BF2S Forums +1 Saudi Arabia

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

To a degree, yes.  But then again, we might as well call the justice system the vengeance system, because in practice, it functions this way far more often.

Justice is an idealistic concept that is hard to quantify and even harder to really administer.  Vengeance is generally the best that most societies accomplish.

Justice is based on something more than just 'you did X, you get X'.  Vengeance is exactly that, and it's obtainable because it's the easy way.  It's also inhumane.  And then there is the possibility of wrongful conviction...because then you've just maimed the wrong guy.  What happens then?  Where is his vengeance?

No argument here.  I would agree that capital punishment has unfortunately killed the wrong people sometimes.  There is a very high profile case of this being investigated in Texas.

So yes, "an eye for an eye" certainly has drawbacks as a mode of punishment, although I would suggest this is not because of any moral reasons.  Wrongful convictions are the result of a flawed investigation.  So, for that reason, I believe the harshest punishments should be limited to very heinous cases.  If the punishment for paralyzing someone in a fight is paralysis, then the defendant should be given a few attempts at appeals before suffering paraylsis himself.

However, if someone is clearly responsible for this injury upon someone in a context where there was an attempt at making the victim suffer permanent damage or an attempted murder, then I believe the punishment of paralysis is fully justified.

If this man truly did act with malice toward the victim in a senseless and murderous display of violence, then I believe it really is justice to paralyze him in return.  Sometimes, I believe vengeance and justice are one and the same, but then again, my ethics are very utilitarian.

Pardon by victim’s father saves Saudi from gallows
The drunk man had jumped the light and killed a motorist

A Saudi court annulled a death sentence against a drunk driver who had jumped the light and killed another Saudi after he was pardoned by the victim’s father, a newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The defendant was accused of drunk driving and speeding after he jumped the light in Jeddah and rammed into a parked car, killing its driver, Okaz reported.

An initial court sentenced him to 80 lashes and ordered him to pay blood money but an appeal court found him guilty of homicide and sentenced him to death.

The man has spent nearly two years in jail waiting for the death verdict to be executed before the court abolished the sentence this week.

“The court decided to reduce the sentence to lashing and payment of blood money after the victim’s father retracted his demand to execute the killer of his son to mark the holy month of Ramadan. The court will reconvene after Eid Al Fitr for the necessary procedures,” the paper said.

Source

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Justice is based on something more than just 'you did X, you get X'.  Vengeance is exactly that, and it's obtainable because it's the easy way.  It's also inhumane.  And then there is the possibility of wrongful conviction...because then you've just maimed the wrong guy.  What happens then?  Where is his vengeance?

No argument here.  I would agree that capital punishment has unfortunately killed the wrong people sometimes.  There is a very high profile case of this being investigated in Texas.

So yes, "an eye for an eye" certainly has drawbacks as a mode of punishment, although I would suggest this is not because of any moral reasons.  Wrongful convictions are the result of a flawed investigation.  So, for that reason, I believe the harshest punishments should be limited to very heinous cases.  If the punishment for paralyzing someone in a fight is paralysis, then the defendant should be given a few attempts at appeals before suffering paraylsis himself.

However, if someone is clearly responsible for this injury upon someone in a context where there was an attempt at making the victim suffer permanent damage or an attempted murder, then I believe the punishment of paralysis is fully justified.

If this man truly did act with malice toward the victim in a senseless and murderous display of violence, then I believe it really is justice to paralyze him in return.  Sometimes, I believe vengeance and justice are one and the same, but then again, my ethics are very utilitarian.

The finality of it all is what bothers me.  You say 'clearly responsible', but people who were 'clearly responsible' in the past have been wrongfully convicted.  It's not right, especially when you admit that the root of wrongful convictions are caused by flawed investigations--all parties to this are human and thus prone to error.  For that reason, I would think it best to not become the very thing you are punishing because the state can be wrong...and it can't undo its actions any more than the people involved in the crime can.

This is nothing wrong with utilitarian ethics--as long as you recognize the shortcomings.