eye for an eye

[Ben Kenobi]

Agreed with your earlier post, that people liking what you do often has little to do with your morals, however, I think you fail to recall the point about the abortion poster thread.

I support the use of graphic images, even though they are gruesome, because they are the truth. If we can't look at the truth, then perhaps, we ought not to approve of what we are doing.

The only question about doing what you believe to be right regardless of the consequences, is whether you choices impose burdens on other people. It may be right for me to stand up for myself, and get arrested, but if the same ends will be accomplished through other means, then it makes no sense to get arrested.

Now, if there is no alternative other than to break the law to accomplish the goal, than one should be willing to accept the consequences according to the law for doing the right thing.

[tinyp3nis]

"I think you fail to recall the point about the abortion poster thread. "

?
Wasn't talking about the point of that thread.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Pekka
And Gandhi was a *****, like we've covered it a long time ago. Not a bad person, but definitely not a hero.

Of course Gandhi was no hero . But he was a fantastic leader . He is the first man to have catalysed laziness into a weapon . What was his biggest message - to do nothing ( non-cooperation ) .

Of course this does not work with bullies ( or in personal situations ) . But it does work in making the cost of maintaining a colony like India not worth the benifits - from a British perspective , it was better to leave than to stay . This is where his success lies - getting his way by doing absolutely nothing .

Gandhi himeslf admitted that this would not have worked , say , if the Jews tried it with Hitler . He'd have tried to kill them anyway .

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DaShi
Judged by who?

Outdated in Jewish law, which at least by 200 CE had accepted the notion of monetary compensation for bodily injury. IE it interpretated an eye for an eye as the WORTH of an eye, for an eye.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Verres


Fine, you want me to get graphic? It was rape. Not violent as some of you no doubt see it, but violent to me - ok?

Don't paint everyone the same.

To me, all rape is violent. Period . . . it makes no difference why the victiim submitted . . . . it remains despicable violence.

[GePap]

Justice has little is anything to do with the "victim". That is why all criminal cases are between the defendant and THE STATE. The criminal jsutice system exists not to make the victim feel nice, nor give them retribution, nor to have any sort of proportionality to punishment- it is in fact designed to maintain the social order- punishment then is based on what is assumed to maintain the social order.

I know people like to talk about how violent criminals get off easy- what about the vast mayority of criminals thought? How is several years in prison for the theft of property at all "an eye for an eye"? If I stole $3000, shouldn;t my wages be garnished for a few months in order to repay the theft? Why is that not the restitution as opposed to spending time in jail while the victim might never see their property ever again?

Or what about putting people in jail for using something on themselves? The notion of eye for an eye does not evenb make sense there, and yet such laws exist.

NO,I do not support eye for an eye-the entire point of the criminal justice system is to end such a practice. More importantly, retribution never actually makes the victim fell safe or whole again. NO external even could ever really do that.

[Ramo]

Gandhi himeslf admitted that this would not have worked , say , if the Jews tried it with Hitler . He'd have tried to kill them anyway .

Actually, he advocated nonviolent resistance for them.

Speaking of which, Orwell had some interesting things to say about Gandhi.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Veres - hope you end up OK. I would have been married to a different lady than my current wife except 20 years ago she was raped on campus. She wouldn't even report it because she said if her dad or I found out who did it, we would kill the S*B.

What was sad I knew jack about the effects on women - I just knew something was very wrong, because we were just on the edge of being intimate, it had gotten very hot a few times, and suddenly she was like a zombie. I wish now I knew what I didn't then, with counseling and the like we might have made it. I succumbed to her withdrawal and finally gave up. :sad: I hope you are getting counseling and have good support.

I also have dated a victim of rape ( I believe the rapist only got 5 years but thats another topic). It was years after the crime and she had dated and been intimate with others in the intervening years but it was still really big. She couldn't bear to feel trapped or be pinned down and had a pair of pistols under her bed.

I think its one of those things that no one can truly comprehend unless they experience it.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by aneeshm

He is the first man to have catalysed laziness into a weapon . What was his biggest message - to do nothing

That's a pretty ignorant thing to say.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
Justice has little is anything to do with the "victim". That is why all criminal cases are between the defendant and THE STATE. The criminal jsutice system exists not to make the victim feel nice, nor give them retribution, nor to have any sort of proportionality to punishment- it is in fact designed to maintain the social order- punishment then is based on what is assumed to maintain the social order.

I would have assumed that common knowledge but others arguing here seem to have a different thought process.

A quick question to the crowd, is it not true, that an eye for an eye derives from Hammurabi's code?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Justice has little is anything to do with the "victim". That is why all criminal cases are between the defendant and THE STATE. The criminal jsutice system exists not to make the victim feel nice, nor give them retribution, nor to have any sort of proportionality to punishment- it is in fact designed to maintain the social order- punishment then is based on what is assumed to maintain the social order.

Im not sure these are seperate - IIUC the full development of criminal law in England (a small part of the globe, but like many here my orientation toward the common law and its origins is strong) state punishment of criminals, beyond those who directly threatened royal interests, was largely an attempt to provide a substitute for traditional blood feud - ergo the punishment had to be heavy enough that the state could offer it as a true alternative, and ease the repression of blood feuds. Which themselves DID endanger the social order - in other words, while the states goal WAS to maintain social order for its own purpose, that maintenance required the suppression of private blood feud, and given the real limits on state power at the time, this required making victims (or rather their families in the case of murders, where blood feud was more of an issue) satisfied with the punishment, at least to some degree.

Clearly punishment has since evolved, as have attitudes to blood feud, the real power of the state, citizen attitudes toward the state (and their role in it) etc. However I think there is still a degree to which "underpunishment" can endanger the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and encourage remnants of the private blood feud, in terms of vigilante justice. Whether this is consistent or not, reflects an accurate view of the criminal justice system or not, and how it varies across cultures is a complex question.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Gandhi himeslf admitted that this would not have worked , say , if the Jews tried it with Hitler . He'd have tried to kill them anyway .

Actually he said he'd die with dignity.

[Ramo]

As for the question, revenge is wrong. Period.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

LotM, interesting. So severe sentencing was not so much a preventative measure against potential criminal behavior but moreso a means to curtail vigilantism.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Clearly punishment has since evolved, as have attitudes to blood feud, the real power of the state, citizen attitudes toward the state (and their role in it) etc. However I think there is still a degree to which "underpunishment" can endanger the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and encourage remnants of the private blood feud, in terms of vigilante justice. Whether this is consistent or not, reflects an accurate view of the criminal justice system or not, and how it varies across cultures is a complex question.

What about Overpunishment?

As for the remnants of private fueds, no system of law can change human beings: people seek revenge in my opinion because what they seek is to rectify as violantion of their power- the criminal in his act humiliated and debased one, made subordinate and weak the victim, and the victim seeks re-enpowerment throught doing the same to the criminal "rehumbling them". The failure of this is of course that in a system of more than two people, you can never really undo the feelings brought forth by the crime itself.

There is also the simple problem of being unable to quantify the payback ofr any crime- for example, given the crme that has been mentioned: what is the correct retribution for rape? Raping the rapist? Killing the rapist? Castrating the rapist? Each of those "solutions" might make sense, though not one of them is at all conclusive, and one may question with all of them the proportionality, which is correct, because in fact it is impossible to ever bring proportionality to such a heinous act- how can the criminal ever really feel the full extent of the pain they caused? And would punishment differ depending on the subsequent feelings of the victim?