More Than An Eye

1. I am a staunch advocate of “Black’s Law Dictionary” claim that justices primary duty is to make the victim whole. In this case the only way that can be done is to monetarily replace what the victim has lost. The person that committed the crime must be forced to pay for the woman’s loss as the courts shall deem.

   But, but, ghost, what if the criminal does not have any money?
   Please.
   Lack of money has never prevented the Internal Revenue Service from extracting blood from a turnip.

   Incarceration is not justice, it only forces additional hardship onto the victim and others by being forced to provide for the criminals upkeep. The first motherfucker that wails, “Incarceration prevents the criminal from harming others”., gets punched right in the face.

   The victim will never be what she was before the criminal attacked her, but the rest of her life can be made more comfortable by forcing the criminal to pay her maintenance for the rest of his or her natural life. Why should other people be forced to pay for the damage he has caused?

   1. My unofficial thoughts on modern law is that the law serves the needs of society, not the individual. Thus when a person commits an acid attack, they prove they are not fit for living in society and must be removed from it. In addition, the “punishment” must serve as an example for others who might commit the same crime, in order to deter them and protect the rest of society. Thus jail for the guilty. Also the death penalty is well justified by this approach.

      Actual justice for the victim? Compensation? Making whole? That is way way down on the list of priorities. Lawyers may talk it up in the court room, but the whole system is rigged against it. That’s where your civil lawsuits come into play, but good luck there.

      I’m not saying this is the best approach, but it beats a lot of the other options out there.

      1. “My unofficial thoughts on modern law is that the law serves the needs of society, not the individual.”

         That is why it is not justice at all, it is an abomination. An entire industry of well paid gov’t drones based on the continued suffering of others.

   2. Violent criminals who maim people for life should be allowed to walk free so long as they keep making payments? Wow. And then they go all Willie Horton on someone else, and uh, make 2 payments per paycheck? Unless, of course, they just skip out and disappear.

      1. You’re not too bright are you?
         And you make shit up.

2. Boiling oil? Come on, this is the 21st Century. We have industrial metal shredders.

   1. I’m old-fashioned.

      1. Industrial shredders are better for the environment.

3. > Feel free to disagree with me in Comments, but you’d better have a good argument.

   Torture (which is what you’re advocating here) is evil not because of the pain and torment inflicted upon the guilty party, but because it requires the hardening and dehumanization of the *torturer*, and of the culture that approves of it.

   Far better just to shoot them once in the back of the head with a .22, their body dumped in an grave marked only with a serial number, and their name replaced in all public record by that serial number.

   1. Yeah, but the .22 shooter also suffers the “executioner’s penalty”.
      And what I’m suggesting isn’t torture; it’s retribution followed by an extravagant execution.

4. Well, obviously the solution to this problem is more intensive background checks on chemical buyers.

   1. Crazy,
      You don’t happen to work for the Democrat Party, do you?

5. It’s happening more because it is a cultural tradition of pre-medieval savages from the Asian subcontinent.

   Import savages, get a savage society.

   1. That, right there. ‘Nuff said.

6. What we have is a failure to communicate!

   We really do have a messed up system and I have no good answers. A felony crime by definition is a crime against society whether it is white collar or murder and it is prosecuted, at great expense by our justice system (note the word justice). After spending at times millions of dollars to get a guilty verdict the felon is then incarcerated at great expense in not too bad and not too good facilities.

   Of course then if a capital crime has occurred and gets a death penalty instead of taking the criminal two days later outside between the jail and the courthouse and hanging the sucker more millions will be spent jumping through hoops that may never end. In Texas we have an express lane compared to other states like California with a death penalty is a life sentence.

   The only solution that comes to mind is to transport them back to their country of origin, family origin be it England or Liberia the first time a law breaker, evil doer (I still like that word) steps out of line. Throw them out and shut the door, out of the pool. Or maybe send them to Austrailia or Austria or something because they lost the right to live in our wonderful country and they have to ride in economy on the way. See I have no idea how to fix things.

7. There are some people that the thought of dying is not a deterrent. If they die as a martyr, that’s their ticket to paradise. To get their attention, whatever punishment should include the loss of 72 virgins, forever!

8. An unfortunately ‘older time’: a brother, father, uncle, nephew or family friend takes the eye-for-an-eye, and it is right. Admittedly, very far from Black’s . . .

   Of all people, do we here trust the powers-that-be to fairly and judiciously mete out Justice? I for one don’t. Sorry. Too off topic for right now probably but I think there is a very strong conservative argument to be made against any state-sanctioned capital punishment. Please don’t misunderstand me: just because the Venn of “people who really should be killed” and “people who the State shouldn’t kill” might overlap doesn’t change the first statement. But. The same beuracracy that has finds a way to fubar (in the present tense) damn near everything it touches should be allowed this? In my opinion, no.

9. The problem is what do you do when you find that the accused miscreant was in fact innocent? People lie. Honest mistakes happen. But it’s impossible to apologise to someone who is dead.

   Alongside that, it’s safer for both police and civilians if a criminal knows she can surrender safely. Or, if you’re going to be executed, why should you surrender? Why not take as many as possible with you?

10. Actually, Kim, acid attacks in Britain aren’t new; “throwing vitriol” on women who had offended a scumbag was unfortunately common as soon as wide-scale production of acids for industry started in the 1850s or so; you find it in both historical accounts and fiction such as Sherlock Holmes, where it was simply referenced without explanation because everyone knew what it was.

    Britain stamped it out by instituting severe punishments both criminal and civil for it. Unfortunately, they’ve now reimported a culture that finds it acceptable and now they don’t have the guts to stamp it out again.

11. An appropriate sentence for throwing acid upon a victim? Partial bodily immersion in lightly diluted sulphuric acid. Until half of the body is dissolved. If life still persists, then the soon-to-be-corpse should be placed on a red ant nest. The remaining bones should be ground for fertilizer.
    Oh, for those of the Religion of Peace persuasion, the administration of pork fat to the not-to-be-dissolved part of the body would be mandatory.

Comments are closed.