Quote:
Originally Posted by Slims
How is it any less appropriate than locking the guy up at taxpayer expense for an extended period of time?
It's a punishment, and it definately punishes without a whole lot of unnecessary expense in order to be 'nice.'
If he doesn't like the punishment, he shouldn't go around throwing acid in peoples faces.
As far as it's value, I would certainly consider it to be more of a deterrent than a simple prison sentance. Also, it trumps rehabilitation as he isn't very likely to go around doing it to other women after he has his eyes burned out.
|
You're using our current faulty system to justify an even faultier method of dealing with crime?
If the deterrent method of crime control actually worked then we'd see the lowest crime rates in the countries with the most draconian laws, and this is certainly not the case. Deterrence, for the most part, does not work particularly well; a great number of criminals are not rational actors, and they do not perform a cost-benefit analysis before they kill someone, mug someone, etc. I'm of the opinion that the retribution handed down for crimes should be repairative - directly to the victim, if possible (not likely so in this case) or at least to society in general. If we do not have a reliable method of preventing crime through the way we deal with offenders, then we may as well attempt to counter some of the social negativity of these acts with the sentence given to those who have been convicted.