Philosophical Vegan Forum

A father tied a teenager to a tree and chopped of his hands with a machete. This was because the teenager was found guilty of raping his daughter . I do find any type of rape; more so when it is done to a child disgusting . But, I feel this is just to far. Yet I read people encouraging what he has done. What do you guys think?

Link:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... by-7801852

Every case is different, but in this case, the child was a baby. The damage that was done by the rape will have negative, life long physical repercussions (Likely she will not be able to have children ). The mental damage varies, but this is a very traumatic experience for a child and will likely shape her psychological development from this point on.

As an outside observer, I would not suggest someone cut off a rapist's hands as normal protocol. If I were this baby's father or relative, however, he would likely be wishing to merely have his hands chopped off.

Objectively, yes, the father did go too far. (Only because as a society we shouldn't go around chopping off limbs) But his punishment should take into account the severe nature of the crime committed against his infant daughter. I suggest community service and probation with the stipulation not to cut off any hands for a period of no less than the length equal to his daughter's age at the time of the rape.

Wow, that's an insane story. This definitely went too far.

Regardless of this, it was wrong, but I think it's important to note that this was a premeditated crime by the father.

A dad dished out his own bloody justice to a teen accused of raping his baby daughter by tying him to a tree and chopping off his hands with a machete.

The grisly incident happened after the 17-year-old appeared in court after he was reportedly caught raping a seven-month-old baby by the girl's mother.

During court proceedings, the father reportedly indicated that he was prepared to forgive the teenager and accept a compensation deal to limit his punishment.

The teenager was then let go and the father reportedly offered to drive him home to Muktsa’s Kotli Ablu village, where they both live.

But halfway through the journey, the father apparently stopped the bike and attacked the teenager, tying him to a tree before chopping off his hands with a machete.

This wasn't a crime of passion, in which the father was so overwhelmed with anger by the horror of what happened that he did something crazy. That would still be wrong, but I don't think the father should be punished severely for that.

He planned this out, though. He offered the teenager a ride home, and then when they were alone and the teenager was vulnerable, he tied him to a tree and chopped off his hands, and then left him there screaming and bleeding.

What the teenager did to the father and his child was horrible, of course, but two wrongs don't make a right. Revenge is an inherently immoral concept.

Who voted no, and can you explain why?

EquALLity wrote:
Who voted no, and can you explain why?

Did you have to ask?
Yes the crime was premeditated, and as a general rule vigilantism is a negative occurrence. But....

In the greater scheme of things, look at the harm to be caused to society by both men's actions. A child sex abuser is very likely to re-offend, especially one who does something as violent as raping a baby. This is not the "creepy" uncle type who isn't allowed at family picnics. This is a violent, sexual sadist who takes joy in causing misery. (How else could a grown man rape a baby? )

The father's actions were horrible in and of themselves, but is he likely to cut anyone else's hands off? I surmise no. He is not a danger to society. Additionally, by crippling the baby rapist, said baby rapist will find it hard, if not impossible, to further subject an innocent victim to harm for his own sadistic pleasure. Therefore what the father did, while wrong, actually benefits society as a whole.

PsYcHo wrote:
The father's actions were horrible in and of themselves, but is he likely to cut anyone else's hands off? I surmise no. He is not a danger to society. Additionally, by crippling the baby rapist, said baby rapist will find it hard, if not impossible, to further subject an innocent victim to harm for his own sadistic pleasure. Therefore what the father did, while wrong, actually benefits society as a whole.

(How else could a grown man rape a baby? )

This was not a grown man. It was a teenager. But, that doesn't change much.

The way you worded it sounds like putting a handicap on a person that has done wrong is the right thing to do. Now this were it confuses me you agree that the father is wrong. Yet you find it valid. Say a man pitches a woman's butt and her boyfriend chops of his fingers. Was this pushed to far? I mean he can no longer pinch woman's butts. I more so am asking this so I can get a better understanding at you point of view. (I hate assuming other's opinion without a full understanding.)

I never said what the father did was the "right" thing to do. I mentioned as a society we can't just have people chopping off hands, but I understand the father's actions and would find it very hard myself to inflict much punishment on him.

To use your boyfriend example, lets change it a little bit. Instead of cutting off the pincher's fingers, he just punches the offender in the face. As a society we agree punching people in the face is wrong, and is punishable by imprisonment. But in this case, it appears justified, despite the fact the law would require someone to report the crime, wait for a grand jury to decide if the pincher should go to trial, select a jury, try said pincer, then have a judge set down a sentence. The action of punching the pincher in the face seems reasonable in relation to his crime.

If i were a supreme ruler of the world, I personally would tell the father of the child "don't chop off anymore hands", and consider justice served. The actions of the rapist could have resulted in the death of the child, but did not, just as the father's actions could have resulted in death to the rapist, but did not.

Since I am not supreme ruler of the world, (yet), I understand society must have laws that are enforced as equally as possible in relation to the crime committed. We can't allow everyone to take justice as they see it into their own hands. What the father did was wrong, but I have no sympathy for the rapist, so if I were on the jury to judge the father, I would find "not guilty".

PsYcHo wrote:

EquALLity wrote:
Who voted no, and can you explain why?

Did you have to ask?
Yes the crime was premeditated, and as a general rule vigilantism is a negative occurrence. But....

In the greater scheme of things, look at the harm to be caused to society by both men's actions. A child sex abuser is very likely to re-offend, especially one who does something as violent as raping a baby. This is not the "creepy" uncle type who isn't allowed at family picnics. This is a violent, sexual sadist who takes joy in causing misery. (How else could a grown man rape a baby? )

The father's actions were horrible in and of themselves, but is he likely to cut anyone else's hands off? I surmise no. He is not a danger to society. Additionally, by crippling the baby rapist, said baby rapist will find it hard, if not impossible, to further subject an innocent victim to harm for his own sadistic pleasure. Therefore what the father did, while wrong, actually benefits society as a whole.

Well, your original comment said it was objectively wrong and thereby taken too far.

You can't think it was objectively wrong but not taken too far. That's inconsistent.

To clarify, do you believe it was wrong?

I think he was saying that he agrees it was taken to far, but can understand his actions and why he was pissed.

RedAppleGP wrote:I think he was saying that he agrees it was taken to far, but can understand his actions and why he was pissed.

That's what I thought at first, but then I don't think it'd really make sense to vote 'no'.

EquALLity wrote:

RedAppleGP wrote:I think he was saying that he agrees it was taken to far, but can understand his actions and why he was pissed.

That's what I thought at first, but then I don't think it'd really make sense to vote 'no'.

I stated it was wrong, because as a society we shouldn't condone it. I voted no because my personal belief is "Fuck that guy. Now he can't rape or masturbate, and after what he did to the child, his suffering makes me laugh."