- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 16,164
- Reaction score
- 5,060
- Location
- St Thomas, VI
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
This eye for an eye stuff is BS. I hope no hospital gives him an answer he is looking for.
This eye for an eye stuff is BS. I hope no hospital gives him an answer he is looking for.
It's barbaric, but you cannot argue that the punishment does not fit the crime.
I don't think it does. I don't believe the punishments handed down from the government should mirror the incidents of the crime itself. There is proper action the government can take, and there is action which must be restricted. You can't allow cruel and unusual punishment techniques. especially going so far as to medically paralize someone.
Report: Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
this is unbelievable. we need to become oil independent.
CAIRO — A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals in the country whether they could damage a man's spinal cord as punishment after he was convicted of attacking another man with a cleaver and paralyzing him, local newspapers reported on Thursday.
Kind of flies in the face of the Hippocratic oath, doesn't it?
It's barbaric, but you cannot argue that the punishment does not fit the crime.
When it first came up, it was a good policy because eye for an eye was originally instituted to curtail punishment given to a criminal. However, we're now even further from that point now and eye for and eye is a very simplistic and at times barbaric practice. Base everything on the rights and liberties of the indivudal and you'll be much better off for it.
this is unbelievable.
we need to become oil independent.
Why ever not, after all the US Military regularly doles out cruel and unusual punishment to their prisoners.
Any country that values human rights should condemn any measures taken in that direction.
Unfortunately, the lessons of the 1973, 1979, and 2008 energy crises (energy price spikes), were quickly forgotten once the price of crude oil fell. Aggressive rhetoric notwithstanding, substantive energy policy (goals, research spending, incentives, etc.) reveals almost no conviction whatsoever to reduce oil dependency, even as that dependency entails significant geopolitical and economic risk. The words advocating and professing political commitment to alternative energy or, in today's parlance, "green energy," don't impress me at all. Concrete and sustained action is the criteria by which the nation's energy policy should properly be judged. Unfortunately, once one looks at the policy front, very little has changed. Moreover, little is likely to change in the near-term. If one examines pre-2008 federal budgets and post-2008 federal budgets as proxies for commitment, there has been no dramatic shift on energy policy. There has been no substantial reorientation of spending to suggest a credible commitment to dramatic change, much less any sense of urgency.
In the end, the only thing that has materially changed is that the gap between today's rhetoric and ongoing policy has widened, as rhetoric has shifted even more strongly toward alternative energy while policy has budged very little. To borrow from academic research on "organizational energy," when one combines positive rhetoric with policy inertia, the result is a stance that can reasonably be described as "comfort" or "complacency." IMO, that very well sums up today's energy policy. Worse, there has been enormous continuity in such policy since the very first energy crisis, even as the world has changed markedly and geopolitical vulnerability has increased given the location of remaining proved oil reserves.
As a result, if or when a new energy crises hits, the political response will almost certainly be little different than it was in 2008, almost 35 years after the first great energy price shock: Political leaders will plead for understanding. They will argue that the crisis was unavoidable and assert that there is little that can be done. The great tragedy will be that such a crisis will likely have been avoidable and many more options would have been available to transform what would be a crisis into a manageable situation had policy makers chosen a course aimed at reducing such dependency.
why do you think this is the case? oil and gov't DO mix? does the world economy depend on the u.s. oil consumption?
In all fairness, what percent of people in the US do you think would be okay with sentencing a child molester to be put in a cell with someone who would rape him?
60%? 70%?
i can argue that it's barbaric though. and sick.
Far more than that. How many people do you know that are honestly even a little bit concerned about prison rape?
It's barbaric, but you cannot argue that the punishment does not fit the crime.
It can also be argued that caring for, and protecting the rights of criminals is barbaric and sick.
Same here.
It's barbaric, it's backwards, it's primitive, it should never be implemented in a moral and civilized society - but the criminal deserves it.
Well yeah, it's the Dirty Harry, Leathal Weapon sort of thing, right? Sure those guys bend some laws...break some laws; but they never hurt any good people and they get the bad guy in the end; so it's cool and everyone gets their comeuppance. But it can't work in reality, because in reality the behavior breaks the system. So people say that this dude deserved it. And maybe in this case it's true. But if you adopt this sort of punishment as standard; what happens when you convict the innocent guy? Surely this happens. Convict someone who was innocent of the crime. Then you severe his spine, and he's paralized. Years later, new evidence points to the innocence of that man. Now what? Who gets paralyzed? The jury for wrongful conviction? Judge for the punishment? DA for the prosecution? Or would people say that it is as it is, sucks to be him buy you can't paralyze anyone on the government side for it since they were doing part of their job? Well then you're in the same scenario you were in when you started then, victim (now victims) paralyzed; criminal walking around.
We like the idea of the Dirty Harry getting the criminal, but real world application that Dirty Harry is a dirty cop most likely and even if not will cause significant damage to people and property around him through his actions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?