you didn't specify whose posts you're describing here i won't take it for granted you were referring to mine, but if and in case you are, i would love if you point out the parts with 'blood-lust' evident in them.

As for emotional appeals, despite not intentionally making any, i can see which parts you may perceive that way. However it would be kind of strange that you missed all the points i made, and the points i actually agreed to with Mr Spinkles.

As for empathy, i specifically clarified that i'm not calling for a certain thing, but rather objected to not allowing justice for victims who want it in a way some of us feel uncomfortable with, as i clarified thats not a good enough reason on its own in my view. I haven't even made any general judgments on the attacker, and particularly stated that i believe anybody can be rehabilitated.

Finally, i'd like to mention that i haven't watched the videos linked in the OP or followed the links, intentionally and particularly, to try and minimize the emotional factor in my response and thoughts on the matter.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Both are my goals. The difference is i just don't want to force "peace" on the victims, i would however aim to choose peace if it were me.

Americans didn't have to include a ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" in their Constitution and they could vote to change it tomorrow, if they wanted. So it's not exactly true that victims are "forced" to choose peace, especially since at the time they voted or at least assented, the victims were not blinded by negative emotions. Still, your view does offer more choice for the victim than my view. But your view also "forces" society to accept responsibility for any monstrous act imaginable, rather than make its choice of how low it is willing to stoop.

For one thing its different in this scenario in that children aren't exactly accountable for what they do, or mostly until a certain age, i think this example over complicate the matter.

It could be anything. Workers at a factory, adults on a train, citizens in a country. Imagine a country where every time a fight breaks out, the job of the police is not to stop the fight, but to determine which fighter deserves to hit the other in order to "make things even". (I'm not talking about hitting back in self-defense; I'm saying after the fight is over, and the aggressor is already arrested.) It would be a just country, but not a peaceful one.

 

[Mathematician]

Perhaps you might explain why one should feel obliged to show empathy towards those who show none themselves? Why cheapen and diminish empathy and spread it so thin that it becomes meaningless? Why downplay and dismiss the victimization of innocent people while rewarding and reinforcing the perpetrators with a kiss on the cheek and a slap on the ***? That's neither fair nor logical.

Assuming we're keeping this discussion in the realm of the physical world all actions are a consequence of genetics and how the environment interacts with us. Once one sheds the mythical notion of "will" it's easy to have empathy for all human beings. I don't see anyone here who advocated rewarding this behavior. Again, emotionalism.

 

[Badran]

Americans didn't have to include a ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" in their Constitution and they could vote to change it tomorrow, if they wanted. So it's not exactly true that victims are "forced" to choose peace, especially since at the time they voted or at least assented

A majority vote doesn't mean all people consented though, it means that the view that was more popular was made a law. And in this case i don't see why there is a right for the majority to force their view on the minority who might want to get such form of justice. Since its their choice, and them doing it doesn't mean you necessarily agree with it, or think its the best option.

To put it differently i don't see why their should be a popular vote on an issue like this.

Still, your view does offer more choice for the victim than my view. But your view also "forces" society to accept responsibility for any monstrous act imaginable, rather than make its choice of how low it is willing to stoop.

The law allowing victims to get to punish their attackers in a way equal to what they endured is not a matter of forcing anything on anybody, allowance is not equal to encouragement (assuming its wrong, since at least we're talking about a society where chances are pretty high that most people view such things as wrong or undesirable for certain reasons). Otherwise anything that is going to be legal must also be approved by society to be moral, which i'm sure you would agree is not fair, or a good idea.

In other words like i tried to emphasize in my last posts, this kind of act, whether wrong or right, doesn't give a right to society to enforce whichever view on the victim, since even if it was wrong, its not victimizing the person who is going to be punished, since they did the exact same to the victim. It would be wrong in a way related to the victim, which is their personal choice, not yours or mine.

It could be anything. Workers at a factory, adults on a train, citizens in a country. Imagine a country where every time a fight breaks out, the job of the police is not to stop the fight, but to determine which fighter deserves to hit the other in order to "make things even". (I'm not talking about hitting back in self-defense; I'm saying after the fight is over, and the aggressor is already arrested.) It would be a just country, but not a peaceful one.

You're assuming two things that i didn't say and that are also unlikely if not actually impossible. The first being that the police's job will be to make sure who should hit who, again, i'm not saying that. That would mean that i'm saying that this is the way it should always be handled, or should be handled at all. I said it should be allowed, not enforced or encouraged. And the police's job is going to be breaking the fight regardless of whether or not what i'm talking about is allowed, to get justice however one would naturally go to court. And in the cases where disputes are minor and not needing a court, i see no problem with this being handled that way for the victims who want or demand rightfully an equal form of punishment to what was done to them. It won't be always that way.

And finally, i don't think either of us could be sure what the country's state would be like if such punishments are allowed, or even if they were encouraged like in your example, it might deter crime and decrease its level. But i'm not suggesting the second of course.

 

[beenie]

** Mod Post**

This thread has been moved to General Debates​