Woman blinded by acid wants same fate for attacker - CNN.com
How do you feel about "biblical justice"?
If used in the United States would it lower crime rates? It appears to me in the US that the fear of going to prison is somewhat non-existent for many.
Justice?
http://www.javno.com/en-world/iran-orders-man-blinded-for-acid-attack---report_208309
http://www.hyscience.com/photos/iran_eye_3.jpg
Shared by Brian E. Payne
9 comments:
Reader shares info:
"When we examine the scriptures, we find out how central justice is to the life of the Christian. There is no concept in the Old Testament with so central a significance for all relationships of human life as that of justice. The people of the Old Testament were in relationship with God because of the covenant that existed between God and Israel. As a member of this covenant community, each person was in relationship with every other person, including poor and needy people, one's family, and even strangers and aliens. Out of these relationships arose responsibilities and demands. The just person was faithful to these responsibilities and demands."
-Unknown
Reader Response:
I don't know.. if he confesses without coercive tactics... and/or turns himself in without being manipulated then perhaps...
but then.. I do believe that will deter this type of thing as it happens a lot in Arab countries.. I do believe men would think twice...
but would society be willing to have a man raped that rapes? perhaps make him a eunuch? we already execute people.. that murder so, honestly I do not know.. this would require a lot of thought...
I'm seriously torn...
ugh...
-SK
Reader response:
Oh man, not the Biblical Law vs. Constitutional Law debate.. I'm staying out of this one!!!
-WB
Reader Response:
Once again mis-interpreted. The eye for an eye is not to be taken literal. Eye for an eye was simply about equitable retribution. If I took your eye and I'm now serving a jail term then that's equitable retribution. If you decide to take my eye, then I should be set free. I have paid my equitable retribution. Today's society has determined that equitable retribution for most crimes is jail and money. And on extreme cases life.
There are so many different crimes that how can you determine what is equitable retribution for rape, child molestation, etc? Eye for an eye sounds easy when it's just an eye. But as things get more complicated, equal justice becomes hard to define.
So to stop all the confusion your Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has defined it for you.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Turn the other cheek folks. Revenge is not the answer. Kill them with love!
-BW
SK responds to BW:
Isn't that still circular and subjective?
For instance..
If person A takes Person B's eye.. and person B decides to love him...
how?
Love him by putting him jail?
Love him by taking out his eye?
Love him by leaving the matter alone?
Do you turn to the other eye and say"here.. have at it?"
To love sternly... To love passively.. To love fiercely is all subjective...
and hence there is no confusion.. people sort out the ways they feel retribution or reform is best... and when or if to do so....
If a person beats the right side of your face, do you stand up and turn and give him the other side?
If that's not love, then do you say okay go to jail because I love you?
If you say I send him to jail because that will make him a better person.. aren't you resisting his evil? And do you never defend yourself?
-SK
BW responds to SK:
Well let me try and explain a bit further. Again an eye for an eye was simplying trying to define how to seek equitable retribution when you've been wronged. If person A takes person B's eye, then Person B can't go and ask for an eye, nose, ear, arm and a leg in return. You can only get that for which you were wronged, which is another eye.
However we humans being mis-guided as we are, we take things to the nth power. We start trying to apply a law to every single case. Things got out of hand. next thing you know, you're chopping off a kids hand because he stole some bread for his starving family.
Jesus had to give folks a new way of thinking. A new way to look at things. He suggested we look at things from an "Ahisma" approach. We call it today non-violence. King and Ghandi used it masterfully. At any rate, his quote "turn the other cheek" is also metaphoric. Yet it is not to be used all the time. Sometimes you have to seek retribution, sometimes you have to forgive, sometimes you have to fight and sometimes you have to turn the other cheek. There is no absolute. And I believe that was Jesus point. Take things at a case by case basis and try as humanly possible to apply different approaches.
-BW
SK responds to BW:
"There is no absolute. ..... Take things at a case by case basis and [b]try as humanly possible to apply different approaches."[/b]
This was my point.. Since there are no absolutes.. that to determine for ourselves what makes sense.. to act according to our understanding of justice is not confusion.. but it has to be wrestled with.. we must go through the process.. because not only are lives at stake, but the direction of the values and moral sensibilities of a community and the legal precedent that follows is at stake...
In this instance.. there is much at stake and has to be weighed carefully... I can see how this will play out in many instances and I am currently torn... :-(
~Peace and Blessings
-SK
Muata responds to BW:
"There are so many different crimes that how can you determine what is equitable retribution for rape, child molestation, etc? Eye for an eye sounds easy when it's just an eye. But as things get more complicated, equal justice becomes hard to define."
Brian-
Rape for a rape sounds "equal" to me. What's so hard about defining that?
My point: I am questioning if people knew that their fate would be identical punishment would he/she commit the crime. For some stealing food is a no brainer: going to jail for a few hours is not much of a deterrent. However, if a rapist was aware that the punishment for a rape was to be raped he/she may not rape. What do you think?
This response is based on the position that the "eye for an eye" scripture is not mis-interpreted. Referencing what the writers said Jesus said may not necessarily mean that the Old Hebrew Bible scripture was wrong/incorrect. It may mean that the writers of the 'new stuff' needed for punishments and/or reactions to be 'softer' for the sake of the society. To benefit them?
-Muata
BW responds to Muata:
Like I said before an eye for an eye didn't neccessarily mean that I pluck your eye you pluck my eye. It could have very well been, I pluck your eye and as my punishment I send you 15 goats and 2 cows. It all depended on what that society defined as equitable punishment. But of course folks took things out of hand. So the law came down and eye for an eye. Only take that which is fair. Today we say "let the punishment fit the crime."
Now as far as your rapist. Raping a rapist as punishment? I personally don't think that'll deter him. Heck he might even enjoy it. And remember once you've raped him, he should be a free man and free to rape again. Identical punishments get hard to define. What's the identical punishment for a child molester? A thief that has nothing? A drug dealer etc?
I agree perhaps our current laws aren't strong enough to be a deterent, but defining that equitable punishment is not easy.
-Muata
Post a Comment