Iran's 'eye for an eye' justice

[Angstrom]

I think we can all agree there are fundamental problems in some Arab criminal systems, as evident in this particular case.

I see we have two options to change them.

-Educate them on different ways to handle things .
-Go on a crusade to rid the world of them.

Here is a little glimpse at Arab culture changing in a positive way.

Shereen El Feki: Pop culture in the Arab world | Video on TED.com

Now we can't expect them to change in one generation. but the change is happening none-of-the-less. Look at the Jasmine Revolution. The main lady leading that said it all started when she took a USA funded university cource.

The goal of helping them find a more accepting culture is important to us all. We can all agree we don't want to share the world with violent hateful people. But its not something we can do for them, and we have to let them realize it on there own.

And that takes time.

They have a voice that wants to change for the better.
Empowering that voice is essential.

If we are giving money in Internatinal aid. Let it be so they can educate themselves with ideas. Some of Islam wants to evolve in the right dirrection. Empower that voice and let them find there own way.

 

[Cliffy]

-Go on a crusade to ride them of the world .

You mean - rid the world of them.

And you are right. It always amazes me how many on here get so indignant at what they perceive as barbaric and are ready to jump in their and act all barbaric to rid the world of barbarism without even being aware of the dichotomy of it all.Sometimes I don't think we have evolved all that much ourselves.

 

[Angstrom]

-Go on a crusade to ride them of the world .

You mean - rid the world of them.

And you are right. It always amazes me how many on here get so indignant at what they perceive as barbaric and are ready to jump in their and act all barbaric to rid the would of barbarism without even being aware of the dichotomy of it all.Sometimes I don't think we have evolved all that much ourselves.

Oups sorry fixed.


I think we have to start thinking differently.


And its not like our legal system is perfect ether. take a look

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/philip_howard.html
(its American but some of what happening there is happening here)

 

[Cliffy]

Oups sorry fixed.

And its not like our legal system is perfect ether. take a look

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/philip_howard.html

I find that we need to start looking at problem Stop and think. What can we do?

Yup, but when emotional issues like this pop up, thinking takes a holiday for most.

 

[Angstrom]

Yup, but when emotional issues like this pop up, thinking takes a holiday for most.

Here is the best in the businesses at resolving hard intentional issues.
Take a look at how he prossess thoughts.
I'm not saying we all have to have his opinion.
But the way he looks at a problem has some interesting points

http://www.ted.com/talks/william_ury.html

 

[YukonJack]

You were one of the guys cheering Osama's death, that was revenge right?

No, the death of Osama bin Laden was JUSTICE.

Capturing him alive, bringing him in front of a court, providing him with tax-payer funded lawyers and a politically correct jury would have been the total waste of time and money, not to mention the total miscarriage of justice.

In court rooms on either coasts, he probably would have been found not guilty and set free.

 

[MHz]

Well say someone kills my son and then in a revenge style of justice I, kill them. Would it not by your logic then be justice by revenge for their family kills me and my family kills them for that same revenge and so on, and so on.

Justice is not about revenge and retribution, that would only lead to anarchy of the worst kind.

Say your son does something wrong that would require his life, rather than the victim plotting revenge it should be you that kills your own son. In all likelihood you would be willing to kill people to defend his life.

Acid blinding sentence of Iranian man postponed - Telegraph

 

[CDNBear]

So how should the justice system protect individual rights?

By protecting the innocent, trying, convicting, sentencing the guilty.

That's how it should work.

I'm just trying to find out what your position is on this. I like to avoid assuming people's positions.

 

[Corduroy]

By protecting the innocent, trying, convicting, sentencing the guilty.

Why sentence the guilty?

I interpret the eye for an eye mentality as justified retribution and view it as an entirely personal approach to justice. So even if a murder is state sanctioned through capital punishment there will still be reasons for personal retribution. It is not a pick and choose issue, once you start to allow the personal will of the victim into the law it becomes easily applicable to all. You will rarely find a family member of a capital punishment recipient that doesn't feel like they are a victim themselves and would therefore be justified in assuming they are entitled to retribution if that is what justice has become.

