• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Man Who Attacked Woman with Acid Be Blinded by Acid as Punishment?

Should Man Who Attacked Woman with Acid Be Blinded by Acid as Punishment?

  • Total voters
    35
Krhazy said:
When all of these things combine, I honestly don't even see anything morally reprehensible about the punishment that has been ordered.
Click to expand...

It is wasteful. It is turning a worthless person into a drain on society; the law should focus either on turning him into a useful person or turning him into a useful corpse.

I can't quite bring myself to say "reprehensible", but it is misguided.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
It is wasteful.
Click to expand...
Is it? How many men will throw acid in a woman's face or maim her in that country for the next forty years? More or less than if he simply went to prison for a few years?
 
Krhazy said:
Is it? How many men will throw acid in a woman's face or maim her in that country for the next forty years? More or less than if he simply went to prison for a few years?
Click to expand...

Do think that this man didn't know what would happen if he were caught? He committed this crime because he thought he could get away with it.

And I'm not talking about wasting his life, which I consider worthless. It's a matter of wasting the extra resources he would require because of his disability.
 
BA147FD4-FD20-445C-A605-6F8D067A4B29_mw800_mh600_s.jpg


I forgot...who said Islam was a peaceful religion?
 
I'm on the fence. On one hand, this woman's entire face was disfigured and the pain she suffered was probably 100x worse than what this man will feel under a medically supervised punishment. On the other hand, it really doesn't solve anything. Of course, everytime his family asked me to forgive him it would be one giant push towards going through with the blinding. I kind of want to beat this guy to within an inch of his life, let him heal completely, and do it all over again, myself...but "want" and "do" aren't always synonomous.
 
"And I'm not talking about wasting his life, which I consider worthless. It's a matter of wasting the extra resources he would require because of his disability." - Viktyr Korimir

Think of all the women that won't have to suffer or take up "extra resources" if he is punished and punished well.
 
The Baron said:
Think of all the women that won't have to suffer or take up "extra resources" if he is punished and punished well.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the first part of that post. Harsh punishments do not deter criminals who do not fear being caught. The only way to deter crime is to make it clear that they will be caught.
 
I put not sure.

I don't think I will have a lot of sympathy with my views, so I rarely share them on this topic.

I view cases like this as a sign that a person is severely damaged and not able to be rehabilitated.

So in cases like this, I look at the defendant about the same way I look at a rabid dog. They have demonstrated that they really have no place to fit into a civilized society, and should be removed from it. But if the victim would prefer another solution, how can I not take their views into consideration since they are the victim, not me.

so not sure it is.
 
"You didn't read the first part of that post. Harsh punishments do not deter criminals who do not fear being caught. The only way to deter crime is to make it clear that they will be caught." - Viktyr Korimir

And punish him severly. There is nothing wrong with actully punishing a crime.

Detering crime is admirable but doing nothing deters nothing.
 
Krhazy said:
The guy willfully threw acid in her face, with full knowledge of what the consequences would be for her, purely out of hate. He simply didn't care. He was temporally insane, still no excuse. There is no justification and are no mitigating circumstances as far as I can tell. This was not a spur-of-the-moment thing he did before he could get himself under control. There is no doubt he is the one that committed the crime. His crime has caused her permanent injury that is impossible for anyone to right. When all of these things combine, I honestly don't even see anything morally reprehensible about the punishment that has been ordered.
Click to expand...
A man should always do what is positive, what accomplishes an improvement.
Revenge does not do this.
He should be "put away", in order to protect society.
 
earthworm said:
A man should always do what is positive, what accomplishes an improvement.
Revenge does not do this.
He should be "put away", in order to protect society.
Click to expand...

put away from who? you are hiding them from your own eyes, but we have to hire people to take care of their needs. Those people aren't being protected, quite the opposite!

if they are so great a concern that we must protect society from them, then lets protect all of society and end their life.
 
This is an interesting thread. On the one hand there are people saying this could not and should not happen in the West, but there are a lot of people torn. There seems to be a certain appeal to certain people to an-eye-for-an-eye punishments, but they know it's barbaric and, and, it's Iran doing it.

I think Goshin and Viktor's responses were interesting too. The idea that as a form of punishment this neither heals nor compensates anyone, it is retribution, nothing more. Very similar in fact to the death penalty. In recent DP debates the pro-DP lobby has rested on an argument that says that far from being revenge or a deterrent, the DP serves its purpose because it takes a killer out of the game, preventing them from killing again. That is exactly what this punishment does too. This guy, with acid-destroyed eyes, will never maim another woman again. In what way is approving of this punishment different from approving of the DP?

Another pro-DP argument, Viktor's I believe, is that murderers have proved themselves unfit to remain in society, hence society has the right to remove them. As society has the power to do whatever it wishes to an individual, what makes this case substantially different from the DP?
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Do think that this man didn't know what would happen if he were caught? He committed this crime because he thought he could get away with it.

And I'm not talking about wasting his life, which I consider worthless. It's a matter of wasting the extra resources he would require because of his disability.
Click to expand...

