Assuming that we’re talking about punishing real crimes (in other words, we’re seeking to uphold legitimate laws that protect people and property), I’m a firm believer in harsh punishment, but even I’m a little squeamish about this.
It is a real crime, so that’s not the issue. Who knows, maybe I’m becoming a soft-headed liberal in my old age.
Amen, Ryan. If you want to live in the 7th century, move to an islamic country and leave the civilized in peace.
If you want to live by Shariah Law, then stay in muslim lands, Shariah law has no place in the constitution or in our society.
[…] posts, dealing with thorny topics such as brutal tax collection tactics, child molestation, Sharia law, healthcare, incest, jury nullification, and vigilante […]
[…] readers have been presented with a series of challenging quizzes on topics such as Sharia law, healthcare, incest, and vigilante […]
[…] Mitchell You readers have been presented with a series of challenging quizzes on topics such as Sharia law, healthcare, incest, and vigilante […]
[…] Mitchell You readers have been presented with a series of challenging quizzes on topics such as Sharia law, healthcare, incest, and vigilante […]
[…] previous thorny legal posts have involved vigilante justice and a rather gruesome application of (what I assume to be) Sharia […]
[…] There were lots of interesting comments on my previous post about the “eye-for-an-eye” punishment. […]
We will need bigger wheel barrows when the time inevitably comes.
At least the victim has a choice. Good enough.
Gross. But the interesting part of the story is the victim’s right to choose such a punishment over the more-usual ‘blood money’ compensation. I wonder what percentage of modern westerners would choose each option, given the opportunity.