Let me see if I understand you here. You're arguing that there is a slippery slope that if the justice system decides to consider the impact of a crime on the victim in sentencing, it will lead the criminals to believe (or people close to the criminals, or the whole of society) that there is no state and there is no law and that they are free to punish anyone whom they perceive as having wronged them. You're saying that the law personalizing justice makes people feel that criminal justice should be administered outside the law.

And so basically what you're saying is that retributive justice is neither retributive or justice. That there's something about the concept that makes the act of punishment itself an offence against the punished, making the original punishment not a punishment but a crime.

I'm not seeing how your logic is exclusive to this kind of justice. A friend of mine was assaulted recently (true story). When he called the police about it the officer asked if he would be pressing charges. He let my friend decide if the law should prosecute the man for assault. What's the difference between this personalized application of the law and the situation you've described? Now, I would say that it's ridiculous to argue that because my friend was given the choice to act within the law, the man who assaulted him would be logically justified in retaliating, but it's true that he certainly might feel he was justified, just as you've described above. Whatever punishment he receives for the assault might be too harsh in his opinion and that punishment would have been precipitated by my friend's choice to press charges, and my friend chose to press charges for this minor assault because he was outraged over the offence done to him and felt his assailant shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

I suppose that given your opinion of retributive justice, you believe that this situation shouldn't happen, that the officer should have never asked my friend if he wanted to press charges. And that if this situation had been such that my friend suffered monetary losses, the justice system should not order the accused to compensate, because isn't that too personalizing the crime? Might the accused feel the amount of compensation was unjust and therefore feel justified in robbing my friend at a later date?

A new axiom: tort leaves the whole world penniless.

Needs work, I know.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Let me see if I understand you here. You're arguing that there is a slippery slope that if the justice system decides to consider the impact of a crime on the victim in sentencing, it will lead the criminals to believe (or people close to the criminals, or the whole of society) that there is no state and there is no law and that they are free to punish anyone whom they perceive as having wronged them. You're saying that the law personalizing justice makes people feel that criminal justice should be administered outside the law.

The justice system does consider the impact to the victim already, that is why you see different sentences for the same crime depending on the circumstance. What I am saying is that by commiting the same crime upon the offender that they are accused of is a crime and they would then be justified in seeking retribution, I don't care if you hide it behind state sponsorship it is still a criminal act and you have a victim. That is why we have other methods of punishment in place, so we do not become criminals while punishing criminals.

And so basically what you're saying is that retributive justice is neither retributive or justice. That there's something about the concept that makes the act of punishment itself an offence against the punished, making the original punishment not a punishment but a crime

If the punishment is to re-enact the crime upon the offender then it is criminal, how hard is that to understand. I am not comfortable with becoming just as bad as someone who commits an offense against me, maybe you don't value your moral standing but I do.

I'm not seeing how your logic is exclusive to this kind of justice. A friend of mine was assaulted recently (true story). When he called the police about it the officer asked if he would be pressing charges. He let my friend decide if the law should prosecute the man for assault. What's the difference between this personalized application of the law and the situation you've described? Now, I would say that it's ridiculous to argue that because my friend was given the choice to act within the law, the man who assaulted him would be logically justified in retaliating, but it's true that he certainly might feel he was justified, just as you've described above. Whatever punishment he receives for the assault might be too harsh in his opinion and that punishment would have been precipitated by my friend's choice to press charges, and my friend chose to press charges for this minor assault because he was outraged over the offence done to him and felt his assailant shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

You leave out far to many details for me to even comment on the situation, was it an attack or mutual combat, was it a robbery,was it a domestic dispute? What I can say is that holding the offender down while your friend kicks the sh*t out of him may feel good to your friend and even seem like justice to some but it is a criminal act.

