An eye for an eye --> whole world (literally) blind.

[yovargas]

]And yet I specifically called this act barbarous!

What I am unwilling to do, unlike, it seems, others, is to distance one barbarous act, by an "enemy", from the barbarous acts of "us".

I am fairly certain that if the US justice system were the one thinking about dropping acid into a prisoner's eyes, it would be getting protested with far more force, anger, and passion than this case is. Which in my eyes more or less disproves your position.

[Ethelwynn]

I know I'm jumping in late here, but this thread looked too interesting to stay out of. And yes, I see the fellow who threw acid into the eyes of the woman who rejected him as on the same level with gang bangers who shoot from moving vehicles.

How should a supposidly civilized society deal with people who are too mentally crippled or morally damaged to avoid creating horror? Unfortunately, simply locking them in prison does not seem sufficient. Even under guard, prisoners seem capable of inflicting horrible violence on their block mates daily. Worse, most of them do not even see this as wrong and are not capable of empathy for anyone outside their own skin. Are they insane? Every measure of mental health says they are not. They realize that what they do is something society sees as "wrong", they just don't care.

When I was younger, I believed that anyone could be rehabilitated. Now I'm thinking that the only solution is to either render these sad people incapable of harming another ever -- as in complete isolation for the rest of their lives-- or quick death. Please, somebody, convince me that I'm wrong.

[vison]

This sort of person is very rare. I think a way could be found to "deal with them" that isn't killing them or locking them up forever, but I doubt that anyone is going to look very hard. I admit I can't come up with an answer.

[nerdanel]

Most prisoners, even those who have committed acts of unspeakable brutality at-large, can be incapacitated. This is particularly true of gendered, male-on-female criminals: if confined to a same-sex lockup, they are unable to repeat their crimes (unless perhaps against female prison guards). Iran has not suggested that Behrami's attacker has attempted to maim others while incarcerated. However, some cannot be deterred even in extreme solitary confinement.

National Geographic did an excellent documentary on detainees in California's Pelican Bay State Prison, with focus on gang members in the SHU (Secure Housing Unit). Their ingenuity in continuing to direct crimes, including murders, while on 23-hour/day solitary lockdown is striking. The white supremacist gang Aryan Brotherhood, whose leaders are incarcerated in federal Supermax prison Florence ADX, have shown even more sophistication in continuing to commit crimes.

The alternative to capital punishment in these cases, of course, is long-term solitary confinement -- and the United States has taken that concept to the extreme in the case of Thomas Silverstein. Silverstein, a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, has been convicted of at least three prison murders; a fourth conviction was overturned. Oddly, his initial incarceration was merely for armed robbery. Although he had gotten away with progressively increasing sentences for the previous murders, he took things too far when he murdered a prison guard. In a response that is best described as deterrence-meets-incapacitation-meets-serious-retribution, the US criminal justice system has denied him all human contact for 28 years. He was effectively entombed -- but some law school students have taken an interest in his case, and are challenging his detention in court. He acknowledges he will remain incarcerated for the rest of his life, but seeks to serve his sentence in general population. Certain aspects of his confinement are unjust: for instance, I see no point other than cruelty to leaving the lights in his cell on 24 hours/day.

Whether the justice system should feel confident enough in his representations (or his having perhaps aged and mellowed) to risk other inmates' lives is a matter of debate.

ETA I'm aware that my own post is veering away from maiming, and depending on what responses it gets, I may split some of these posts off to our capital punishment thread.

[vison]

While I am staunchly opposed to the death penalty, I see that there is one reason to use it: to remove the criminal for certain.

But I remain opposed, despite that. It seems to me our laws ought to reflect our whole society and not the extremes at the edges. Lifelong solitary confinement doesn't seem much "better", either.

Hard questions need good answers. But they generally get simple and quick (and wrong) answers.

[yovargas]

ETA I'm aware that my own post is veering away from maiming, and depending on what responses it gets, I may split some of these posts off to our capital punishment thread.

