Finally a judge with the right idea...

genericguy

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/saudi-judge-considers-severing-spine-of-attacker-who-paralyzed-man/1

A judge in saudi arabia has been asking hospitals if they would sever the spine of a cnut convicted of attacking and paralyzing another man.

Personally, I usually decry the islamic justice systems, but this time i think they have it spot on. I actually cannot see any way whatsoever that a bleeding heart could find this unfair, although I'm sure some will.

I think it would be fantastic if those found guilty of glassing/punching/stabbing someone, for example, were punished by allowing the victim to glass/punch/stab their attacker in return on the middle strip of O'Connell Street. See how tough the guy is then, huh?

What do you fine people think?

Spineless fcuker

Biggins

Emotionally, questionable option with long term ramifications in many a direction.

Real justice? No - for we should not stoop to their scumbag level.
We are only then looking for justifiable excuses to do so after that.

We are better than that - or we should at least try to be. Lead by example, not by possible further mistakes

jester77

Sure as the good old bible says (Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25 and Deuteronomy 19:21) an eye for an eye

Kasabian

Very few people would have the stomach for the "eye for an eye " form of justice.

MrStuffins

jester77 wrote: »

Sure as the good old bible says (Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25 and Deuteronomy 19:21) an eye for an eye

This is not biblical times, it's the 2010! And it's not justice!

genericguy

Biggins wrote: »

Emotionally, questionable idea.

Real justice? No - for we should not stoop to their scumbag level.
We are only then looking for justifiable excuses to do so after that.

We are better than that - or we should at least try to be. Lead by example, not by possible further mistakes

i really can't agree, i'd definitely be more of the "paralyse not, lest ye be paralysed" persuasion. this was a fantastic idea - no waste of money housing and feeding the cnut, just bam, scalpel to the spine and game-ball.

AnonoBoy

This is the only Judge I listen to:

Mr. Judge Reinhold!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL43nNjrMzI

Biggins

genericguy wrote: »

i really can't agree, i'd definitely be more of the "paralyse not, lest ye be paralysed" persuasion. this was a fantastic idea - no waste of money housing and feeding the cnut, just bam, scalpel to the spine and game-ball.

The phrase "thin end of the wedge" comes to mind and what if - just IF - someone is proved innocent later?

Emotionally I might agree but in practicable terms, I would have to decline.

genericguy

Biggins wrote: »

The phrase "thin end of the wedge" comes to mind and what if - just IF - someone is proved innocent later?

obviously this would be in the case of guilt beyond doubt, but every war has civilian casualties.

Kasabian

genericguy wrote: »

i really can't agree, i'd definitely be more of the "paralyse not, lest ye be paralysed" persuasion. this was a fantastic idea - no waste of money housing and feeding the cnut, just bam, scalpel to the spine and game-ball.

I always took that as getting in the first blow

AnonoBoy

Biggins wrote: »

The phrase "thin end of the wedge" comes to mind and what if - just IF - someone is proved innocent later?

Surely we can just shove them in some big camp somewhere where nobody will ever find out if they were actually innocent after we've maimed them?

Biggins

genericguy wrote: »

obviously this would be in the case of guilt beyond doubt, but every war has civilian casualties.

And while you have a point, there has been others later found innocent that once were found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".
America death row inmates will testify to that alone!

Kasabian

Maybe a poll .

Could you inflict the same injury on someone that they have inflicted on you.

1. Yes , "an eye for an eye"
2. No , " turn the other cheek "

ejmaztec

MrStuffins wrote: »

This is not biblical times, it's the 2010! And it's not justice!

Nothing is, especially here and in the UK. All the judges went to wanker justice academy.

cruiser178

genericguy wrote: »

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/saudi-judge-considers-severing-spine-of-attacker-who-paralyzed-man/1

A judge in saudi arabia has been asking hospitals if they would sever the spine of a cnut convicted of attacking and paralyzing another man.

Personally, I usually decry the islamic justice systems, but this time i think they have it spot on. I actually cannot see any way whatsoever that a bleeding heart could find this unfair, although I'm sure some will.

I think it would be fantastic if those found guilty of glassing/punching/stabbing someone, for example, were punished by allowing the victim to glass/punch/stab their attacker in return on the middle strip of O'Connell Street. See how tough the guy is then, huh?

What do you fine people think?

