An eye for an eye....literally

[Neil_H]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7754756.stm

News said:

A court in Iran has ruled that a man who blinded a woman with acid after she spurned his marriage proposals will also be blinded with acid.

The ruling was reported in Iranian newspapers on Thursday.

The punishment is legal under the Islamic Sharia code of qias or equivalence, which allows retribution for violent crimes.

Sounds fair to me, as long as there's solid evidence that he's responsible. It must have been premeditated as you don't generally have acid lying around.

Who would like to see this kind of law over here?

[Racefan_uk]

Neil_H said:

Who would like to see this kind of law over here?

Never in a million fking years.

[Airbag]

Racefan_uk said:

Neil_H said:

Who would like to see this kind of law over here?

Never in a million fking years.

+1
Seriously, who thinks this sort of thing is acceptable?

[ewenm]

A society's level of civilisation can be measured by how it treats its criminals. In this case, someone blinding someone else is deemed illegal and yet the state is prepared to do the same itself. Justice should not be about revenge.

[Mr Whippy]

Neil_H said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7754756.stm

News said:

A court in Iran has ruled that a man who blinded a woman with acid after she spurned his marriage proposals will also be blinded with acid.

The ruling was reported in Iranian newspapers on Thursday.

The punishment is legal under the Islamic Sharia code of qias or equivalence, which allows retribution for violent crimes.

Sounds fair to me, as long as there's solid evidence that he's responsible. It must have been premeditated as you don't generally have acid lying around.

Who would like to see this kind of law over here?

Fair in some cases.

I don't think this is the case though. I think he is more use to society being able bodied and repaying his crime to society doing something constructive. Ie, building roads, schools, hospital, or better yet, helping blind people in their homes (obviously not his wife etc)

I think when it is fair is when many more than one person feels they should pay for what they have done. Ie, he has raped and killed ten families children, without doubt, and proven beyond all doubt (still a shady one), and their rape by randy horses to death, would be seen as settling the families and societies pain.

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 28th November 17:41

[Olf]

I think he should at least get the benefit of the wife having to pick him out in an identity parade before thy go through with it.

[deeps]

An eye for an eye, yes that is very much acceptable to me.

I would love to see it over here, but obviously only carried out with absolute proof, and competency.

The crime rates would drop dramatically. The burden on the tax payer would drop dramatically. But most of all, justice would be served.

[G'kar]

Olf said:

I think he should at least get the benefit of the wife having to pick him out in an identity parade before thy go through with it.

I can't see it happening.

[jeff666]

What is the saying? an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind.

[Stevenj214]

ewenm said:

A society's level of civilisation can be measured by how it treats its criminals. In this case, someone blinding someone else is deemed illegal and yet the state is prepared to do the same itself.

I don't follow the logic. A civilian locking someone up is illegal, but the state does this.

[Olf]

G'kar said:

Olf said:

I think he should at least get the benefit of the wife having to pick him out in an identity parade before thy go through with it.

I can't see it happening.

I see no reason why it shouldn't. In fact eye believe It would work just fine.

[Quaint]

Olf said:

I think he should at least get the benefit of the wife having to pick him out in an identity parade before thy go through with it.

As for the OP's question: absolutely not acceptable. Old-Testament "justice", Sharia-style is barbarous in the extreme and the hallmark of a primitive society. Anyone who seriously believes that it will revolutionise crime rates in the UK needs to consider why it's apparently still necessary in Iran. Deterrent effect: questionable. Barbarity factor: astronomical. Forget it.

[ShadownINja]

ewenm said:

A society's level of civilisation can be measured by how it treats its criminals. In this case, someone blinding someone else is deemed illegal and yet the state is prepared to do the same itself. Justice should not be about revenge.

Yep. It's idiotic. They should make him pay for her care for life.

[deeps]

Mr Whippy said:

I think when it is fair is when many more than one person feels they should pay for what they have done. Ie, he has raped and killed ten families children, without doubt, and proven beyond all doubt (still a shady one), and their rape by randy horses to death, would be seen as settling the families and societies pain.

Dave

Disagree. Raping and killing one person is enough to warrant execution IMO (Not execution by rape, you're taking it too literally) but a good old fashioned hanging.

[BigLepton]

ewenm said:

A society's level of civilisation can be measured by how it treats its criminals. In this case, someone blinding someone else is deemed illegal and yet the state is prepared to do the same itself.

So people convicted of kidnapping or false imprisonment shouldn't be sent to prison as the crime and punishment are similar? I bet several of the defendents in the Shannon Matthews case would agree with you!

[im]

deeps said:

I would love to see it over here, but obviously only carried out with absolute proof

Whats 'absolute' proof?

Nutters are always confessing to crimes they didn't commit and the Police occasionally stitch people up on the 'evidence' front.

"Oh - look what I've just found in his back pocket" type thing...

[ewenm]

Stevenj214 said:

ewenm said:

A society's level of civilisation can be measured by how it treats its criminals. In this case, someone blinding someone else is deemed illegal and yet the state is prepared to do the same itself.

I don't follow the logic. A civilian locking someone up is illegal, but the state does this.

I believe punishments should be humane. Is blinding someone humane? The state should be setting an example of acceptable behaviour, not lowering itself to the level of the criminals.

Edit: The limit of what we (UK state) considers humane is imprisonment. That is where the boundary between state-sanctioned punishment and criminal behaviour lies. I think that boundary is in the right place.

Edited by ewenm on Friday 28th November 17:52

[deeps]

I'm pretty sure that we will see as this thread develops, the reason why criminals today have no fear. They know they will always be protected.

[ewenm]

BigLepton said:

ewenm said:

A society's level of civilisation can be measured by how it treats its criminals. In this case, someone blinding someone else is deemed illegal and yet the state is prepared to do the same itself.

So people convicted of kidnapping or false imprisonment shouldn't be sent to prison as the crime and punishment are similar? I bet several of the defendents in the Shannon Matthews case would agree with you!

Logic not your strong suit? I didn't mention imprisonment, nor did I say that the punishment can't match the crime, merely that it shouldn't be identical to the crime by default.

[V8mate]

But chopping off the hand of a thieving chav is still ok, isn't it guys?