Well, you could easily switch your post to a hypothetical prisoner who repeatedly and insistently kept horribly maiming people. One of the thing that bugs me about the OP case solution is that it's the crime of a jilted lover and that generally strikes me as different than the person who runs around committing acts of violence whenever the mood strikes them a la the Aryan Brotherhood bastards. I don't expect that the OP guy goes about throwing acid in peoples faces for the hell of it which matters, justice-wise, to me.

[axordil]

One of the thing that bugs me about the OP case solution is that it's the crime of a jilted lover and that generally strikes me as different than the person who runs around committing acts of violence whenever the mood strikes them a la the Aryan Brotherhood bastards. I don't expect that the OP guy goes about throwing acid in peoples faces for the hell of it which matters, justice-wise, to me.

This is an important distinction. There is a difference, I think, between someone who commits a heinous act because of a particular circumstance, and someone who commits heinous acts because that's just the way they roll. Both are dangerous, and both deserve severe punishment, but one is an amateur and one is a professional, as it were.

[Cerin]

I do wonder whether those in the "enlightened" West ever grow tired of pointing at an imagined oriental barbarism.

There is a cultural barbarism at work here, not an oriental barbarism. It's a barbarism stemming not from ethnicity but from the elevation of men and their desires as worthy of deference, and the denigration of women and their worth and humanity. I think this type of crime -- that is, a man violently indulging his pique because he can't have what his penis wants -- is less likely to happen in a country whose laws uphold the equality and personhood of women.

This sort of person is very rare.

I don't think this sort of person is very rare. This sort of person is someone who feels entitled to what he wants as a man, and entitled to punish women when he doesn't get it. I imagine that describes the majority of men in countries that officially regard women as inferior to men. I think the violence of the crime is probably attributable to the intensity of the perpetrator's anger, not to any rarity of type. A quick googling indicates that there are between 200-500 such acid attacks yearly in Bangladesh alone. This is a cultural phenomenon, not an individual one.

[Primula Baggins]

What Cerin said. And also:

[. . .] There is a difference, I think, between someone who commits a heinous act because of a particular circumstance, and someone who commits heinous acts because that's just the way they roll. Both are dangerous, and both deserve severe punishment, but one is an amateur and one is a professional, as it were.

This immediately made me think of the bad old days of the "crime of passion," where a man could get a pass or a slap on the wrist for murdering his wife if he caught her being unfaithful (and possibly the man involved as well).

My thinking is that a man who would burn a woman with acid because she turned down his advances would be willing to do the same to the next one. And is possibly more dangerous than a man driving around in a van looking for female joggers. A woman in a trust situation may not even know she's in danger.



Edited to add a thought

[Griffon64]

Ah, Prim already said what I wanted to say RE ax's post. Work interfered with me making the posting.

[nerdanel]

Ha - I too was going to make Prim's post, but was working. I come back to find (a) that the post has been made and (b) seconded by someone who was also working. So I'll third it!

[yovargas]

Neither ax nor I were saying they weren't dangerous and deserving of punishment, nonetheless I do think there is a meaningful difference between, as ax put it, the "pro" criminal and the "amateur".

[Primula Baggins]

Hey, I was working, too! Uh, just not as hard at that moment. . . .

[nerdanel]

I don't expect that the OP guy goes about throwing acid in peoples faces for the hell of it which matters, justice-wise, to me.

But, respectfully, this is problematic - because it suggests that there is something mitigating about "jilted lover" relative to "for the hell of it." And that has been used to enable, apologize for, and punish men's violence against women to a lesser extent for a long time.

There's certainly a difference between someone who has done something once and someone who has done something five times - that's the professional/amateur distinction. But your post also suggested that the reason for doing it was important. And, as between someone who (1) throws acid in someone else's face because they're bored vs. (2) throws acid in their love interest's face, there shouldn't be any difference. If anything, the latter behavior is more problematic because it is quite possible it will repeat the next time the person is jilted.