I dont think there is a doctor on the planet that would initially go into an operating room to harm another human being.I just think its a bad idea and just another crazy Saudi punishment.
just out of curiosity do you think the original attacker should go to jail after he gets his back broken?

squod

Maybe the paraysed bloke was a cnut.

matrim

genericguy wrote: »

i really can't agree, i'd definitely be more of the "paralyse not, lest ye be paralysed" persuasion. this was a fantastic idea - no waste of money housing and feeding the cnut, just bam, scalpel to the spine and game-ball.

You do realise this is Ireland and if we did something like that, we'd end up paying disability to the person for the rest of their lives and probably provide them with a house too

Wibbs

As the Indian fella in the loin cloth said, An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

OK if you're mind is running from the lower animal brain, if you're running from any sort of intellect, then no. Its beyond daft.

Pherekydes

Wibbs wrote: »

As the Indian fella in the loin cloth said, An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

OK if you're mind is running from the lower animal brain, if you're running from any sort of intellect, then no. Its beyond daft.

+1.

If the judge is so keen why doesn't he do it himself?

johnmcdnl

I'd agree with this justice too - if you paralyse a man and it's proven without doubt that you did then a 1 year stint in jail before getting on with the rest of your life isn't going to be a big deal is it...

It'd make you consider the punishment a lot more if you knew you'd be in a wheelchair for the rest of your life too if you commit a crime like this...

of course it depends on the accutual event like - if it was an intentional fight or whatever and you intended to bust someone and this happened then you deserve it too...

mightn't be as many random attacks on the streets late at night if you knew this was coming..

ejmaztec

Biggins wrote: »

The phrase "thin end of the wedge" comes to mind and what if - just IF - someone is proved innocent later?

Emotionally I might agree but in practicable terms, I would have to decline.

They could always be presented with a free car under the mobility scheme, and a letter of apology.

...and cripple the judge, jury and the prosecution, and the whole lot of them can go wheelchair jousting.

Pherekydes

ejmaztec wrote: »

They could always be presented with a free car under the mobility scheme, and a letter of apology.

...and cripple the judge, jury and the prosecution, and the whole lot of them can go wheelchair jousting.

Then new evidence is presented showing he was, in fact, guilty after all, so now we gotta cripple those wot crippled them judges and juries and whatnot.

Looks like we're gonna need a lotta wheelchairs.


Now there's an opening for an entrepreneur.

I was reading somewhere once that in KSA when the punishment is chopping off the hand, they now do it surgically in hospital, rather than with an axe/sword in the market square.

Class form of justice.. Completely and utterly agree with it.
Same as the girl who got acid thrown in her face and was blinded.. The judge ordered she could blind the attacker. Not sure if she did yet though but I think it's brilliant.


Like my cousin's face was deformed by a pint glass.. The guy who did is away off scott free after a bit of jail and being sued while my cousin is still wrecked over 10 years later. I know I'd go for the attacker getting deformed as justice if I was the victim. Fuk being the bigger man, I want harsh raw justice.

Jesus Juice

Jesus if thats their judgement system, do they just throw shit at each other in the courtroom?

Lost Dog

Abdul-Aziz al-Mutairi, 22, was left paralyzed and subsequently lost a foot after a fight more than two years ago, his older brother, Khaled al-Mutairi, told the Associated Press. He said the assailant, whom he and the paper did not identify, was sentenced to 14 months in prison, released after seven months in an amnesty and now teaches at a university.

:eek:

HorsesNHarleys

The reference to "An eye for an eye" is probably one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted verses in scripture. The intent of the principle "An eye for an eye" is if you injure or bring harm to another person, you are to compensate that person with something of equal value for the injury or harm you brought upon them. One of the most important reasons for this principle was to deter the excessive and overly harsh punishment by the victim, avenger, or by those in positions of authority. In other words, the punishment should fit the crime or compensatory damages should be consistent with the damages done. It is not meant in literal terms.

With that type of mentality it won't be long before we see the of rebuilding coliseums, and one can't help but wonder are we evolving as people or moving backwards?

who what when

Biggins wrote: »

Emotionally, questionable option with long term ramifications in many a direction.

Real justice? No - for we should not stoop to their scumbag level.
We are only then looking for justifiable excuses to do so after that.

We are better than that - or we should at least try to be. Lead by example, not by possible further mistakes

A free Larry Murphy, scumbags, drug addicts, petty criminals, gang wars are all a result of what happens when a justice system leads by example.

