By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Women gets to drip acid into a mans eyes by court rule

sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

For the record... Hammurabi's code wasn't so much an eye for an eye as...

Your life for an eye if you were of a lower class.

Some lashes for an eye if you were of a higher class

Some money for an eye if you aren't a slave and he was.

Your master's money for an eye if you arewertyu a slave and his slave wasn't.

An eye for an eye if you were even class.

The government shall repay you for anyhing you lost of "natural" misfortune if you swear to god you lost it due to natural misfortune... even if you didn't lose anything.

 As long as you rent something or someone from someone and claim to god that it broke or died of natural causes your in the clear.

The Babylonians believed in "God"?


Not the Christian god... but yeah, they believed in gods.  When they refer to "God" they mean Marduk the creator god.

Hamruabi's code was written "By the will of god" and generally talks a lot about the roll of nuns (Or rather ther version) and the importance of swearing to god.


Whole thing starts off

"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind."

http://www.constitution.org/ime/hammurabi.htm



Around the Network
vlad321 said:
Rath said:

I'm always surprised and disturbed by how many people in the West support the ideas of Sharia law.


And I am disturbed how many idealists, or lack of realists, there are in the West.


Not wanting to pour acid into peoples eyes is not a lack of realism! We already don't do that, in reality it is not done in Western countries. As such it clearly is realistic to believe in a justice system that works and does not involve pouring acid into peoples eyes.



vlad321 said:
highwaystar101 said:

If I was a sociopath who wanted to hurt someone, then making me blind would do little to deter me. And there are always ways to cause damage or hurt someone, even if you're blind.

However, providing psychiatric treatment to the person will break their sociopathis behaviour. It may be hard, they may try to resist like you say. But being persistent with the help will mean that one day they will be less dangerous.

Look at prison reform in the 18th and 19th centuries. Prison was a place of mental and physical torture, yet reoffending rates were through the roof. Back then people would have their identity stripped and were forced to perform manual repetitive tasks that kept them exhausted and in constant pain. Why would anyone want to go back to that? It was because when they were released from prison they were still in the same position as before. They didn't want to go back, but they couldn't change their behaviour.

The reformers found that to stop reoffending the cycle had to be broken, which is not accomplished by punishing. If a person was reoffending ebcause he couldn't hold a job, then you would teach them a practical skill in prison that they could use when released. If a person had a mental issue that drove them to crime then you did all you could to correct that issue so it didn't cause them to reoffend later on.

I agree with everything you say, for all lesser crimes. There are however some crimes that are simply undeserving of any form of reform.

Oh yeah, absolutely. There are people like serial killers who it's probably better to just never let out because teh risk would be too high, even after attempted reform.



sapphi_snake said:

@vlad321:

Public hangings defeats my point? I even mentioned that only people in public executions would see the results, and therefore most would only hear of it by word of mouth. I defeated your counter argument before you even wrote it out. So there goes your counter-point.

You really didn't defeat my counter-argument at all. When you mention public executions, you're looking at them as the executions carried out today (private events, were only a few people are present). Back when such barbaric forms of punishment (which are essentially fetishized) were practiced they were a public even where everyone gathered around to watch (sort of like sports games). Also, they took place on a local level, so the whole community would view such a thing. Everyone had a clear image of the punishment omne would recieve. My point still stands.

You get to the crux of the problem. You can't just commit a person to jail without him committing a crime. If a person is mentally unstable, it is very much his fault nonetheless.If someone is harmful to society, for whatever reason, he is harmful to society. Mentla handicap does not absolve one from his crimes. Though it may mean that the purpose/intent of the crime may not have been as cruel.

O_O This is probably one of the most disturbing paragraphs I've read in a while. If a person suffers for mental illness it is not their fault (I've enver heard of a person intentionally making themselves go insane) and they are not responsable for their actions. Any psychiatrist would agree to this. It's just pure ignorance to ignore this (LOL).

I find it laughable that you equate murderers, rapists, and other such people with "people we don't like." Nice strawman fallacy you got going on there.

Really not a straw man argument. It's quite easy to label people as "evil" and wash your hands of them, rather than trying to understand them.

I was also not insulting you, I was just calling you idealistic and ignorant of human nature, because that is what you are.I was like that as well up until a little bit ago too, so there is nothng wrong with that, I don't feel like I was dumb or stupid back then. So I don't see why you feel insulted by that.

What understanding of human nature do you have?

Furthermore I would like to point out that this isn't just emotions speaking. What seperates our species from others is that we can function as a social group to achieve great things. Cheetahs run fast, lions can kill easily, bears are large and strong, humans work in a society. If someone can't function in society and is outright damaging to it, murderers and rapists obviously fall in this category, then those individuals can't be counted as human. Therefore killing them is no more inhumane than killing the bear/lion/dog/whatever that killed another human. Also, torture is only for those especially heinous crimes like child rape and murder. Those people deserve to experience the most excrutiating pain imaginable for what they did, and then die. Those types of people are lower than absolutely any living being, an ddeserve to be treated as such.

