Do you believe in an eye for an eye?

[Clairity]

With respect to the story below.. I do. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...tml#cnnSTCText video: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...ml#cnnSTCVideo .

[Goldney]

Seeing as we don't live in a morally absolute world I can already predict that the vast majority of answers will be "Depends on the circumstances". This'd be a much more interesting poll if that option was removed...

[slash112]

i would never do anything bad to people who dont deserve it, but i suppose it really does just depend. for example, here in britain, we are not allowed to hurt someone who has broken into your home, unless they hurt you, infact you can only hurt them the same amount as they hurt you, so in that case, i would shoot his eye out even if he doesnt touch me. i know thats not exactly what you are getting at, but its close enough.

[De-lousedInTheComatorium]

If someone ever killed a loved one of mine, I would hunt that person down and take his/her life at any cost.

[Clairity]

Seeing as we don't live in a morally absolute world I can already predict that the vast majority of answers will be "Depends on the circumstances". This'd be a much more interesting poll if that option was removed... True.. and I did think about not giving that option but then I knew I'd get responses that would state that it would just "depend". .

[Carôusoul]

We need an "other" option. I wanted to vote "but hey, man. Relax, just live life, bro."

[mysterious dreamer]

It depends really. If someone kills two persons, you can kill him only once. And you won't gain anything in the process. He will be gone, but nothing will be gained. You can talk about justice and stuff, but that's just abstract. But, if you send him to jail to plant potatoes for the rest of his life, that way you are getting somethig back after all, especially if you send the potatoes to hungry kids or something like that.

[slash112]

It depends really. If someone kills two persons, you can kill him only once. And you won't gain anything in the process. He will be gone, but nothing will be gained. You can talk about justice and stuff, but that's just abstract. But, if you send him to jail to plant potatoes for the rest of his life, that way you are getting somethig back after all, especially if you send the potatoes to hungry kids or something like that. i would take him and torture him for the rest of his life.

[Clairity]

Ok.. If I narrow it down to just THIS story about the woman being blinded by a guy she wouldn't date.. do you think she is justified in asking that he be blinded as well? I personally think so.. what do you think? .

[De-lousedInTheComatorium]

It depends really. If someone kills two persons, you can kill him only once. And you won't gain anything in the process. He will be gone, but nothing will be gained. You can talk about justice and stuff, but that's just abstract. But, if you send him to jail to plant potatoes for the rest of his life, that way you are getting somethig back after all, especially if you send the potatoes to hungry kids or something like that. Self-contentment sounds pretty productive to me.

[slash112]

Ok.. If I narrow it down to just THIS story about the woman being blinded by a guy she wouldn't date.. do you think she is justified in asking that he be blinded as well? I personally think so.. what do you think? . yes, i think he should be blinded.

[mysterious dreamer]

Self-contentment sounds pretty productive to me. Ok, but then what if his dad comes to kill you? And then your cousin goes and kills his dad. Where would it end? i would take him and torture him for the rest of his life. If you're serious... well let's just say you're then being worse than him. Ok.. If I narrow it down to just THIS story about the woman being blinded by a guy she wouldn't date.. do you think she is justified in asking that he be blinded as well? I personally think so.. what do you think? Is she going to be happy once he's blind as well? Is that going to make her blindness easier? There's a saying, eye for an eye, the whole world goes blind.

[Carôusoul]

Ok.. If I narrow it down to just THIS story about the woman being blinded by a guy she wouldn't date.. do you think she is justified in asking that he be blinded as well? I personally think so.. what do you think? . I think she should chillax. and everyone should just say but hey, man.

[Clairity]

Is she going to be happy once he's blind as well? Is that going to make her blindness easier? There's a saying, eye for an eye, the whole world goes blind. Maybe so maybe so. But if I'm blinded and in pain for the rest of my life.. it would satisfy me to know that he was as well. .

[ExoByte]

Is she going to be happy once he's blind as well? Is that going to make her blindness easier? There's a saying, eye for an eye, the whole world goes blind. And then we would see no evil. Works.

[Serkat]

I don't believe in an eye for an eye. It is an ancient and cruel method of thought that is incompatible with a modern and fair judicial system by placing emotion over ethics. However, I do believe that we should stone fags and sluts to death in the streets and put their heads on spears and bring the dead bodies to the parents' doorstep to show them how much they suck horsecock at parenting.

[Bonsay]

I wonder, if we are so awesomely civilised as humans, why do we still need to foster this barbaric, animalistic behaviour. "If he blinded me, he must be blinded as well!" I don't have a clear definition yet to why I think it's wrong. It's just that if you say so for one situation, we might as well throw two atomic bombs on America for the Japanese.

[Clairity]

I do understand your argument Bonsay.. and the same can be said for the death penalty. Do you execute a man who has killed once.. what about a man who's a serial killer? I'm not saying that it's civilized or even morally politically correct.. I'm just admitting that I personally haven't risen above the need to lash out when I (or someone I care for) has been grievously/permanently disfigured by someone else just because they could. .