Sir Gallagher

genericguy wrote: »

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/saudi-judge-considers-severing-spine-of-attacker-who-paralyzed-man/1

A judge in saudi arabia has been asking hospitals if they would sever the spine of a cnut convicted of attacking and paralyzing another man.

Personally, I usually decry the islamic justice systems, but this time i think they have it spot on. I actually cannot see any way whatsoever that a bleeding heart could find this unfair, although I'm sure some will.

I think it would be fantastic if those found guilty of glassing/punching/stabbing someone, for example, were punished by allowing the victim to glass/punch/stab their attacker in return on the middle strip of O'Connell Street. See how tough the guy is then, huh?

What do you fine people think?

Absolutely stupid.

Herb Powell

genericguy wrote: »

obviously this would be in the case of guilt beyond doubt, but every war has civilian casualties.

and that's why war is ****ing bullshiit

Biggins

who what when wrote: »

A free Larry Murphy, scumbags, drug addicts, petty criminals, gang wars are all a result of what happens when a justice system leads by example.

Straight question - are you saying then they are the majority or minority example of prisoners?
And if so? Have they been called to answer to a better higher legal form of legal justice, one that is based on better moral principles - not lowering of them?

We should be raising the bar/scales of justice - not lowering it to their level.

Sir Gallagher

who what when wrote: »

A free Larry Murphy, scumbags, drug addicts, petty criminals, gang wars are all a result of what happens when a justice system leads by example.

No, we have a bad justice system, doesn't mean the Saudi Arabia one is the correct way to go. Typical reactionary sh1te.

Sir Gallagher

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Absolutely stupid.

Why though?

Dudess

It's not that I think it's unfair, just that I wouldn't like a state to have the power to allow it.

In thirty years time, that guy is still going to be paralyzed.. The attacker will have long forgotten. There's no justice in this case without either a massive prison sentence or a broken back.

sligopark

Biggins wrote: »

We are better than that - or we should at least try to be. Lead by example, not by possible further mistakes

I used to feel the same way - some sort of human rights liberalism - but now having been at the sharp end of a few thing sI think not now of example but preventative justice

MrStuffins wrote: »

This is not biblical times, it's the 2010! And it's not justice!

rightly stated - its time for 2010 preventative justice

ejmaztec wrote: »

Nothing is, especially here and in the UK. All the judges went to wanker justice academy.

perhaps not as such but more that they are too removed from todays society having grown up 40 years ago and lived their lives within a bubble of removal from society below their living

cruiser178 wrote: »

I dont think there is a doctor on the planet that would initially go into an operating room to harm another human being.

Would it be possible for the Irish goverement to train me solely for this job? What would they require in the way of leaving cert points?


I think many of us are forgetting the rate of certain types of crime up Norht when the country provos (rather than the city provos involved in crime) kneecapped those robbing, raping and engaging in social type crime?

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

We should be raising the bar/scales of justice - not lowering it to their level.

Good point, problem is how to do that whilst still having a real deterrant for certain* crimes.

*violence resulting from turf wars in the drugs trade for example, where there is a real determination to do serious harm as opposed to an after hours punchup that (unintentially) results in serious injury.

Sir Gallagher

Deleted User wrote: »

Why though?

The OP was working on the assumption that a victim of a violent crime automatically would want to commit a violent act as revenge, most people aren't violent animals.

So as i said, stupid.

who what when

Biggins wrote: »

Straight question - are you saying then they are the majority or minority example of prisoners?
And if so? Have they been called to answer to a better higher legal form of legal justice, one that is based on better moral principles - not lowering of them?

We should be raising the bar/scales of justice - not lowering it to their level.

Well to answer your first question i dont know what type of prisoner forms the majority but if i had to guess i'd say it would be you're average, run of the mill scumbag.

And yes they may well have been called to answer by a justice system based on higher moral principles but these people dont give a fiddlers about morality. They have no fear or respect for the law.
In Saudi Arabia the justice system is a real deterent.
In Ireland the justice system is merely a minor setback every so often, and worse still its sometimes seen as a badge of honour

Sir Gallagher

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

The OP was working on the assumption that a victim of a violent crime automatically would want to commit a violent act as revenge, most people aren't violent animals.

So as i said, stupid.

And in the cases of paralysis, serious deformity etc. what would you think of there being a choice just for us violent animals?
I mean if you were glassed in the face, would you rather the attacked get five years or get deformed himself?

