Hearing about the Ricky Holland case today was more than I could handle! I think they should do to his dear sweet mama what she did to him! FAT COW THAT SHE IS! THIS IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE!
2006-11-29 07:03:26 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Actually EYE FOR AN EYE could work for almost all crimes. When I was a teenager I got busted for drinking and was forced to do community service..I can't tell you the amount of beer bottles I had to pick up while cleaning ditches! There would be ways to punish people differently then just doing time......Prisons do not do anything to deter crime and I have seen this first-hand in my family......There just has to be something that would serve as a better deterent.
2006-11-29 11:18:51 · update #1
I think like that, but I'm also a big fan of "punishment should fit the crime," too. For these child molesters out here who think it's okay to do kids and babies that way, they need to tie them over a fifty gallon drum and shove a fence post up their ***. Repeatedly. then cut their penis off, stuff it in their mouth, and sew their lips shut around it.
I'm mean, ain't I?
2006-11-29 07:07:52 · answer #1 · answered by tinkerbell24 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure it would be a crime deterrent to some extent. So would capital punishment for anything more than speeding. So would beatings by the police if you were suspected of a crime. But that does not make those things right or just, as the other responders have said. It does not respect human life--because how society treats its "worst" defines the quality of the society.
2006-11-29 15:09:32 · answer #2 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Someone made a comment in a previous question about Iran being an "eye for an eye" system of retributive justice and how the U.S. should be more like Iran. Of course, they do not have real trials before they cut off your hand for stealing. Boy, wouldn't you want to be an innocent person wrongfully accused in that society?
2006-11-29 15:08:17 · answer #3 · answered by Steven B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Criminals do NOT expect to get caught, so "an eye for an eye" will not deter anyone.
If the death sentence worked there would be no serious crime in Texas.
What an "eye for an eye" would do is prevent repeat offenders.
2006-11-29 16:19:31 · answer #4 · answered by bookmom 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One of the reasons we have a legal system with checks and balances is to discourage retribution. Islamic law, which is what you are advocating, is for most people abhorent.
Society has a right to protect itself by imprisoning, and sometimes killing a person. They do not have a right to descend to the level of the criminal. Society has to be better than it's worst elements.
2006-11-29 15:11:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For some crimes that is not appropriate. You couldn't punish white collar crime. If the accused loses an eye and he is innocent then what happens. What about DUI and drug crimes. It's just not viable.
2006-11-29 15:12:49 · answer #6 · answered by only p 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you want all societies to look and act like the Middle East, fine. Even by the time of Christ, it was clear there needed to be a different law than the Mosaic law.
2006-11-29 15:07:27 · answer #7 · answered by thylawyer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
how stupid. it's not feasible for anythign but homicide and assault. how do you do an eye for an eye when it comes to speeding? child molestaton? fraud? further, should a civilized government promote revenge? i don't think so.
2006-11-29 17:00:32 · answer #8 · answered by Two E 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't. Criminals are stupid and believe they are not going to get
caught.
Thank you very much, while you're up!!
2006-11-29 15:06:57 · answer #9 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I do! Criminals shouldn't be treated any better than they treated their victims.
2006-11-29 15:12:49 · answer #10 · answered by Jenn 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