Is 'Eye for an eye' acceptable law and how do you think the international community should respond to those that impose it?

Then I hope they were locked up.

@ChazMaz they have also been sentanced to life in prison but what do you think to the state sponsored mutilation of criminals?

This is a very tough question. I think that the state should keep its nose out of this sort of punishment.

Sentenced to life? They should have been executed.

I think there is little that can be done by the international community except through groups like Amnesty International.

“Eye for an Eye” is the most misunderstood policy ever. It was not intended to mean “You can do to the perpetrators whatever they did”. It was intended to mean “You may do no more to the perpetrators than what they did.” It was a means of limiting punishment. It meant that if someone stole from you, you were not entitled to kill them in return.

The way it’s been bastardized over the years is… depressing at best.

I agree with execution in this instance. An eye for an eye was the law of the land and has a place. BUT… along comes a guy called jesus christ… who said that this was wrong. We should teach these people the error of their ways… I kinda gotta agree. Even as a jew, and he pissed off the jews back then.

As somebody once said “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” I agree, in that if something is wrong, then nobody should have it done to them. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The punishment should be more like time in prison, or something along those lines. Revenge leads to more revenge, and more, and more…

I saw a cool bumper sticker awhile ago “eye for an eye, would leave the whole world blind”

You know, if we were to eliminate the culture that causes them to believe it is acceptable to cut a woman’s nose off, we would also be eliminating the culture that believes it is acceptable to use “eye for an eye” type punishments. It’s time for Pakistan (and the rest of the world who wants to use modern technology and relate with modern nations) to join this century.

Actually I think in this case the judge tried to make a statement as opposed to actually carrying out the punishment. I quote: Punishments prescribed under the laws have rarely been awarded, and never carried out.

In my wildest nightmares… I can’t imagine cutting off a womens face… for refusing to marry me? What kind of culture is festering on our planet!?...
@Snarp You want pakistan to do what? You kidding?

@Tomfafa Hey, I can dream can’t I?

@Snarp You’re cool my brother.

Eye for an Eye hasn’t been acceptable for 2000 years.

RULE: Before any country can step in and try to dictate policy in another country they must have taken care of all their own domestic issues first.

Doing it any other way would be like me knocking on your door and telling you that you really need to lay off the booze.

@filmfann – Exactly. Yet before that the principle was an important milestone. Instead of ten eyes for an eye, the new limit was one. But later the invention of the Sharia was a huge step backwards. The court’s decision is barbaric. At least 10 years in prison would be a better sentence.

@Blondesjon So we have to be perfect to have an opinion on gross violations of human rights? It’s not good enough to have a fairly good system of due process that outlaws cruel and unusual punishment? I fully admit we have problems, but we are so far ahead of most of the Middle East on these issues that I think we have every right to call foul when they do something like this. And I say that as an American. @mattbrowne, living in Germany, has even more right to complain. In fact, he gets to complain about us. And lets also keep in mind that the “international community” isn’t just nations, it’s also non-governmental organizations, many of whom criticize the U.S. just as readily as they do Pakistan.

@Snarp I wouldn’t class Pakistan as the middle east but maybe I’m wrong

@RareDenver Meh. You’re probably technically correct, but arbitrary regional divisions aren’t particularly helpful given the cultural similarities.

@Blondesjon We are futherers here, not the “international community.” It is a legitimate point of discussion here as far as I’m concerned. If you are not happy that we are discussing this… flag it, maybe the moderators will remove it for you…

@Snarp . . . Then let me add an amendment to my rule.

RULE: Before any country can step in and try to dictate policy in another country they must have taken care of all their own domestic issues first

or

There is an iron clad guarantee that our aid won’t equal a corrupt, political morass that lines the pockets of those who don’t need and doesn’t really ever help those who actually need help.

@Tomfafa . . . We are Flutherers here, not the “international community”. Mine is not also considered a legitimate point of discussion here as far as you are concerned? If you are not happy that my “discussion” disagrees with your “discussion” . . . flag it. Maybe the moderators will remove it for you.