Biggins

who what when wrote: »

...In Ireland the justice system is merely a minor setback every so often, and worse still its sometimes seen as a badge of honour

While I can agree that there are serious errors and practices that need to be addressed in the Irish court system, I also take consolation in that as bad as ours is, we have the presence of mind not to reduce it further to the mentality of a scumbag action with an emotional reactionary excuse/reason for causing such equally backward stepping actions.

To rephrase what I said earlier, we need to up our justice practises, not lower them in tone and/or morality.
For if we lose the proper morality in justice - where is the better justice at all being carried out?

who what when

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

No, we have a bad justice system, doesn't mean the Saudi Arabia one is the correct way to go. Typical reactionary sh1te.

I really take exception to this comment for two reasons

1 I wasnt suggesting Saudi Arabias justice system is the way to go. I was making the point that their justice is more successful than ours at its primary function - preventing crime.

2 How do you make out its reactionary? Critical yes, reactionary no!

sligopark

Biggins wrote: »

While I can agree that there are serious errors and practices that need to be addressed in the Irish court system, I also take consolation in that as bad as ours is, we have the presence of mind not to reduce it further to the mentality of a scumbag action with an emotional reactionary excuse/reason for causing such equally backward stepping actions.

sorry but too often nasty a$$ barsteards need longer than a few months - physical retribution is absent from our justice system

Sir Gallagher

Deleted User wrote: »

And in the cases of paralysis, serious deformity etc. what would you think of there being a choice just for us violent animals?
I mean if you were glassed in the face, would you rather the attacked get five years or get deformed himself?

I would expect a harsh prison sentence and compensation from the attacker. Seeing my attacker being deformed wouldn't really appeal to me, i'm not a violent person and it wouldn't stop me from being deformed.

sligopark

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean if you were glassed in the face, would you rather the attacked get five years or get deformed himself?

deformed himself? The perp already did that non physically - if it were me I would prefer he were beaten to a pulp by a gang of his peers and then was glassed

who what when

Biggins wrote: »

While I can agree that there are serious errors and practices that need to be addressed in the Irish court system, I also take consolation in that as bad as ours is, we have the presence of mind not to reduce it further to the mentality of a scumbag action with an emotional reactionary excuse/reason for causing such equally backward stepping actions.

To rephrase what I said earlier, we need to up our justice practises, not lower them in tone and/or morality.
For if we lose the morality in justice - where is the better justice at all being carried out?

But can you at least agree that their system works insofar as it prevents/deters crime while ours does not.
And in that sense alone its a superior justice system.

Biggins

sligopark wrote: »

sorry but too often nasty a$$ barsteards need longer than a few months - physical retribution is absent from our justice system

First part true - latter part: pain does not mean gain in regards justice being melted out and acting as a deterrent for one to "go forth and not sin again".

who what when wrote: »

But can you at least agree that their system works insofar as it prevents/deters crime while ours does not.
And in that sense alone its a superior justice system.

Well lets be honest, if they are wishing to apply the type of punishment that the OP mentions, cleary their chosen punishments are not perfect nor a deterrent - as the crimes are still occurring there - are they not?

As for "superior" - thats a point of view - not a proven statistic fact.
At least our scales of justice - while not perfect - reach for a higher form of moral justice to be applied.
I'd rather see justice be reaching up for answers, than reaching down to the scumbag level.

Sir Gallagher

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

I would expect a harsh prison sentence and compensation from the attacker. Seeing my attacker being deformed wouldn't really appeal to me, i'm not a violent person and it wouldn't stop me from being deformed.

I've never been in a fight in my life.. And that's why I'd want such harsh justice.
Thirty years later when I'm still paralyzed and have the lost the only chance at life I'll ever have, I would be more than happy knowing that the cause of my life being ruined is in the same position. I couldn't bare to think that they were enjoying life after taking mine.

Sir Gallagher

who what when wrote: »

I really take exception to this comment for two reasons

1 I wasnt suggesting Saudi Arabias justice system is the way to go. I was making the point that their justice is more successful than ours at its primary function - preventing crime.

2 How do you make out its reactionary? Critical yes, reactionary no!

Do you think it's a better justice system? Would you want it in place over here? That's what you're implying.

sligopark

who what when wrote: »

But can you at least agree that their system works insofar as it prevents/deters crime while ours does not.
And in that sense alone its a superior justice system.

agreed

has anyone read thro Brehon Law?

http://www.woodlandleague.org/info/info/brehonlaw.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Irish_law