An eye for an eye punishment in Iran...literally

[imported_apocalypse]

Originally posted by: Xylitol
no they wouldn't - they're just afraid of dying like me

Dying by being shot verses dying by torture or acid blinding?

 

[gorcorps]

Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

That's not very Christian.

Barring Texas and some of those other nutty states, most would probably agree that an eye for an eye is a very barbaric means of punishment. I'm sure it's very satisfying for the victim and their family, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[CKent]

I like the idea, but not all the other stuff that goes with it (burquas, jihads, elaborate moustaches on women, etc.)

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

That's not very Christian.

Barring Texas and some of those other nutty states, most would probably agree that an eye for an eye is a very barbaric means of punishment. I'm sure it's very satisfying for the victim and their family, but that doesn't make it right.

What's more Christian than torture?

Anyway, everyone's Robocop on the internet. I don't support the death penalty because it's state-sponsored murder. So, I'd have to oppose state-sponsored torture as well. But it's Iran, so who cares. They're national past time is human rights violation.

 

[Ns1]

Sounds reasonable to me

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

That's not very Christian.

Barring Texas and some of those other nutty states, most would probably agree that an eye for an eye is a very barbaric means of punishment. I'm sure it's very satisfying for the victim and their family, but that doesn't make it right.

Why not? Seems perfectly right to me. Allow the victim to decide if they want to have mercy on the perp, or have the same thing done to the perp as what the perp did to the victim. I don't see any problem with this.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

That's not very Christian.

Barring Texas and some of those other nutty states, most would probably agree that an eye for an eye is a very barbaric means of punishment. I'm sure it's very satisfying for the victim and their family, but that doesn't make it right.

Why not? Seems perfectly right to me. Allow the victim to decide if they want to have mercy on the perp, or have the same thing done to the perp as what the perp did to the victim. I don't see any problem with this.

That's because you're a sociopath. Sorry you had you find out like this.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

That's not very Christian.

Barring Texas and some of those other nutty states, most would probably agree that an eye for an eye is a very barbaric means of punishment. I'm sure it's very satisfying for the victim and their family, but that doesn't make it right.

Why isn't it right? The perp picked the method himself, what cause does he have to say that it should not apply to him, only to his victims? Take your time on this one, I'm dying to hear the answer.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

That's not very Christian.

Barring Texas and some of those other nutty states, most would probably agree that an eye for an eye is a very barbaric means of punishment. I'm sure it's very satisfying for the victim and their family, but that doesn't make it right.

Why not? Seems perfectly right to me. Allow the victim to decide if they want to have mercy on the perp, or have the same thing done to the perp as what the perp did to the victim. I don't see any problem with this.

That's because you're a sociopath. Sorry you had you find out like this.

Oh yes, very likely. Just because I have a different opinion than you as to what constitutes "fairness", I must be a sociopath. Idiot.

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

That's not very Christian.

Barring Texas and some of those other nutty states, most would probably agree that an eye for an eye is a very barbaric means of punishment. I'm sure it's very satisfying for the victim and their family, but that doesn't make it right.

Good, because I'm NOT very Christian and neither are a lot of people. Do you feel our current system is the best way? Give the criminals free food and 'bunkmate' for a few years and hope they come out okay? Fuck that. I don't want to pay taxes to make them better. For things like stealing and such it's fine, but for planned assault/murder/rape it's a waste of time and money.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

That's not very Christian.

Barring Texas and some of those other nutty states, most would probably agree that an eye for an eye is a very barbaric means of punishment. I'm sure it's very satisfying for the victim and their family, but that doesn't make it right.

Why not? Seems perfectly right to me. Allow the victim to decide if they want to have mercy on the perp, or have the same thing done to the perp as what the perp did to the victim. I don't see any problem with this.

That's because you're a sociopath. Sorry you had you find out like this.

Oh yes, very likely. Just because I have a different opinion than you as to what constitutes "fairness", I must be a sociopath. Idiot.

It's not my fault you have a sociopathic opinion. Personally, I'd blame your parents.

 

[andylawcc]

whao, women have rights in Iran?

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

That's not very Christian.

Barring Texas and some of those other nutty states, most would probably agree that an eye for an eye is a very barbaric means of punishment. I'm sure it's very satisfying for the victim and their family, but that doesn't make it right.

Good, because I'm NOT very Christian and neither are a lot of people. Do you feel our current system is the best way? Give the criminals free food and 'bunkmate' for a few years and hope they come out okay? Fuck that. I don't want to pay taxes to make them better. For things like stealing and such it's fine, but for planned assault/murder/rape it's a waste of time and money.

If it wasn't for the fact that I don't trust the justice system to "get it right" in terms of determining guilt, I'd favor the death penalty for a variety of offenses. Not the "appeal for 20 years and perhaps some day get executed" kind either. Swift justice. Unfortunately, that would result in lots of innocents getting executed, so it's not feasible.

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

That's not very Christian.

Barring Texas and some of those other nutty states, most would probably agree that an eye for an eye is a very barbaric means of punishment. I'm sure it's very satisfying for the victim and their family, but that doesn't make it right.

