What would you do

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

An eye for an eye?

Literally?

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/110801/iranian-acid-victim-spares-her-attacker-same-fate

How many people would forgive as much as this woman did? She didn't completely forgive her attacker. He's still going to jail and she wants money to cover her medical expenses.

But she did spare him the loss of an eye.

Would you?

Me? I don't know. My personal guide book to the human condition says we are to forgive. It also says restitution must be made. The requirement for restitution is placed on the person who committed the offense. The requirement to forgive is placed on the person who was offended.

I am reminded of the wackjob a few years ago that went to an Amish community and killed some people. The Amish there razed the school house and forgave the attacker.

Would you do the same? What would you do?

When the subject of the death penalty comes up, people are sharply split. Some say the death penalty is unconscionable under any circumstances. Others volunteer to pull the trigger, drop the door, inject the needle, etc.

Myself I support the death penalty, as I have said, but only in very clear and extremely obvious circumstances. The guy who went on a rampage in Norway? Send him to me. Sentencing someone to die on circumstantial evidence? Nope. Can't do that.

Think about it. Someone attacks you. What should be done to them?

What is justice? Where are the limits? How far should we go?

Consider another aspect of this. The law of must countries in the world does allow a victim to forgive. Just because forgiveness is extended, punishment is still meted. In the United States as in many other countries, the law itself is considered a victim and is allowed to seek restitution.

The victim doesn't have to testify, doesn't have to agree to the punishment. It's carried out anyway.

Is that justice? Is that fair?