An Eye for an Eye - Literally

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h5f3B-Kb1SjRRDSOe4mX8g_J1FFg

In November an Iranian court ruled that the man -- identified only as Majid -- who admitted blinding Bahrami in 2004 by throwing acid in her face because she rejected his marriage request should also be blinded with acid based on the Islamic law system of "eye-for-an-eye" retribution.
Iran's supreme court confirmed the sentence at the beginning of February.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Let the punishment fit the crime"?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

That should be the rule over here as well.

 

[kaizasosei]

'An eye for an eye' is the law as i perceive it. However, the new testament calls for mercy and true ending of suffering through forgiveness and repentance. You can force a punishment on someone, but you can't 'force' someone to repent or to forgive as easily. But repentance and forgiveness beat punishments any day. Because punishments tend to cause more suffering, rejection and violence and then some. Plus they often don't really benefit anyone or anthing.

Shouldn't it be enough for the law to know that if absolutely need be, that they 'can' punish'? Imagine someone were to take away the the governments and individuals right to punish or even the right to be wrong. There would be no more crime to punish but noone would have free will either..
so it boils down to the punishment being just another part of the crime actually.

still i agree that the punishment fits the crime in this case, but i do acknowledge that it is unfortunately, or fortunately, not that simple.

j



j

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Christian concepts do not equate to Islamic Law.

 

[cdunn]

Savage and brutal vengance for a savage and brutal act, for which there can be no true restitution. It is disgusting. I fully expect the woman at the center of this to be murdered by the man's clan within three years.

The positive to this whole thing, I suppose, is a subset Iranian imams agreeing that it's actually possible, and maybe even desirable, to punish men for crimes against women.

 

[The Last Legionary]

See, progress.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Savage and brutal vengance for a savage and brutal act, for which there can be no true restitution. It is disgusting. I fully expect the woman at the center of this to be murdered by the man's clan within three years.

The positive to this whole thing, I suppose, is a subset Iranian imams agreeing that it's actually possible, and maybe even desirable, to punish men for crimes against women.

If her clan protects her like they are supposed to she will not be murdered within three years.
Sean

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If her clan protects her like they are supposed to she will not be murdered within three years.
Sean

Except if the guy had raped her instead of pouring acid on her, they'd have killed her themselves. Well, I'm just saying...Sharia Law and all [walks away mumbling...]

 

[CuongNhuka]

Christian concepts do not equate to Islamic Law.

'Eye for an Eye' is in the Old Testiment of the Christian Bible, and therefor the Torah as well. Infact, a similar concept is Bahai and Confuscianism (if I'm not mistaken). The idea of 'let the punishment fit the crime' came about later in Enlightenment. Until that point, the punishment for almost everything was death. And the punishment for almost everything now in Western Societys is jail or probation. So, this aspect of Sharia Law fits not only the Western Moral Base (Christianity/Judaism) but also our Intillectual Base (The Enlightenment). Haha

 

[AoCAdam]

Well isn't that ironic.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I don't mind the eye for an eye method of punishment.
I think I would pass on most of the other islamic law stuff I have heard about though.
but ya the eye for an eye is appealing to me... can you imagine the looks on some of these rapists eyes when told what eye for an eye means.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

... can you imagine the looks on some of these rapists eyes when told what eye for an eye means.

And then they are turned loose on the streets again, free to do it again.

The theory of 'eye for an eye' if taken literally, may not suffice as a deterrent. It may not even be punishment. For some crimes, there may not even be an appropriate offsetting transgression that can be performed on the original perpetrator.

If a rapist is himself raped - one presumes that he won't like it. But he may find it preferable to many years in prison. And how does one apply 'eye for an eye' to a bank robber? Steal his money? Chances are, he hasn't got any. If a man murders your wife - do you get to murder his wife? What did she to to deserve that? And so on.

I think that perhaps 'eye for an eye' was not meant to be taken literally, as they used to in the Old Testament and still do in the Koran. Perhaps it is meant to say that the seriousness of the punishment should match the seriousness of the crime.

I do understand that the concept of 'an eye for an eye' has an emotional satisfaction to it, a thought that a criminal is 'getting what they deserve'. In some cases, perhaps. In others, I don't see how that could be so.

And in any case, we have to ask ourselves what the ultimate goal of punishment is. One might believe that the ultimate goal of punishing criminals is to keep them from transgressing again. While our existing penal system is woefully incapable of doing that, I am wondering how a man raped in return for his raping a woman would keep him from doing it again, either.

 

[CuongNhuka]

The theory of 'eye for an eye' if taken literally, may not suffice as a deterrent.

My friend, you shot at the right target, but missed it completly. If you don't mind my saying.
The idea of 'eye for an eye' is not meant (in the Enlightened era) to be for emotional satisfaction, but to make the perpertator understand (better) why what he did was wrong. It was meant to be almost a form of education. So, deterrent it is not.

If a rapist is himself raped - one presumes that he won't like it. But he may find it preferable to many years in prison. And how does one apply 'eye for an eye' to a bank robber? Steal his money? Chances are, he hasn't got any. If a man murders your wife - do you get to murder his wife? What did she to to deserve that? And so on.

Ironic Punishment (what 'eye for an eye' became in the Enlightened Era) is not a perfect concept. Rape wasn't really a crime at the time. A modern thinker who held the same concept (like I do) would say that some crimes would come with mental counseling. And rapist are amoung the most likely to re-offend, leading some crimologist to think it may be partly a mental disorder/partly induced by a mental disorder.
A robber who himself had no money would be made to do labor until he could repay bank, and produce the same amount of money. What to do with that money is a sticky problem with differnit people thinking differnit things.
Instances of murder are the easiest. You killed someone, you die also. So, it is not so much a matter of 'he killed my wife (implying the crime was against you), so I can kill his wife'. It is a matter of 'he killed someone, he is going to die'. And returning homicide with death is because the thought is that killers are too dangerous to risk re-offending.

I think that perhaps 'eye for an eye' was not meant to be taken literally, as they used to in the Old Testament and still do in the Koran. Perhaps it is meant to say that the seriousness of the punishment should match the seriousness of the crime.

How so? I've seen statistics that something like 60% of imprisoned crimminals will re-offened within 3 years causing another prison sentence. That (in of itself) tells me the system is brocken. I cann't think of another way to have the gravity of the punishment fit the gravity of the crime.

And in any case, we have to ask ourselves what the ultimate goal of punishment is. One might believe that the ultimate goal of punishing criminals is to keep them from transgressing again. While our existing penal system is woefully incapable of doing that, I am wondering how a man raped in return for his raping a woman would keep him from doing it again, either.

For enlightened era thinkers the purpose of punishment is to make crimminals understand why what they did was wrong. If someone goes out and gets drunk, and then picks fights, throwing him jail for a few years will probably do little do discourage him from doing it again. But, breaking his ribs will probably make him sit back and go 'man, this really hurts. I geuss this is why it's illegal to fight'. OK, this is probably not going to happen, but the effect in the persons subconsious would be essentially the same in many cases. Yes, sometimes counseling, or creative thinking, will be needed (ie, drugs), but as a whole it is a more rational approach to punishment then jail.

 

[Twin Fist]

under islamic law, rape is seldome punished, when it is, it is punished by castration.

thieves have thier hands cut off.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Where's Hammurabi when you need him.