O_O Disturbing... Your reasoning is largely fueled by emotion and irrational beliefs. It's also like something out of the Old Testament. Your post clearly indicates that you enjoy torturing, and are probably a sociopath yourself. I hope one day you'll look back and be as terrified of what you said as I am now.

Edit: Torture is actually much milder than what most people believe will happen. Most people believe in eternal agony, being reincarnated as a worm, or other forms of eternal agony. I don't believe in fairy tales, so I want that eternal punishment to be exacted while the person is still alive. On the bright side, it isn't all eterntiy, just a few days, then it's over. So in fact I am much nicer than the majority of people on Earth.

No one deserves torture. Sorry.


So elt us see, you are claiming that everyone in the olden days had been exposed to public executions? I somehow HIGHLY doubt that. The best case you can make is the French Revolution, however by the end everyone knew people were being killed left and right for no good reason, just look at Lavoisier. Therefore they lost all form of meaning. Furthermore did they have child rapists/urderers in every town for them to see such punishment. Your entire point is just laughably bad, trying to make it out as if there was information proliferation on the scale of the internet/TV/radio way back in the day. Your point is faulty and full of holes, I am sorry.

Ok, maybe I gave you too much credit then. There is a nice objective way of determening the differences between a murerer/rapist/etc. and just a person you don't like. If you can't realize that, then I can see how the pisspoor strawman argument makes sense to you.

I also don;t see how you think I nejoy torture, I jsut think it's necessary. Pretty big difference between the two, but I am not sure if you are able to tell the difference. I also expected you to come up with some counter argument, seeing as how you didn't I have to assume you couldn't.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

highwaystar101 said:
vlad321 said:
highwaystar101 said:

If I was a sociopath who wanted to hurt someone, then making me blind would do little to deter me. And there are always ways to cause damage or hurt someone, even if you're blind.

However, providing psychiatric treatment to the person will break their sociopathis behaviour. It may be hard, they may try to resist like you say. But being persistent with the help will mean that one day they will be less dangerous.

Look at prison reform in the 18th and 19th centuries. Prison was a place of mental and physical torture, yet reoffending rates were through the roof. Back then people would have their identity stripped and were forced to perform manual repetitive tasks that kept them exhausted and in constant pain. Why would anyone want to go back to that? It was because when they were released from prison they were still in the same position as before. They didn't want to go back, but they couldn't change their behaviour.

The reformers found that to stop reoffending the cycle had to be broken, which is not accomplished by punishing. If a person was reoffending ebcause he couldn't hold a job, then you would teach them a practical skill in prison that they could use when released. If a person had a mental issue that drove them to crime then you did all you could to correct that issue so it didn't cause them to reoffend later on.

I agree with everything you say, for all lesser crimes. There are however some crimes that are simply undeserving of any form of reform.

Oh yeah, absolutely. There are people like serial killers who it's probably better to just never let out because teh risk would be too high, even after attempted reform.


So then here is my question. That handful of people, why do you keep them in jail? They end up being paid for by the taxpayers, the people they damaged  live with knowing the criminal is still alive, and a whole bunch of other problems that would be simplified if the heinous criminal was just killed right off the bat.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
vlad321 said:


1. So elt us see, you are claiming that everyone in the olden days had been exposed to public executions? I somehow HIGHLY doubt that. The best case you can make is the French Revolution, however by the end everyone knew people were being killed left and right for no good reason, just look at Lavoisier. Therefore they lost all form of meaning. Furthermore did they have child rapists/urderers in every town for them to see such punishment. Your entire point is just laughably bad, trying to make it out as if there was information proliferation on the scale of the internet/TV/radio way back in the day. Your point is faulty and full of holes, I am sorry.

2. Ok, maybe I gave you too much credit then. There is a nice objective way of determening the differences between a murerer/rapist/etc. and just a person you don't like. If you can't realize that, then I can see how the pisspoor strawman argument makes sense to you.

3. I also don;t see how you think I nejoy torture, I jsut think it's necessary. Pretty big difference between the two, but I am not sure if you are able to tell the difference. I also expected you to come up with some counter argument, seeing as how you didn't I have to assume you couldn't.

1. Modern communication methods help information travel great distances, and at great speed. However, public executions were practiced within every community. It wasn't necessary for people from Village A to see the executions that went on in Village B, as they had their own executions. And as I said, these executions were public events, where all the entire community would gather, and they'deven bring their children. Things likeexecutions are much more private and hidden nowadays, despite the evolution of communication methods. My point isn't at all faulty, but keep saying that, if it makes you feel better.

