An Eye for an Eye

[Terminator X]

8Ace said:

But intentionally paralysing someone? Really?

It's the coldness and premeditated nature of the punishment that I find to be stuff of nightmares.

Would you feel the same if you or yours had been paralysed in a knife attack 10yrs ago? Can't see much wrong with it myself esp seeing as penalties for knife crime in the UK are a joke.

TX.

[Victor McDade]

I was paralysed from the waist down last year after fracturing a vertebrae.

However, had it been caused by a stabbing I really really wouldn't want the perpetrator to share my fate - it's barbaric.

Although, funnily enough if the hypothetical victim here was a family member or a loved one I wouldn't be so sure what my answer would be.

[mx5tom]

To the people justifying this kind of "justice" by relating to what you would want if you were (or knew) the victim; this is exactly why the victim should have no say in the sentencing. If you're the victim of crime, you're almost certainly going to let your emotions cloud your judgement and will not look at the situation in the same manner as an independent third-party.

This shouldn't be about revenge, it should be about a fair punishment and if possible, reform. I don't think revenge has any role in a justice system.

I naturally feel sorry for the guy who was paralysed, but the idea of paralysing the criminal is, as others have said, completely barbaric.

[Twincam16]

mx5tom said:

To the people justifying this kind of "justice" by relating to what you would want if you were (or knew) the victim; this is exactly why the victim should have no say in the sentencing. If you're the victim of crime, you're almost certainly going to let your emotions cloud your judgement and will not look at the situation in the same manner as an independent third-party.

This shouldn't be about revenge, it should be about a fair punishment and if possible, reform. I don't think revenge has any role in a justice system.

I naturally feel sorry for the guy who was paralysed, but the idea of paralysing the criminal is, as others have said, completely barbaric.

Also, it should be pointed out that the guy who stabbed the paralysed man was 14 at the time of the attack.

In most civilised countries, he'd be taken into a youth detention centre to work out what a child could be so disturbed as to do such a thing, and a psychological treatment carried out. You're not the same person at 14 as you are when you're 24. You're still a child, you're still learning, and you're full of hormones and do crazy, impulsive things. At 14 I had a penchant for setting fire to things. Usually it was in an attempt to make my own fireworks by finding things marked 'flammable' in the garden shed and setting alight to them. A mate of mine did it too.

If I'd accidentally set fire to him, even if I was really, really sorry and it haunted me for the rest of my life, would it be 'justice' to burn me at the stake aged 24?

[Mario149]

AJS- said:

Would you really?

With an execution I can see it. The sense of closure. The ultimate sanction. And in a sense some revenge; though choosing between being paralysed by stabbing or killed by lethal injection wouldn't be an easy choice.

The thought of someone being purposely and deliberately maimed on my behalf is just foul. What possible benefit or satisfaction could it give you?

I kinda see it the other way round. I see zero moral/ethical difference between:

1) executing a murderer
2) paralysing someone from the waist down who paralysed their victim from say the waist down (either deliberately, or say as a result of trying to murder them)

Both are abhorrent to me, with (1) being the worst. If someone supports (1) but not (2) then in my opinion they're making excuses to themselves about capital punishment and it smacks somewhat of hypocrisy. Both are judicial violence and I fail to see how killing someone can be better than disabling them.

[TheHeretic]

Paralysing the crim seems to be punishing his family as well. It is presumably they who will have to care for him or the rest of his life.

[Mermaid]

TheHeretic said:

Paralysing the crim seems to be punishing his family as well. It is presumably they who will have to care for him or the rest of his life.

If this was happening in a non oil rich state, we would have sent them a stern letter by now.

[Mario149]

TheHeretic said:

Paralysing the crim seems to be punishing his family as well. It is presumably they who will have to care for him or the rest of his life.

Is that in the context of my CP vs paralysing post above? If so, I would argue that the family would rather have a paralysed son than a dead one!

[Mermaid]

Mario149 said:

I would argue that the family would rather have a paralysed son than a dead one!

Not sure about that. Sad, sad situation. Surely some rich Arab sheikh can find a $1m down the back of the sofa and pay off the injured party.

[TheHeretic]

Mario149 said:

TheHeretic said:

Paralysing the crim seems to be punishing his family as well. It is presumably they who will have to care for him or the rest of his life.

Is that in the context of my CP vs paralysing post above? If so, I would argue that the family would rather have a paralysed son than a dead one!

I'm sure they would, but it is still punishing the family.

[Vipers]

All said and done, they live there, they should be aware of the potential consequences of their actions.

As you enter Changi airport in Singapore, there used to be a big sign saying "The penalty for drug trafficking is death", so there is no point in bleating when one is caught.

