Moral Quandry: Spine For A Spine

[MWB]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/19/report-saudi-judge-asks-hospital-damage-convicts-spine-paralyzed-man/?test=latestnews

over in good ol' saudi, one dude clevers another's spine leaving him paralyzed. they are trying to figure out how to surgically inflict the same thing on the attacker.

maybe i'll comment eventually, but i'm curious to see what you guys think first.

[Skylark95]

I think this would fall under strange and unusual punishment. IMO

[MWB]

i'm not asking about american justice, i'm asking you as a human.

[ThermoNukePanda]

I do kind of believe in the whole "eye for an eye" thing. Just my opinion. It would never work in America though. We're too good to our prisoners. I also believe in public humiliation. I say we bring back the old stocks and make people stand in the middle of the town for everyone to throw rotten fruit at them. LoL

[Super Kev]

Tough call .. what did the guy do to get hit in spine? I guess I'm for the whole "Eye for an Eye" thing. Seems fair, but unless the person is insane it would be a good idea to know WHAT caused this fight instead of focusing on what ended it.

[PeeKnuckle]

I think you're no better than the person who committed the crime, if you end up doing that. Only difference is, you were allowed to do it and will face no penalty.

I've wavered many times on my stances on punishments within the law. If matching punishments for crimes deterred anyone, there'd be no crime in countries with strict penalties. Fact is, there's crime everywhere and always will be. So then, if it's not for deterring, why do we do it? Why say it's wrong for a citizen to do it, when people within the law are allowed to?

I know I'll probably hear "Well PK, that person will never walk again. Why should the person who did this to him, be allowed to walk?". Let him walk. Let him walk those 80 steps he may get for one hour a week in some prison yard. Do you think they will let him go free after severing his spine? I doubt it. He'll still probably pay for his crime in a jail. On top of being paralyzed. Will it have accomplished anything? Did the victim suddenly get use of his limbs back?

“An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.”

[ThermoNukePanda]

“An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.”

As usual PK, your wisdom rings true. Makes me reconsider what I said. I KIND of believe in eye for an eye, but your comment is true.

How do you feel about public humiliation?

[PeeKnuckle]

I'm for it. There used to be a judge in SoCal who would make juveniles wear sandwich boards with their embarrassing crimes. Had them stand out on a busy intersection all day.

[ThermoNukePanda]

I'm for it. There used to be a judge in SoCal who would make juveniles wear sandwich boards with their embarrassing crimes. Had them stand out on a busy intersection all day.

*high-fives you*

In my opinion I feel that public humiliation is a much more effective deterrent than eye for an eye or even imprisonment.

[DUBL DUECE]

I am for public humiliation on lesser crimes, as for one like this why not let the victim decide the punishment? PK is right I dont think you can deter crime with the form of punishment, but that doesnt mean you get rid of the punishment there has to be a consequence to the crime. Whether it deters others doesnt matter.

As for our own system I believe the reason the hasher forms of punishment dont work is because the criminal lives 25-30 years before they are put to death. 3 years should be the max on the death penalty.

[Avahra]

I didn't read the article but I'll just throw this out there. This gov't is going to spend a lot money on this crinimal to make him paralyzed, then have to house and do special care for him in jail just so they can say an eye for an eye?

Doesn't seem to make much sense to me

[Skylark95]

I think you're no better than the person who committed the crime, if you end up doing that. Only difference is, you were allowed to do it and will face no penalty.

^ This

[PeeKnuckle]

I am for public humiliation on lesser crimes, as for one like this why not let the victim decide the punishment? PK is right I dont think you can deter crime with the form of punishment, but that doesnt mean you get rid of the punishment there has to be a consequence to the crime. Whether it deters others doesnt matter.

As for our own system I believe the reason the hasher forms of punishment dont work is because the criminal lives 25-30 years before they are put to death. 3 years should be the max on the death penalty.

So imprisonment and a physical mauling? Isn't that more than eye for an eye?

I don't see justice being served, when we become the savage brutes the criminals were. Whatever happened to leading by example? If we become like them, they're the ones leading.

[Dateranoth]

I believe in harsh punishment for some crimes, but when the punishment does nothing but reduce the offender to a burden on society then it does no good.

[ThermoNukePanda]

So imprisonment and a physical mauling? Isn't that more than eye for an eye?

I don't see justice being served, when we become the savage brutes the criminals were. Whatever happened to leading by example? If we become like them, they're the ones leading.

Don't you feel that SOME people are just beyond reform though? I'm all for reforming, but some people just deserve to be smitten off the face of the planet.

[PeeKnuckle]

Take away everything from them that's possible and decent. We wouldn't need to rely on other countries for cheap labor. We have an immense free workforce in the US.

For the ones that aren't in for life, they could be learning a valuable trade, if they ever decide to fly right.

[Banstyle]

I believe in harsh punishment for some crimes, but when the punishment does nothing but reduce the offender to a burden on society then it does no good.