2. Judging people exclusively by their actions, while ignoring the cause won't keep crimes from happening in the long term. Your methid has historically been proven to fail.

3. What's the point of torture? (especially if you're gonna kille the person in the end anyway) Other than it being unecessarily cruel, or some sort of fetish, I don't see what you hope to accomplish with it.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

vlad321 said:


So then here is my question. That handful of people, why do you keep them in jail? They end up being paid for by the taxpayers, the people they damaged  live with knowing the criminal is still alive, and a whole bunch of other problems that would be simplified if the heinous criminal was just killed right off the bat.


Without trials and appeals you mean?

That would just demean the entire system.

 

With trials and appeals it works out to be cheaper to keep them in prison.



vlad321 said:
highwaystar101 said:

Oh yeah, absolutely. There are people like serial killers who it's probably better to just never let out because teh risk would be too high, even after attempted reform.


So then here is my question. That handful of people, why do you keep them in jail? They end up being paid for by the taxpayers, the people they damaged  live with knowing the criminal is still alive, and a whole bunch of other problems that would be simplified if the heinous criminal was just killed right off the bat.

Killing every person we deem unfit to re-enter society would be committing a worse crime than of them could have ever committed.



highwaystar101 said:
vlad321 said:
highwaystar101 said:

Oh yeah, absolutely. There are people like serial killers who it's probably better to just never let out because teh risk would be too high, even after attempted reform.


So then here is my question. That handful of people, why do you keep them in jail? They end up being paid for by the taxpayers, the people they damaged  live with knowing the criminal is still alive, and a whole bunch of other problems that would be simplified if the heinous criminal was just killed right off the bat.

Killing every person we deem unfit to re-enter society would be committing a worse crime than of them could have ever committed.

That is true, because many cases of "social unworthiness" can be just subjective. However we both know there are some plain objective cases. Furthermore, as I mentoined above each action has two parts, purpose and consequence, and if we just kill the people convicted of premeditated murder it would be nothing alike. One's purpose is malice, the other is keeping society safe and setting an example. If you will claim that such punishment is worse, then you'd have to find a good argument about how the latter intent is worse than the former.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

sapphi_snake said:
vlad321 said:


1. So elt us see, you are claiming that everyone in the olden days had been exposed to public executions? I somehow HIGHLY doubt that. The best case you can make is the French Revolution, however by the end everyone knew people were being killed left and right for no good reason, just look at Lavoisier. Therefore they lost all form of meaning. Furthermore did they have child rapists/urderers in every town for them to see such punishment. Your entire point is just laughably bad, trying to make it out as if there was information proliferation on the scale of the internet/TV/radio way back in the day. Your point is faulty and full of holes, I am sorry.

2. Ok, maybe I gave you too much credit then. There is a nice objective way of determening the differences between a murerer/rapist/etc. and just a person you don't like. If you can't realize that, then I can see how the pisspoor strawman argument makes sense to you.

3. I also don;t see how you think I nejoy torture, I jsut think it's necessary. Pretty big difference between the two, but I am not sure if you are able to tell the difference. I also expected you to come up with some counter argument, seeing as how you didn't I have to assume you couldn't.

1. Modern communication methods help information travel great distances, and at great speed. However, public executions were practiced within every community. It wasn't necessary for people from Village A to see the executions that went on in Village B, as they had their own executions. And as I said, these executions were public events, where all the entire community would gather, and they'deven bring their children. Things likeexecutions are much more private and hidden nowadays, despite the evolution of communication methods. My point isn't at all faulty, but keep saying that, if it makes you feel better.

2. Judging people exclusively by their actions, while ignoring the cause won't keep crimes from happening in the long term. Your methid has historically been proven to fail.

3. What's the point of torture? (especially if you're gonna kille the person in the end anyway) Other than it being unecessarily cruel, or some sort of fetish, I don't see what you hope to accomplish with it.


1. SO every town had a murderer all the time? Every village had nonstop executions? THe population back then was much, much smaller than it is today, and even in big cities we don't get all that many heinous crimes. Your claim is baseless and outright wrong. Furthermore you imply that everyone in the town would go see these, not just the ones who have some interest in them. Great example right here, we're discussing a cae that happened a world away, never woudl have ever known about this thing if it had happened even more than 15 years ago.

2. Maybe you aren't aware that that's why we there are different degrees of murder as sentences that weight the purpose. Also, rape is fairly blakc and white, and involvement of children too, where purpose really doesn't matter one bit other than the fact it's malicious.

3. I made it clear perfect clear before, maybe you didn't catch on. It's a form of "hell" that is not made up. The concept of hell already keeps a huge part of populations in check already. I don't see how a very tangible form of "hell" wouldn't be even more effective.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835