Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I was using your logic. It was for demonstrative purposes only. If you look at intent, the man wished to cause suffering to the other man by killing the wife. As a "suitable" punishment, the offending man's wife should be killed also, so they both suffer the same thing: the loss of their wives. That's "fair."
|
No, it isn't. The wife is murdered, not her husband. He may suffer as a consequence of the crime, but he's not the victim. I don't know whose logic you're following, but it isn't mine. Maybe his intent was to hurt the man by killing the wife, but the man is not the victim, and the punishment should not reflect his wishes. It should reflect the fate of the victim.
If you throw acid in someone's face to intentionally blind them, what's fair is to have acid thrown in yours. Yes, it's retribution. Is it the purpose of the justice system to deliver retribution? No, it isn't. I don't disagree with you there. Traditionally, such punishments are done courtesy of the victim's family or friends. I don't have a problem with that.
A prison sentence is fine and well for drug dealers or car thieves - in other words people who have committed crimes that are not, at least directly, irreversible by nature. Prison can be used as correctional means to try and rehabilitate these offenders and hopefully they will not return to a life of crime. That's the ideal situation anyway. For drug dealers and such there is no need for retribution for justice is sufficient. Although I don't agree with jailing drug dealers to begin with, but that's another story.
As for the crimes committed by murderers or rapists, or the likes of the asshole depicted in the OP's article, justice doesn't exist. That's where we come to "eye for an eye."
Permanently blinding someone or murdering them is not a reversible act. Retribution is, as far as I am concerned, a more pertinent solution here, because justice is simply out of reach. You lose eye sight for the rest of your life - let's say the next 70 years. The person responsible does ten years in prison, and is then free to do whatever they want. Even if he got raped in prison for every one of those days of those ten years, it doesn't fit the crime. It isn't the responsibility of the tax payers to foot the bill for feeding this guy and keeping him warm in his cell, watching cable for a decade. Put the eyes out and ship his ass back on the street. If justice can't be delivered, retribution is the bare minimum.