Today's news brings a story from Iran.
A suitor threw acid in the face of his desired wife blinding her. The Iranian court, as part of his punishment, ordered that the suitor be blinded by acid himself.
My immediate reaction was horror.
But why? What's wrong with a literal 'eye for an eye' punishment?
It does show a serious intention to punish 'honour' crimes, such as acid in the face. One could only hope for such seriousness in some other nations where 'honour' crimes are common.
So is my reaction mere squeamishness?
I thought about it and decided not -- my real reaction is based on the view that this punishment is venegence rather than some way of deterring future crime. And venegence is not, at least to me, the basis for a human *and humane* justice system.
Remember Romans 12:19 (the more familiar KJV is quoted in the caption):
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
4 comments:
Agreed. Very thoughtful.
my real reaction is based on the view that this punishment is venegence rather than some way of deterring future crime.
I assume that you are against the death penalty also?
WTF, that doesnt follow -- I am opposed to the death penalty but not for the same reasons. The death penalty may deter and it can be imposed without revenging someone. I think it doesnt work, at deterring, and is a danger to have when there are wrongful convictions.
James, you are correct that it does not follow, partly, because I failed to elaborate (Blogs and the web in general are poor at conveying longer arguments).
One of the main arguments that I hear for the death penalty from proponents is that it will deter murder and that it is a just response.
In the US, it seen that capital punishment is a form of vengeance - why allow spectators if it is not?
Post a Comment