old fasioned justice!!

[Vaskez]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: I couldnt agree more , Cloudy. Maybe we could get something like this going in the U.S. So that men who beat their wives will get similar treatment at the hands of the law. I wonder how a wife beater would feel if he knew some 250 lb neanderthal was going to beat on him like he beat on his wife?

LOL. I know it's a fine line but I tend to agree with corporal punishment. I don't agree with capital punishment or punishment that involves something like the loss of a limb which would disable the individual for life. If it's something like whipping then go for it as scars on your back are not gonna stop you from doing anything mobile. I also think that physical punishment like beating is a good deterrent, although kinda err barbaric (don't like that word as it's usually used by stuck-up people who think they're sophisticated.)

[homer]

I do not condone what this man did; however everyone has the right to their own religion and system of beliefs. The article did indicate that the man felt he was acting in accordance to his religious beliefs. As well, he was punished under these same beliefs. It is my opinion that this was proper justice, to and for the individuals involved.

although kinda err barbaric (don't like that word as it's usually used by stuck-up people who think they're sophisticated.)

I do use this word, however no one has ever, in my life, called me stuck-up. As well, no one has ever even considered the word, “sophisticated” when they were talking about me. I do not believe having a decent vocabulary is a bad thing.

[Indemaijinj]

The only place where I could see Hunter of Jahanna's brand of "justice" fit is Hell, as Dante described it.

And why is it that all his/her visions always involves bloodshed?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Indemaijinj: The only place where I could see Hunter of Jahanna's brand of "justice" fit is Hell, as Dante described it. And why is it that all his/her visions always involves bloodshed?

Attacking a member on a general global level? Is that a flame or a troll? I would humbly suggest it is one or the other.

Originally posted by Indemaijinj: The only place where I could see Hunter of Jahanna's brand of "justice" fit is Hell, as Dante described it. And why is it that all his/her visions always involves bloodshed? Because some solutions are not bloodless and you have to kill the rabid beast before he can infect or hurt others. Bloodshed is not something out of hell, it is some times necessary.

[Indemaijinj]

That would probably be a flame.

I am simply astonished about how much support this "justice by violence" pipedream gets here. There is a good reason why the "eye for an eye" model is banished to the annals of history.

The legal systems are here to ensue that a civilised society can function without people having to fear for their lives and well-being.

Surely such a viewpoint can be used to defend people's rights to own and occasionally use lethal weapons, but that is not my point.
The point is that it is the preventive measures and the protection that the law supplies, not the possibilities for revenge.

Call me a weak goodie two-shoe, but I think that a legal system should be judged by how much safety from harm or exploitation that it offers it's citizens, not by how much retribution it exacts on it's culprits.

In this specific case: I am not impressed by this grisly show of vengeance the court put forth. Surely I have no sympathy for the jealous bastard that got his leg cut off, but that is not gonna solve any problems back at home does it?

Only a crippled man with yet another grudge to hold against his wife who still has little or no protection from the wrath of her spiteful husband.

[ 01-13-2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Indemaijinj ]

[Barry the Sprout]

I personally think that revelling in pain and suffering of others, for whatever reason, is just plain sick. Some people try to justify their rather revenge-laden system of "justice" with utilitarian goals - claiming it will put others off, or that their goal is punishment rather than rehabilitation. This I disagree with, but I find at least logical. The kind of stuff that permeates this thread, and others like it, is not even that. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you want this man to have his leg cut off? You want him to feel horrific pain, for probably quite a long time?

I just personally don't know how you can work up quite so much hatred and bile for someone you've never met, or even heard about until a few hours ago probably. I understand what he did to his wife was just frankly horrible, but so is doing it to him. I can't condone it on any level, and the idea that it could be espoused by people not connected to the incident, in cold blood, and in theory in a rational manner, just disturbs me.

Sorry, but thats just how I feel about it.

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: I personally think that revelling in pain and suffering of others, for whatever reason, is just plain sick. Some people try to justify their rather revenge-laden system of "justice" with utilitarian goals - claiming it will put others off, or that their goal is punishment rather than rehabilitation. This I disagree with, but I find at least logical. The kind of stuff that permeates this thread, and others like it, is not even that. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you want this man to have his leg cut off? You want him to feel horrific pain, for probably quite a long time? I just personally don't know how you can work up quite so much hatred and bile for someone you've never met, or even heard about until a few hours ago probably. I understand what he did to his wife was just frankly horrible, but so is doing it to him. I can't condone it on any level, and the idea that it could be espoused by people not connected to the incident, in cold blood, and in theory in a rational manner, just disturbs me. Sorry, but thats just how I feel about it.

Wow Barry, your first sentence is VERBATIM what I was thinking before I read your post. I absolutely agree with you, well said. I think gloating over someone's pain, and clapping your hands in glee over it is horrible.
It's one thing to be so sickened by a crime that you wish you could kill/maim/torture the criminal, and a completely different thing to actually approve of it when it's done. There are certain criminals I sometimes wish I could inflict terrible pain on, but I like to think that what keeps me from actually supporting or condoning such punishment is the HUMANITY that the criminals themselves lack. I realise that often, when people talk about how certain criminals should be castrated or tortured, they are simply voicing the same kind of feelings I hold, and they don't actually seriously mean it. But it does come across that way... and people who in sincere seriousness cheer on torture etc are IMO showing the same lack of humane-ness that the criminals they condemn did.

Ack, Barry said it better.... not really in a writing mood today [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Paladin2000]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Paladin2000: In some "civilized" country, the penalty for committing murder is the death sentence, so in a way the "an eye for an eye" type of punishment is still being practiced but it is kind of cruel of chop off someone's hand...

Why? [/QUOTE]Sorry, I meant "leg" not "hand".

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Indemaijinj: That would probably be a flame. Call me a weak goodie two-shoe, but I think that a legal system should be judged by how much safety from harm or exploitation that it offers it's citizens, not by how much retribution it exacts on it's culprits.

Sure, okay... you are a weak goodie two-shoe.

More seriously, though, what would you have done? Rehabilitate the guy? C'mon, such depravity of human life as to cut off your wife's leg? You deserve even worse. Would you really be satisfied locking him up. Howabout a fine? What's a leg worth these days?

Or do you approve of such rampant male insecurities and the problems they cause societies? Maybe he should have been condoned for his actions - after all it's a woman's fault if a man desires her or if she makes her husband insecure. Right?