^^ THIS! Say what you will about right and wrong, making someone paralyzed so they need special care for the rest of their life is not logical.

Logic should trump all things. capital punishment can be considered logical since it removes idiots from our gene pool. Life in prison = resource drain = not logical.

This is waaay outside the realm of logic, no different then Sierra Leone cutting of hands and feet. You only end up punishing your country.

[Super Kev]

Take away everything from them that's possible and decent. We wouldn't need to rely on other countries for cheap labor. We have an immense free workforce in the US.

For the ones that aren't in for life, they could be learning a valuable trade, if they ever decide to fly right.

Not true .. you put prisoners to work then it ends up costing a lot more money than you think. Gotta pay for transport, supplies, armed guards to supervise them. Add all that up and it isn't as cost effect as you think.

The problem with public humiliation is Where do you stop it? .. Okay I think we can all agree that a murder or rapist should be punished to fullest extent of the law, but not everyone deserves to placed into that situation. Sometimes kids make mistakes whether it's shoplifting, stealing a car, or any number of acts. Should they be exposed to public humiliation and never be able to live it down? Not to mention wrongful imprisonments. There was a very famous murder case in Canada about David Milgaard where he was found guilty of murder and after 30 years in jail was finally found innocent set free. If the government opted to put him to death (or a form of public humiliation that would suit a murder conviction), then where would humanity be? Do we just shrug if off and say "Opps .. sorry about that?" Plus there's a lot of us here that indulge in some type of illegal activity whether it's drinking underage, drugs, fraud, or simply Jay-Walking (yes that's still a crime).

Sure the system is flawed but I don't think I'm some one that can act as judge and jury for how people need to be in public. This is what Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore were dealing with when they created Rorschach in The Watchmen.

[PeeKnuckle]

You're thinking of chain gangs. You forget, that there's shops set up, and even ones that can be made cheaply and quickly, on site.

It wouldn't cost much more than what they already pay. If it's a factory, you need to put in anyways, to make a profit.

[MWB]

i wonder what you would say, and not just a theoretic reply on the internet, if it were your son who got the clever, pk. not calling you out or anything, i'm glad someone was simply opposed. however, what if...

i'd probably want to paralyze someone who cleved my dog, let alone me....or a loved one. no, it wouldn't solve anything, and no, i wouldn't support it as policy. but if it were tangible to me, i think it'd make me sick to know he could still walk. yes, if he were in jail for the rest of his life, that's one thing. i bet he'd only get 5-10. justice not served.

a 5 year old child was shot three times in a drive by yesterday here. once in the head. how do you begin to make a man pay for that? shooting them three times wouldn't do it. perhaps shooting HIS kid would, but i think we all agree that is not even an option.

**** it. paralyze that ************ too. he'd never shoot anyone again.

[Dateranoth]

Why paralyze anyone? If you're going to leap the moral hurdle about that then just kill them. Punishment served and burden on society removed.

[DUBL DUECE]

So imprisonment and a physical mauling? Isn't that more than eye for an eye?

I don't see justice being served, when we become the savage brutes the criminals were. Whatever happened to leading by example? If we become like them, they're the ones leading.

I dont agree that we become like the criminal when we punish them, for one we wouldnt be punishimg them if they hadnt committed a crime.We should lead be example, the example being if you do something wrong you will pay the consequence. I think the difference in the punishment is that there is no enjoyment from it, a criminal who enjoys hurting people is different from the person who's duty it is to carry out the punishment. People have many opinions on what justice is and how best to carry it out, but I like this defenition "The administration of law; the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments; "Justice deffered is Justice denied"

Edit: I guess the underlining didnt work.

[PeeKnuckle]

i wonder what you would say, and not just a theoretic reply on the internet, if it were your son who got the clever, pk. not calling you out or anything, i'm glad someone was simply opposed. however, what if...

i'd probably want to paralyze someone who cleved my dog, let alone me....or a loved one. no, it wouldn't solve anything, and no, i wouldn't support it as policy. but if it were tangible to me, i think it'd make me sick to know he could still walk. yes, if he were in jail for the rest of his life, that's one thing. i bet he'd only get 5-10. justice not served.

a 5 year old child was shot three times in a drive by yesterday here. once in the head. how do you begin to make a man pay for that? shooting them three times wouldn't do it. perhaps shooting HIS kid would, but i think we all agree that is not even an option.

**** it. paralyze that ************ too. he'd never shoot anyone again.

I would be very upset. I would definitely need a restraining order and a bunch of officers around me to keep me from whoever did something like that to my son. I'm not the law, though. In law, you're supposed to mete out justice and uphold the law. Personal feelings aren't an option in law.

[Super Kev]

This is actually a rather tough question to answer. I think personal emotions do need to take place in law or at least in changing of said laws and punishment. .. I might have to come back to this since I really can't get my words and thoughts together that wont make me sound like an idiot.

[MWB]

perhaps we could chain him to a wheelchair for the remainder of his life.