[Zhaylin]

In general I do not believe in "an eye for an eye" as it was the old law and superceeded by the sacrifice of Chirst. So I voted no before I even read the thread topic. The victim seems to want to make a political statement. I watched several videos after hers and had the impression that acid attacks are not new to the people of her country. And because my religious beliefs are different from theirs I cannot help but applaud her resolve. She's not blinding him out of revenge. Blood money would have been of great benefit to her. She wants to stand up for the rights of girls and to stop them from being targets of such attacks. If the attackers are blinded, then perhaps it will deter future attacks. Whereas I'm politically neutral and have never known such acts of violence, it's easy for me to condemn or silently scorn ANY acts of violence and cruelty. I've never been oppressed during Taliban rule, yet I understand what she's trying to do. The whole problem with "eye for an eye" (from my personally uneffected tainted perspective) is that some people take it much too far and go after relatives which I think is completely unfair.

[Invader]

I don't believe in an eye for an eye. It is an ancient and cruel method of thought that is incompatible with a modern and fair judicial system by placing emotion over ethics. Can you elaborate on that? What is fair? Does "fair" mean receiving a punishment that is much lighter than the crime one has committed? we might as well throw two atomic bombs on America for the Japanese. No. The Japanese would have been justified in doing so, had they the capability at the time, BUT it wasn't the American people (civilians) that dropped the bomb. The authority came from the president, which made him the war criminal (including whoever else was responsible). By the way, Clairity, I say Yes. I don't know why barbarism is being applied to the victims who wish for no more than to return the favor to their oppressors. I don't sympathize with criminals.

[Serkat]

Can you elaborate on that? What is fair? Does "fair" mean receiving a punishment that is much lighter than the crime one has committed? I was mostly posting that as a prelude to the second paragraph about the slut-stoning but since I kind of agree with my first paragraph as well I can write a little on that. However, I won't go into a long, probably rather unlettered essay about the ethics of punishment. Instead, I will use numbered lists. Here is my incredible argument: 1. I support the whole legal thing rather than vigilantism. 2. The whole legal thing is done by governments. 3. Governments make mistakes - lots. 4. Mistakingly burning someone's eyes out sucks pretty hard for the rest of his life. 5. Mistakingly putting someone in jail for 3 years sucks less so. 6. Not putting someone dangerous in jail and having him do the same thing again equals number 4. 7. 5 is a compromise between 4 and 6. 8. Putting 5 between 4 and 6 is awesome because it visually represents the fact that it's a compromise BETWEEN 4 and 6. So it's like actually in between those 2 numbers. Addendum: A. Justice isn't about revenge. B. Personal emotions don't justify acts of revenge. C. If personal emotions were justifications for revenge, other types of emotions would be justifications for crime. D. Hence B. E. Burning someone's eyes out in revenge is pretty fucking stupid and pointless. F. Criminals have human rights G. Committing any crime preserves the right to life and to physical integrity H. It isn't right to commit a violent act against a criminal. I. Violence is justifiable in other cases such as self-defense and war.

[Black_Eagle]

Throwing acid in someone's face is an incredibly cruel, sadistic thing to do. Eye for an eye fails because it does not necessarily prevent the criminal from committing another crime and it also punishes Ex. Man chops off woman's arm. Man gets his arm chopped off. Man uses other arm to kill 3 women. Man gets killed. Ex. My grandfather (true story) accidentally hit and killed a little girl running across the street. He didn't have time to react because the little girl was only a few feet away when she started across the street. Who's at fault here? Not her mother because the little girl broke away from her hand suddenly and the mother couldn't have possibly caught her. Not my grandfather, since it was impossible for him to have avoided her. The little girl didn't know any better. What if a man throws acid at a woman, misses and runs off? Eye for an eye does not cover a situation such as this. Punishments should be put in place to both prevent and deter attacks. Punishments should be administered for intent and results of the crime. That said, I think it really depends on the situation. Since this was an incredibly cruel and sadistic act done in cold blood, I think they should throw acid in his face with the additional punishment of imprisonment.

[Robot_Butler]

I believe there are consequences for your actions. I believe in free will, and that we make our own choices, right or wrong. Lets just say I'm not a very forgiving person.

[Serkat]

What if a man throws acid at a woman, misses and runs off? Eye for an eye does not cover a situation such as this. Punishments should be put in place to both prevent and deter attacks. Punishments should be administered for intent and results of the crime. It would be pretty hilarious if the punishment for attempted (and failed) manslaughter was attempted (and failed) manslaughter. It would make great TV.

[De-lousedInTheComatorium]

It would be pretty hilarious if the punishment for attempted (and failed) manslaughter was attempted (and failed) manslaughter. It would make great TV. Omg. Hahahahhahahahahaha. Wow... That is fucking hilarious.