I'll have to reply to a certain part before others, hope you don't mind.
Of course it is victimizing the person going to be punished. A person is still a human being capable of feeling pain, fear, etc. in spite of their past actions. I guess this is just a difference of values.
First you're misusing the word victimize, of course the criminal will not be victimized if punished by something equal to what he has done. Obviously however he'll feel pain and possibly fear etc.. when punished, whats your point? Who implied otherwise? I never said or implied anything to this effect.
Feeling pain or fear does not equal victimization. What he is being punished with in this case, as we agreed, is justice. He
does deserve it. You however find it unnecessary, undesirable, not beneficial or inherently wrong or whichever term you want to use. That still doesn't make him a victim, a person can not be victimized if whats being done to them is fair.
Also, if victimization was mere pain and fear etc.. You'll need to take a different stance on prison then, as it causes that to many of the criminals put in there.
The reason I feel society should have a say, is because society plays an active role in carrying out the punishment. There is a judge, who issues the sentence; there are police, who are responsible for confining and protecting the accused. There must also be officials who oversee the punishment to verify that it is carried out properly.
But this is not in the least a reason for society to enforce their moral view on others. Such legal involvement does not in any way mean that those people involved are encouraging, or doing the thing they supposedly think is wrong (and not all of them think it is of course), as it was never supposed to be something they have any call in (based on what i clarified in the first part, which is why i replied to it first). Whether or not the victim wants her attacker, the person who did something to her completely without justification, unfairly, and thus victimized her, to be equally punished should be up to her, that is her own choice. If she makes it, they will over see it, as its their duty to do that and also protect the attacker from being punished more than he deserves.
It may even be necessary for officials to assist in carrying out the punishment, if the victim is disabled. Everyone pays taxes which pay these people, and everyone votes to give or take away powers from these people. Society -- judges, police, voters, taxpayers -- is morally responsible for what happens to prisoners who are under its control and at the mercy of its protection.
Like i said, and i'm sorry i'm repeating myself this much (but i really have no choice), its not something wrong (if it actually is) in the sense of victimizing the attacker, which means their involvement does not break any of their own moral choices. They have not contributed to injustice towards anybody.
They will and are though, victimizing someone, when they deny victims their rightful justice.
So, allowing revenge is not simply a matter of allowing victims free choice, as you suggest. It's also a decision, by society, to play an active role in the revenge (if and when a victim wants it). Furthermore, disallowing revenge is not a matter of society entering into an issue where it has no business, and enforcing its own views on the victim. If voters and taxpayers are not willing to be partially responsible for the blinding of a man by acid -- whatever his crimes -- then I think that is a legitimate and level-headed wish.
As long as they're not willing to force their own morals on others based on a false notion that what they're doing to the attacker is supposedly unfair, or delusional and unjust thinking that their views should be forced on others simply because they are the majority, or have the popular vote (on an issue that doesn't warrant a popular vote). They are free to not call for such punishments when
they are wronged.
But this is based on a legitimate choice society is making about how it will treat its own prisoners.
How criminals are punished in general is not something up for society in general, each victim has a call, right, and the most important need for justice. As long as what they're asking for is just, it doesn't really matter how the rest of society "feels" or "wishes".
If it was simply the imposition of society's view on individual matters, then I would agree with you, it would be illegitimate. But it's not.
Actually thats exactly what it is, and to be honest i'm very surprised you don't see it that way.
I pay the taxes that pay the police officer who handcuffs the prisoner and holds his eyes open as the blind victim pours in the acid, which was also provided by the police officer .... I am not obliged to vote for that, or pay for that. I'm not obliged to have that on my conscience.
Well, its not on your conscience. You haven't called, wished or desired for this to happen to the attacker, you simply allowed victims to do that when they want, since its justice, and since allowance doesn't equate to encouragement as i clarified.
Furthermore, in the case of blinding you are permanently punishing the convicted person. It is inevitable that some people will be punished who should not have been punished, perhaps due to a mistrial. A permanent punishment victimizes those people in a way that a non-permanent punishment (such as imprisonment) does not. The job of the justice system is to protect the innocent. So again, society has a legitimate stake in this, it's not just the victim's choice.
I already addressed that, i began with it actually.
Also, i hope you can see how similar arguments to yours are made in cases where i'm almost certain you would take the opposite stance.