I still think its barbaric though.

[TheHeretic]

I think they are different arguments. People know the rules, yes. But as you say, we can think them barbaric all the same.

[Vipers]

TheHeretic said:

I think they are different arguments. People know the rules, yes. But as you say, we can think them barbaric all the same.

Wasn't making arguments, just stating two facts.

[carreauchompeur]

Vipers said:

As you enter Changi airport in Singapore, there used to be a big sign saying "The penalty for drug trafficking is death"

It's still there. I'm always bizarrely nervous when transiting through foreign borders and this sign, in big red ink, didn't exactly help! And no, I didn't have 20 johnnies full of cocaine in my stomach.

[Terminator X]

mx5tom said:

This shouldn't be about revenge, it should be about a fair punishment and if possible, reform. I don't think revenge has any role in a justice system.

You call it revenge yet I see it as doing to the criminal what he did to his victim. Why is it different - the crim seemed to have no problem putting his mate in a wheelchair forever more? What do you expect to happen when you stab someone in the spine ffs.

TX.

[AJS-]

Mario149 said:

AJS- said:

Would you really?

With an execution I can see it. The sense of closure. The ultimate sanction. And in a sense some revenge; though choosing between being paralysed by stabbing or killed by lethal injection wouldn't be an easy choice.

The thought of someone being purposely and deliberately maimed on my behalf is just foul. What possible benefit or satisfaction could it give you?

I kinda see it the other way round. I see zero moral/ethical difference between:

1) executing a murderer
2) paralysing someone from the waist down who paralysed their victim from say the waist down (either deliberately, or say as a result of trying to murder them)

Both are abhorrent to me, with (1) being the worst. If someone supports (1) but not (2) then in my opinion they're making excuses to themselves about capital punishment and it smacks somewhat of hypocrisy. Both are judicial violence and I fail to see how killing someone can be better than disabling them.

That would hold up if the method 9f carrying out a judicial execution was designed to mirror the method of murder. If the courts sentenced people to be stabbed in the stomach and bled to death, or have the life kicked out of them by a group of thugs. It's perfectly possible to carry out a death sentence without that sort of barbarism though. It's still necessarily brutal and unpleasant but need not be sadistic and perverse in this way.

From a more abstract, moral point of view the difference is not the level of pain inflicted but the justification for killing someone and the intention behind doing so. If it is done to even up some scorecard or to complete some imaginary karmic circle then it is logical that the pain should be equal to the pain of the victim. This is bound to lead to sadism and awfulness. On the other hand if the penalty is done only to remove the worst individuals from society then there are much more humane ways to do so and no reason not to use them.

I can imagine circumstances where I would want someone dead. The murder of a loved one or some permanent disability inflicted by mindless violence could do that. The method used to actually kill the person and the level of pain inflicted are of no concern. However I just can't possibly imagine wishing someone paralysed, let alone going to a court of law and requesting this be done.

All of that said, I've never been any part of the above equation and I dearly hope never to be, so speculation as to how I might feel then is pure guess work.

[Mario149]

TheHeretic said:

I'm sure they would, but it is still punishing the family.

Thing is, killing someone is punishing the family as well. Denying them the opportunity to ever see them again, visit them even if in gaol etc etc.

[ClassicMotorNut]

It's not often that I find myself supporting Islam but I am in favour of their corporal punishment. If someone causes paralysis to someone else (for no good reason) I can't see why they should not have to suffer in the same way. They have caused a person to be in extreme suffering for their whole life so they should, at the very least, be punished in the same manner.

[ClassicMotorNut]

WeirdNeville said:

ClassicMotorNut said:

It's not often that I find myself supporting Islam but I am in favour of their corporal punishment. If someone causes paralysis to someone else (for no good reason) I can't see why they should not have to suffer in the same way. They have caused a person to be in extreme suffering for their whole life so they should, at the very least, be punished in the same manner.

doesn't help anyone though, does it?

It helps the people who might have been Ali's future victims. It doesn't help that the article is very vague, it doesn't say why Ali stabbed his friend or what the circumstances were. If it was done with malicious intent though, I'd say that paralysis is the least he deserves.

[TheHeretic]

ClassicMotorNut said:

It's not often that I find myself supporting Islam but I am in favour of their corporal punishment. If someone causes paralysis to someone else (for no good reason) I can't see why they should not have to suffer in the same way. They have caused a person to be in extreme suffering for their whole life so they should, at the very least, be punished in the same manner.

Lets hope they don't get the wrong person then, hey? Imagine a scenario whereby they do get the wrong person.. You can release a jailed person...