What makes you believe that society would expend any resources on him, blind or otherwise? I have a feeling Iran offers precious few benefits to convicted criminals, blind or otherwise. If they don't, what's your objection?
 
Andalublue said:
I think Goshin and Viktor's responses were interesting too. The idea that as a form of punishment this neither heals nor compensates anyone, it is retribution, nothing more. Very similar in fact to the death penalty.
Click to expand...

I agree that the death penalty is not restorative, either for the criminal or the victim. I view it as society cutting its losses, in that it prevents the criminal from doing more damage and does not expend any more resources for his benefit. This punishment-- which I am less opposed to than you imply-- inflicts further harm and leaves us with two people society must provide for, rather than the one left by the initial attack. Yes, I do consider this exercise wasteful and pointless, but that's really about as far as my disapproval goes; I feel the same way about a good number of things our government does.

Andalublue said:
Another pro-DP argument, Viktor's I believe, is that murderers have proved themselves unfit to remain in society, hence society has the right to remove them. As society has the power to do whatever it wishes to an individual, what makes this case substantially different from the DP?
Click to expand...

No matter what terrible things a man has done in his life, I believe that the least that anyone deserves is a clean death; let him face his judgment in the afterlife, then. This is cruelty for cruelty's sake, and the only argument I can find in favor of it is that the victim wants her revenge and she deserves to have it. Most "civilized" people reject such notions, and I find it curious how people can stand to condemn such things when Iran does it, and then wish for our own government to do the same whenever someone hurts one of our women or children.
 
Andalublue said:
What makes you believe that society would expend any resources on him, blind or otherwise? I have a feeling Iran offers precious few benefits to convicted criminals, blind or otherwise. If they don't, what's your objection?
Click to expand...

Government or no government, the Iranian people are not just going to allow someone to starve to death in the streets. Someone will be taking care of him. Perhaps he will go on to serve some purpose to society, after all, but I wouldn't count on it.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Government or no government, the Iranian people are not just going to allow someone to starve to death in the streets. Someone will be taking care of him.
Click to expand...
Perhaps someone would take pity on him, but I wouldn't count on it.
Perhaps he will go on to serve some purpose to society, after all, but I wouldn't count on it.
Click to expand...
Ah, so perhaps he should be executed?
 
ARealConservative said:
put away from who? you are hiding them from your own eyes, but we have to hire people to take care of their needs. Those people aren't being protected, quite the opposite!

if they are so great a concern that we must protect society from them, then lets protect all of society and end their life.
Click to expand...
Tempting, very tempting to do this and save the tax payers money.

And this used to be my position...a death for a death..
Now I favor that a prison be self-sufficient, the Chinese seem to do this....But like anything else, only positive end results are of value. And this is difficult to achieve.
Legalizing some "recreational drugs" will help - this should have been done decades ago...
Are we saying that our prison system is NOT protecting society ???
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
Perhaps someone would take pity on him, but I wouldn't count on it.

Ah, so perhaps he should be executed?
Click to expand...
He is as good as executed if he is homeless in the streets - anywhere - he'll end up inside a dumpster sooner or later..
Has anyone ever done a census on the homeless ??
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Yes. In addition to being more efficient, I'm more comfortable with the State killing people than crippling them.
Click to expand...

So, I guess you're saying that the comfort of the individual citizen should be a major determinant of judicial process. If so, that's pretty f*****d up. If not, what criteria should be used in deciding appropriate punishments? And not just for the more heinous crimes.
 
I should probably point out that if I rejected the blinding punishment, I'd probably favor just executing him.
 
earthworm said:
He is as good as executed if he is homeless in the streets - anywhere - he'll end up inside a dumpster sooner or later..
Has anyone ever done a census on the homeless ??
Click to expand...

Warning: NSFW...
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Do think that this man didn't know what would happen if he were caught? He committed this crime because he thought he could get away with it.

And I'm not talking about wasting his life, which I consider worthless. It's a matter of wasting the extra resources he would require because of his disability.
Click to expand...
I think he committed the crime because he didn't think there would be serious repercussions (because she wouldn't report the crime, law enforcement wouldn't investigate, he could somehow get away with it, or the punishment would not be so severe). This result alters that equation for anyone paying even moderate attention. There is always a chance of getting caught. The severity of punishment is therefore always a deterrent factor. The question is to what degree.

Also, does Iran have a particularly large welfare program? How many resources are really going to be wasted on him?
 
All the same arguments that are used to support the death penalty can be used to support this form of punishment.
 
Redress said:
I think people who abuse the english language in the title to their thread should be blinded by acid.

There is some irony in this post, see if you can catch it. I have been up way too long and my sense of humor is...worse than usual.
Click to expand...

Liberals just feel they have to attack people. It's a sign of personal inadequacies. let it go. Everyone is going to have have typos of misuse a word or spell something wrong. Big damn deal

Try to show your intelligence with a response that measures up to you own standards.

This mas needed public humiliation every day in some way along with getting slapped the **** of a lot.

The Old Testament was reformed when Jesus gave his all for our sins, and I eye for an eye no longer applies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom