Just over two years ago I recall
reading of a sentence given in an Islamic court in a country in the Middle
East.
A man had thrown acid into the face of his victim and
left that person disfigured and blind.
I never did discover if the perpetrator's appeals
failed and whether he was blinded, in his turn, by having acid poured into his
eyes by process of law.
I can recall my horror at that time and my screams
against the perceived barbarity of that system.
I have pondered this situation long and hard in
the interim - and even though I would probably never advocate a similar setup in
the UK - my musings have, however, made me rather more ambivalent over this
lengthy intervening period:
1) No punishment other than the sentence given could
bring balance, proportionality as well as a disposal designed to ensure that the
punishment would fit the crime.
2) Have I not, myself, railed against those abolitionists who
oppose capital punishment because, allegedly, 'it is barbaric'.
3) The Lex Talionis directs us to 'eye for eye ... life
for life'.
4) Jesus did not undermine the Law.
5) It is a civil punishment and not a question of
forgiveness.
6) The victim should forgive but there is no such requirement on
society.
7) No punishment, other than the sentence given, can match that
disposal - even death is arguably a lesser outcome.
8) Punishment is very much a moral template: there is a moral imperative. It states what will be
tolerated and what cannot.
9) This person is open to the possibility of God's forgiveness -
but as this was a calculated act against society - society must demonstrate the
horror of the act by the horror of its response.
10) There is no issue of rehabilitation involved. The original act
was SO terrible - reform of the perpetrator canot be the issue.
11) The disposal is righteous - God says so!
12) If you think that The Woman Taken In Adultery is an
equivalent to this - it is not. (Put that title into this Blog's search
engine.)
13) Society is wholly protected from a repeat atrocity by this man
without all of the attendant costs of incarcerating him.
14) Such a clinical act is horrendously cruel. Yes, it is. But
...
15) The deterrent effect of such an action would return us to the
times when mothers taught their children to FEAR the Law - something which no
longer obtains.
16) This deterrence will inevitably save others from such appalling
victimhood. WHY are we not concentrating on the victim here?
17) The victim's forgiveness of the person should never outweigh
society's need for an example.
18) Restorative justice is impossible.
19) In our own nation, we are in the midst of a host of acid
attacks by gang members against rivals - and from moped riders in robberies. How
do we respond in our courts?
Please compare and contrast the two systems. Which of the two
would wipe out this plague in our midst after the first two sentences have been
put in place?
After these astonishingly compelling thoughts, I am still unable
to say that this is what I should like to see here. I would opt for incredibly
lengthy sentences in harsh prison conditions.
But even now - I am asking myself whether these attitudes simply
represent weakness on my part.
Justice is justice - after
all.