Good, because I'm NOT very Christian and neither are a lot of people. Do you feel our current system is the best way? Give the criminals free food and 'bunkmate' for a few years and hope they come out okay? Fuck that. I don't want to pay taxes to make them better. For things like stealing and such it's fine, but for planned assault/murder/rape it's a waste of time and money.

If it wasn't for the fact that I don't trust the justice system to "get it right" in terms of determining guilt, I'd favor the death penalty for a variety of offenses. Not the "appeal for 20 years and perhaps some day get executed" kind either. Swift justice. Unfortunately, that would result in lots of innocents getting executed, so it's not feasible.

That's fair enough. Could we at least get rid of the those that pled guilty of murder/rape? Sure they admitted it, but they still did it and gave 100% definitive proof.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

That's not very Christian.

Barring Texas and some of those other nutty states, most would probably agree that an eye for an eye is a very barbaric means of punishment. I'm sure it's very satisfying for the victim and their family, but that doesn't make it right.

Good, because I'm NOT very Christian and neither are a lot of people. Do you feel our current system is the best way? Give the criminals free food and 'bunkmate' for a few years and hope they come out okay? Fuck that. I don't want to pay taxes to make them better. For things like stealing and such it's fine, but for planned assault/murder/rape it's a waste of time and money.

Then at least you're not a hypocrite -- thought I might be able to catch you in a "gotcha." I'm sure there is no shortage of devout Christians who support capital punishment, or even an eye for an eye, despite the fact that it goes completely against Christian teachings about turning the other cheek.

FWIW, I'm not even against capital punishment in certain cases. I still don't really agree with it, but if a person is a severe threat to society and there is little/no hope of rehabilitation, execution is more practical than letting them rot in jail.

I just think stooping down to the same level as the criminals is pretty messed up. There will always be wackos that do crap like in the article, but as a society we are above this kind of behavior, so we shouldn't be making it an integral part of our justice system.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

That's not very Christian.

Barring Texas and some of those other nutty states, most would probably agree that an eye for an eye is a very barbaric means of punishment. I'm sure it's very satisfying for the victim and their family, but that doesn't make it right.

Why isn't it right? The perp picked the method himself, what cause does he have to say that it should not apply to him, only to his victims? Take your time on this one, I'm dying to hear the answer.

OK, so who's going to inflict the punishment? The victim? Doubt it. So you have some guy whose officially sanctioned job is to inflict barbaric punishments onto someone with no repercussions...sounds a little off to me. Who do you hire, a sadist? It's all very well and good to find satisfaction in your work, but in this case I'd think that it would be a bad thing. But who else would agree to do it?

 

[xanis]

I hate to say it but... that guy deserved exactly what he got.

 

[halik]

Actually that makes for a great deterrent, I bet people will think twice about doing crap like that.

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: gorcorps

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Only thing I know of that makes me wish we were more like Iran. Eye for an eye, literally, is the best way to go IMO.

That's not very Christian.

Barring Texas and some of those other nutty states, most would probably agree that an eye for an eye is a very barbaric means of punishment. I'm sure it's very satisfying for the victim and their family, but that doesn't make it right.

Good, because I'm NOT very Christian and neither are a lot of people. Do you feel our current system is the best way? Give the criminals free food and 'bunkmate' for a few years and hope they come out okay? Fuck that. I don't want to pay taxes to make them better. For things like stealing and such it's fine, but for planned assault/murder/rape it's a waste of time and money.

Then at least you're not a hypocrite -- thought I might be able to catch you in a "gotcha." I'm sure there is no shortage of devout Christians who support capital punishment, or even an eye for an eye, despite the fact that it goes completely against Christian teachings about turning the other cheek.

FWIW, I'm not even against capital punishment in certain cases. I still don't really agree with it, but if a person is a severe threat to society and there is little/no hope of rehabilitation, execution is more practical than letting them rot in jail.

I just think stooping down to the same level as the criminals is pretty messed up. There will always be wackos that do crap like in the article, but as a society we are above this kind of behavior, so we shouldn't be making it an integral part of our justice system.

For me it isn't 'justice' if somebody gets put in prison for murder. They took somebody out of their life, which effects hundreds or even thousands of people they knew, and our best punishment is to keep them in a building for an extended period of time? Sometimes not even for life? It's not a justice system anymore, it's a central 'time out' process.

 

[frostedflakes]

I guess that's where we differ. For me, it's more about keeping potentially dangerous people isolated from society so they don't hurt others, as opposed to making them suffer as much as their victims.

 

[IEC]

Just riddle 'em full of bullets. Cheaper and no long-term costs.

/half sarcastic

 

[Xylitol]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I guess that's where we differ. For me, it's more about keeping potentially dangerous people isolated from society so they don't hurt others, as opposed to making them suffer as much as their victims.

and then when they get back out of prison, they do the same crimes because they got to watch cable tv, eat 3 hot meals a day, and have a bed.

 

[frostedflakes]

Don't get me wrong, if you commit a crime there should obviously be some form of punishment as a deterrent. I just think an eye for an eye is taking that too far.

 

[IGBT]

..the secular progressives say all cultures are equal.