[River]

It's a question of which screws are loose. Throwing acid in someone's face because you've been jilted suggests an anger management problem. That can be fixed. Throwing acid in someone's face because you're bored suggests a personality disorder. The prognosis there is a good deal bleaker. In either case, the person who threw the acid needs to answer for their crime, but perhaps the answer for one isn't necessarily locking them up forever? Maybe, in the case of the jilted lover, he can be allowed back on the street once there's some assurance that a) he understands that tossing sulfuric acid in a woman's face is NOT an acceptable response to rejection and b) he's learned some new methods for coping with his anger that don't involve violence?

[axordil]

Throwing acid in someone's face because you've been jilted suggests an anger management problem. That can be fixed. Throwing acid in someone's face because you're bored suggests a personality disorder. The prognosis there is a good deal bleaker.

This. Though I'm not sure I'd entirely trust the hot-headed killer so much as to let them out anytime soon, what they go through while incarcerated could, in theory, be geared toward rehabilitation. The stone-cold killer is not going to be helped, and simply has to be cut off from the world until they die.

[nerdanel]

I'm still not entirely with you guys. Some people, especially young people with a problematic history (drugs, parental abuse, etc.), might commit violent crimes "for the hell of it," but might have the potential to be reformed. Conversely, the jilted lover may be completely entrenched in the mindset that he is entitled to retaliate against people who do not reciprocate his advances. "Jilted lover" should not be a defense, a mitigating factor, any form of exoneration whatsoever. It is a vile thing to mutilate or murder a person who has turned you down; your perverted romantic feelings are not cause for sympathy.

Maybe, in the case of the jilted lover, he can be allowed back on the street once there's some assurance that a) he understands that tossing sulfuric acid in a woman's face is NOT an acceptable response to rejection and b) he's learned some new methods for coping with his anger that don't involve violence?

...and this is again the slippery slope. Earlier in this thread, most people had agreed that he had deprived the woman of so many aspects of a meaningful life, and should thus have to sacrifice all of his in some form - probably incarceration, possibly some means of onerous restitution. Now we're back to, "How can we fix him and put him back on the streets?"

See, that's the thing. We can't fix her. Her eyesight's gone. She has spoken poignantly, heartbreakingly, of how she still wants to be married and dreams that someone will find her beautiful, and we have to consider that that is not the most likely scenario. Even if it happens...she will never get to look at her spouse. She can't use the technical degree for which she had trained. Her life is shattered. No matter how dangerous or not he is, I'm just not understanding why we're at the point of discussing whether he can ever be allowed back on the streets. If he's shown the mercy of, "You get to see," that's as much as he's entitled to, and more than he's shown others.

[River]

But is that serving justice or serving revenge?

[nerdanel]

I've said it once, I'll say it again: justice rightly includes a retributive component. Justice does not mean, "Your punishment stops the moment you are sorry and no longer dangerous." It means that the punishment reflects the magnitude of the offense even once you are sorry and no longer dangerous. And incidentally, you have a very, very high burden of proof re: both "sorry" and "no longer dangerous" if the reason society no longer trusts you is your proclivity to fling sulfuric acid.

[axordil]

Now we're back to, "How can we fix him and put him back on the streets?"

Not precisely.

The nature of confinement should address the nature of the offender. The duration of the confinement should address the heinousness of the crime.

The angry criminal can and should be helped to function, if only to make them safer in the prison population, and yes, perhaps to function on the outside if they ever do get out (again, depending on the heinousness of the crime).

No matter how dangerous or not he is, I'm just not understanding why we're at the point of discussing whether he can ever be allowed back on the streets. If he's shown the mercy of, "You get to see," that's as much as he's entitled to, and more than he's shown.

Danger level is a valid measure of whether someone should be in or out, but not the only one. The other aspects of punishment, such as deterrence and recompense, must also be factored in. Beyond that, you're into an area I become extremely uncomfortable in, because it's so subjective in its alleged objectivity: justice. Is it balance? Is it just desserts? Is it something society should be involved in? It seems to me there are a number of slippery slopes here.

Yet I recognize my discomfort with it won't make it go away. There is a deep-seated sense of fairness in higher primates, and it must, in some way, be served.