I suppose that given your opinion of retributive justice, you believe that this situation shouldn't happen, that the officer should have never asked my friend if he wanted to press charges. And that if this situation had been such that my friend suffered monetary losses, the justice system should not order the accused to compensate, because isn't that too personalizing the crime? Might the accused feel the amount of compensation was unjust and therefore feel justified in robbing my friend at a later date?

I don't know the situation and you only provide vague details so its hard to say. There are some instances wher the police have no discretion in pursuing charges and some where they can make a determination of the liklihood of the victim showing up for trial to testify. I will tell you that it was not really your friends choice but the cop's interpretation of the liklihood of success based upon your friends statements that determined whether it proceeded or not.

A new axiom: tort leaves the whole world penniless.

Tort law is quite different than criminal law. Tort law, or civil law as it is commonly called is about restoration, or being made whole. You cannot make someone whole after they have been murdered or raped with any amount of money in restitution which is why we have the 2 systems. There are points where they cross-over in principle and sometimes even application but you are comparing apple to oranges by mixing the 2 in this discussion.
Needs work, I know.

 

[shadowshiv]

Were you planning on throwing acid in someone's face? Oh it doesn't matter, you aren't Muslim and the laws would not apply to you regardless.

It may not apply to me, but it damned well would affect me. This is something that we do not need in our country, and I am glad that it got turned down.

 

[Corduroy]

The justice system does consider the impact to the victim already, that is why you see different sentences for the same crime depending on the circumstance. What I am saying is that by commiting the same crime upon the offender that they are accused of is a crime and they would then be justified in seeking retribution, I don't care if you hide it behind state sponsorship it is still a criminal act and you have a victim. That is why we have other methods of punishment in place, so we do not become criminals while punishing criminals.

Other methods like imprisonment?

You leave out far to many details for me to even comment on the situation, was it an attack or mutual combat, was it a robbery,was it a domestic dispute? What I can say is that holding the offender down while your friend kicks the sh*t out of him may feel good to your friend and even seem like justice to some but it is a criminal act.

Those details are irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that the decision to press charges in this case was up to my friend to decide. If he hadn't reported the incident or told the police officer he wouldn't be pressing charges, the case would not go through. Your argument that "once you start to allow the personal will of the victim into the law it becomes easily applicable to all" applies to this case because the personal will of the victim is entered into the law. Therefore, your idea that this would lead to retribution would also apply meaning that you should be against a victim in this case deciding to press charges. The decision should be up to the police entirely according to your logic

Tort law is quite different than criminal law. Tort law, or civil law as it is commonly called is about restoration, or being made whole. You cannot make someone whole after they have been murdered or raped with any amount of money in restitution which is why we have the 2 systems.

So if I win a civil case against a private citizen and am entitled to some kind of monetary restoration, who pays? Should the state pay me? How about some random guy they find on the street? It's about restoration right? Not about the person who caused the damages. The restoration could come from anywhere, right?

 

[PoliticalNick]

Other methods like imprisonment?

Imprisonment, community service, fines. All meted out after due process of law.

Those details are irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that the decision to press charges in this case was up to my friend to decide. If he hadn't reported the incident or told the police officer he wouldn't be pressing charges, the case would not go through. Your argument that "once you start to allow the personal will of the victim into the law it becomes easily applicable to all" applies to this case because the personal will of the victim is entered into the law. Therefore, your idea that this would lead to retribution would also apply meaning that you should be against a victim in this case deciding to press charges. The decision should be up to the police entirely according to your logic

If someone chooses not to report a crime then it is their decision, once it is reported they may have input but the decisions to proceed belong to the cops and the prosecuters. Sounds to me like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and doing your best to twist things to argue more. How about this, the next time you do something wrong to somebody, like run them over in your car, they can do it back with help from the state, I will choose the current system of law and justice over your neanderthal form of justice anyday.

So if I win a civil case against a private citizen and am entitled to some kind of monetary restoration, who pays? Should the state pay me? How about some random guy they find on the street? It's about restoration right? Not about the person who caused the damages. The restoration could come from anywhere, right?

