- Joined
- Dec 7, 2017
- Messages
- 2,968
- Reaction score
- 0
as per Islamic traditional punishments for theft.
Firstly, I have no ethnic link to Islam or Arabia.
Secondly I have not studied the Koran or Islamic Culture.
Thirdly here is a link to the relevant surahs
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Amputation_in_Islam#Hadith
Please check there before specifically commenting (lol 0 chance I know).
Fourthly, specifically note that there are certain exceptions for items of very low value, war time activities etc. and I'd also advocate not amputating thieves under 18 or mentally retarded etc.
Now to give my reasoning:
Deterrent:
having parts of your body cut off is a solid deterrent to you the criminal and everyone who sees you shall be reminded of the punishment as well. Unfortunately for a lot of people fines, community service or even gaol/prison are either a weak deterrent, no deterrent at all or even desirable.
Revenge:
This is a nasty punishment and is likely to satisfy victims' and communities' desires for vengeance in a way that the above mentioned measures often do not.
Warning:
Everyone is going to know you are a thief and to look out.
Limits potential for violence:
Violent crime is definitely the kind of crime that preys on people's minds the most and without your right hand your potential to threaten and hurt people is seriously diminished.
Recidivism:
One common argument against amputation is that it means that people are then unable to work, at least in many fields, and are stigmatised. That's true but as anyone who knows anything about criminology knows the reality is that generally some people are criminals and some are not. Criminals tend to just do crime their whole lives whether they are punished or not and they also tend to escalate over time. Therefore cutting off their hand is still giving them a second (or third, or fourth) chance while prioritising the safety of the public.
The fact that the Muslims had to specify what to do with a thief you have caught for the fifth time after already cutting off both his hands and both his feet just illustrates the fact that most criminals won't stop thieving until they stop breathing.
Cheap:
The prison-industrial complex is a multi-billion industry which costs the public a fortune and makes certain capitalists a fortune. All you need for this punishment is some shackles and an axe. As per above if you are worried about taking people out of work and putting them on benefits very few of these people were earning an honest living anyway.
Difficulty of detection:
This is linked to Recidivism above. Most common-or-garden thefts are very hard to detect. Any cops on the forum can weigh in on this. Not that these are criminal masterminds we are dealing with but the volume of theft compared to the resources available for crime-fighting is overwhelming. Car thieves, muggers and burglars etc. tend to be either never caught, caught only after doing many dozens or even hundreds of crimes, or caught for something else. Then they only fess up to their crime spree as part of a plea bargain under which they are not punished for those offences. They probably never would have been caught for / matched to those crimes otherwise.
At least if when you get someone for one of these theft-based crimes they lose a hand or foot it's going to (a) be a more fitting punishment for the dozens of offences of that nature they almost certainly have committed and (b) the chance of them walking out of gaol/parole/whatever to go and commit another 50 crimes before getting picked up again is much less.
What do you think Sherdog?
Firstly, I have no ethnic link to Islam or Arabia.
Secondly I have not studied the Koran or Islamic Culture.
Thirdly here is a link to the relevant surahs
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Amputation_in_Islam#Hadith
Please check there before specifically commenting (lol 0 chance I know).
Fourthly, specifically note that there are certain exceptions for items of very low value, war time activities etc. and I'd also advocate not amputating thieves under 18 or mentally retarded etc.
Now to give my reasoning:
Deterrent:
having parts of your body cut off is a solid deterrent to you the criminal and everyone who sees you shall be reminded of the punishment as well. Unfortunately for a lot of people fines, community service or even gaol/prison are either a weak deterrent, no deterrent at all or even desirable.
Revenge:
This is a nasty punishment and is likely to satisfy victims' and communities' desires for vengeance in a way that the above mentioned measures often do not.
Warning:
Everyone is going to know you are a thief and to look out.
Limits potential for violence:
Violent crime is definitely the kind of crime that preys on people's minds the most and without your right hand your potential to threaten and hurt people is seriously diminished.
Recidivism:
One common argument against amputation is that it means that people are then unable to work, at least in many fields, and are stigmatised. That's true but as anyone who knows anything about criminology knows the reality is that generally some people are criminals and some are not. Criminals tend to just do crime their whole lives whether they are punished or not and they also tend to escalate over time. Therefore cutting off their hand is still giving them a second (or third, or fourth) chance while prioritising the safety of the public.
The fact that the Muslims had to specify what to do with a thief you have caught for the fifth time after already cutting off both his hands and both his feet just illustrates the fact that most criminals won't stop thieving until they stop breathing.
Cheap:
The prison-industrial complex is a multi-billion industry which costs the public a fortune and makes certain capitalists a fortune. All you need for this punishment is some shackles and an axe. As per above if you are worried about taking people out of work and putting them on benefits very few of these people were earning an honest living anyway.
Difficulty of detection:
This is linked to Recidivism above. Most common-or-garden thefts are very hard to detect. Any cops on the forum can weigh in on this. Not that these are criminal masterminds we are dealing with but the volume of theft compared to the resources available for crime-fighting is overwhelming. Car thieves, muggers and burglars etc. tend to be either never caught, caught only after doing many dozens or even hundreds of crimes, or caught for something else. Then they only fess up to their crime spree as part of a plea bargain under which they are not punished for those offences. They probably never would have been caught for / matched to those crimes otherwise.
At least if when you get someone for one of these theft-based crimes they lose a hand or foot it's going to (a) be a more fitting punishment for the dozens of offences of that nature they almost certainly have committed and (b) the chance of them walking out of gaol/parole/whatever to go and commit another 50 crimes before getting picked up again is much less.
What do you think Sherdog?
Last edited:
