old fasioned justice!!

[Indemaijinj]

I wasn't defending the man.

I was saying that it would be better to keep him away from his wife than mutilating him and then sending him home again.

The problem of abusive husbands is not solved by castigating a few choice offenders, even if it is severely, but by giving the wives legal means to defy abusive husbands or escape the torture.

[Timber Loftis]

I agree with your prescription to fix the problem. Empower women, give them recourse - as if these things will ever happen there. Nevertheless, this is how we (they, whatever) would change things to alleviate the wrong in the first instance.

But, I would still like to see someone who commits the wrong be punished. I agree: he should suffer at least an equal amount to her. And, I want the vengeance. Sorry, call me a brute, but Hammurabi was onto something.

It isn't fair for anyone to claim the death penalty is "reveling" in the pain and suffering of others. My personal favorite method of execution is a bullet to the brain. It is quick, certain and very cheap. The victim has no time to feel pain. It is the wishy washy silly people who insist the executee must be in good health, and have sterilized needles to be injected with that screw things up. You can advocate keeping sick demented violent criminals alive all you want, but I know for a fact that you won't volunteer to let your loved ones live on an island populated by them.

[ 01-13-2003, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Night Stalker]

Why do people think that a law provides protection from physical harm? No law has ever protected anyone at the moment of need. What laws do offer though is deterence - by specifying the consequenses of committing a crime. If the consequense is not awe inspiring enough, the law will be ignored. Likewise, if the consequenses are not implemented consistantly, again the law becomes ineffective.

[Timber Loftis]

Good point NightStalker.

Night Stlaker has the point. The moment we place all of our expectations of well being into someone elses hands, that is when you loose any hope of safety. We each are responsible for our own safety and well ebing, and if we have families we have their well being as our responsibility as well. People are saying it isn't right to kill someone trying to take your "possessions" but in the end those possessions may have the well being and health of your dependants resting on them, so basicly what it comes down to is....If you try to take something that isn't yours, you should be ready to pay for it with your life, because you do not know how those itmes affect those people.

Addendum: yeah yeah I know...rant rant rant.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by MagiK: It isn't fair for anyone to claim the death penalty is "reveling" in the pain and suffering of others. My personal favorite method of execution is a bullet to the brain. It is quick, certain and very cheap. The victim has no time to feel pain. It is the wishy washy silly people who insist the executee must be in good health, and have sterilized needles to be injected with that screw things up. You can advocate keeping sick demented violent criminals alive all you want, but I know for a fact that you won't volunteer to let your loved ones live on an island populated by them.

This is to me, I assume, as it quotes my exact words at the beggining. Several points spring to mind MagiK, my good man. Firstly is that if you read the post in question I never once mention the death penalty. This thread is not about the death penalty - it is about chopping off someones leg, without anaesthetic. I also said in the post that some people try and justify (in my opinion they fail, but I appreciate the effort) a system of justice thats based on revenge on the general utility of society, but that all too often people didn't do that and instead resorted to gung-ho "string 'em up!" type posts that turn my stomach. It was the second type of person I was posting against MagiK.

If anything I think you've proved my point, mostly in other threads, that the death penalty can be argued in favour of logically and calmly without ever having to use phrases like "Let god sort them out!" and the like. What I was saying was not that the death penalty is always argued in favour of due to a desire for causing pain but that cutting someones leg off is purely retribution of the basest level. Basically, if you read the thread in general one more time, I think you'll find that your post didn't answer any of the points I raised at all. It answered a whole different set of points quite well but had very little to do with the issue of chopping off someones leg.

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: This is to me, I assume, as it quotes my exact words at the beggining. Several points spring to mind MagiK, my good man. Firstly is that if you read the post in question I never once mention the death penalty. This thread is not about the death penalty - it is about chopping off someones leg, without anaesthetic. I also said in the post that some people try and justify (in my opinion they fail, but I appreciate the effort) a system of justice thats based on revenge on the general utility of society, but that all too often people didn't do that and instead resorted to gung-ho "string 'em up!" type posts that turn my stomach. It was the second type of person I was posting against MagiK. If anything I think you've proved my point, mostly in other threads, that the death penalty can be argued in favour of logically and calmly without ever having to use phrases like "Let god sort them out!" and the like. What I was saying was not that the death penalty is always argued in favour of due to a desire for causing pain but that cutting someones leg off is purely retribution of the basest level. Basically, if you read the thread in general one more time, I think you'll find that your post didn't answer any of the points I raised at all. It answered a whole different set of points quite well but had very little to do with the issue of chopping off someones leg.

Actually barry only the one part was to you, I didn't mean for the whole thing to be a rant at you at all, sorry. I was jsut trying to express my frustration at some labels that get thrown out and at people who "SEEM" to be more concerned for the criminal than for the victims. Not just in death penalty cases but in punitive punishments in general. Altho...I think death might be kinder than dismemberment.....that is a tough thing to witness let alone live with.

Edit: hehe and just to be precise..the thread is about Old fashioned Justice

[ 01-13-2003, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Ronn_Bman]

This guy is an SOB who deserves to have both his legs cut off for what he did, and I think it's a good thing that the court in question hold's the wife's pain and suffering on an equal level with her husband's.

That said, I have to say I think the punishment is wrong. It's just too brutal. It won't bring her leg back, it doesn't benefit the wife, it doesn't gaurantee he can't hurt anyone else, and actually forces more suffering on the family. I'm sure it's a deterant, but to who? I doubt they're having a rash of "amputative assaults", so what's the point?

I'm not always an "eye for an eye" guy, but while I do favor the death penalty in some instances, I don't believe in "stoning" someone until they're dead. Pardon the pun, but it's overkill.

[ 01-13-2003, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ar-Cunin]

I think I'll go along with Barry and Melusine on this one.