Get it from the state??? you are funny! you are entitled to get it from the person, or entity who took it from you. Why would I and every other taxpayer give you cash because somebody breached a contract between the two of you. If that person doesn't have cash you can get an order for possesion and sale of any assets they have. If they have nothing of value you can hold the judgement over them til the cows come home in hopes you get something someday.

You leave me bewildered as to whether you don't understand the law, are just playing games, or are simply stupid.

 

[Praxius]

BARBARIANISM! Both the original attack and the proposed penalty!

And yet many in our societies support capital punishment..... but because they're going to do to him what he did to her, suddenly it's Barbarianism?

I could easily say it's Barbarianism to lock someone away in a small concrete room with bars and a toilet for years on end.

Regardless, it's all punishment and consequence for a criminal action.

Think it's harsh to drop acid on the guy and make him blind?

Then don't do it to others.

Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, as they say.

I think it's quite fair..... though I wouldn't have put the guy under and just let him suffer as much as she did.

 

[MHz]

With the proposed punishment being cancelled can it be determined if it was the State that said no (while knowing from the beginning that it would have to be stopped but let it (the proposed blinding) run to the last few hours as a 'form of extra-punishment' in that he probably pissed himself several times before the news was released to him).

Maybe the woman herself asked that her own wishes not be granted, either way all the charges of barbarism are unfounded. I admit my wanting her to be given input is rather heathen but then so is the damage to her person. My current blood-lust level would be fulfilled if they could literally take an eye from him and implant it in her to replace the one she lost. He would be the perfect 'donor' should she need any 'skin' in a "high dollar' attempt to repair her injury.

I would bet nobody (here) knows the fate of the woman who was not stoned for adultery just a few months ago. She was spared at the request of her children, the trial to determine her guilt about killing her husband (with another man) was not yet over the last time I saw any new article.

 

[Colpy]

I believe vengence is often justice.

But I also believe vengence is outside the legitimate parameters of state power.

If you wish vengence, take it......and understand that you may be leaving yourself open to prosecution and penalty by the state.....depending on the opinion of a jury.

The state's justice must be blind, and uninvolved.

 

[MHz]

The state's justice must be blind, and uninvolved.

With some members of the history dept going to prison I would think there will be many more as the chain of command is put on trial. It would certainly be incentive for the next wave of Politicians to 'toe the legal line'.
Does that include giving medical care when 'needed', such as with the whole family mentioned in the article below?

Egypt official says Mubarak's wife feeling better - Yahoo! News

Mrs. Mubarak fainted and suffered chest pains following a three-hour interrogation Friday which ended with a decision to detain her for 15 days as prosecutors looked at the sources of her wealth. The wife of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak has been accused of taking advantage of his position for personal gain.

 

[petros]

I believe vengence is often justice.

But I also believe vengence is outside the legitimate parameters of state power.

If you wish vengence, take it......and understand that you may be leaving yourself open to prosecution and penalty by the state.....depending on the opinion of a jury.

The state's justice must be blind, and uninvolved.

Vengence has many forms inside of Justice. This vicim is geting justice through horrific vengence. You bring up an important point that of a jury. Does Sharia have a jury system that reccomend the form of venegence that gives the victim justice. Did the victim feel it gave her justice? If so then horrific as it sounds true justice was achieved.

You or I may not approve but in the end it is the victims who should be put first. Cruel as it is I'd say the likelihood of some asshole scarring and blinding a woman or life with acid again in Iran won't happen until a generation or two has fogetten the consequence.

 

[MHz]

Did the victim feel it gave her justice? If so then horrific as it sounds true justice was achieved.

You or I may not approve but in the end it is the victims who should be put first.

Blinding the man was according to the desires of the woman, the State did not come up with the punishment.

The proposed blinding did not take place so her form of justice was not achieved. If the State stopped the proposed punishment then the State is paying attention to human rights

Perhaps the court will award her all his future earnings, much higher in value if the man can see.

 

[CDNBear]

Why sentence the guilty?

Punitively as a reminder to not do it again, protectively, to make sure society is safe from the criminal.