I am going to explain, what parts of the article I disagreed with, why I disagreed with it, and the evidence I have to back up my decision. The two points I disagree with is the first point (Judicial Corporal Punishment as Implemented in Islamic Criminal Law is More Effective than Incarceration), and the last main point discussed (Judicial Corporal Punishment as Implemented in Islamic Criminal Law is More Compassionate than Incarceration). I disagree with the first main argument because I do not believe that judicial corporal punishment is more effective than imprisonment. You are unable to rehabilitate because if you lose a limb there is not getting it back or learning you lesson, where if you are incarcerated you are able to come out relies you mistakes, and try to change. Rehabilitation’s main goal is “Prevent future criminal acts by ensuring that the offender becomes the kind of person who does not want to commit crime.” If you get rid of someone’s limb or give them scars there is no retuning from that. Also, in my opinion it makes fun of people with depression who have self-harm scares and disabled people that lost a limb. They did not have this choice and whatever their circumstance it was not their fault, so why inflict pain and mock the disabled? Finally, the ending point (Judicial Corporal Punishment as Implemented in Islamic Criminal Law is More Compassionate than Incarceration). There is absolutely nothing compassionate about physically harming someone, there is a reason why we have evolved away from using inhumane acts as a justification for someone else’s wrongdoing. The Harm principal states that “Individual liberty is justifiably limited to prevent one from causing harm to others.” Who is to judge what is justifiable, and when prevention of harm will occur. This is not possible; these are the reasons why I disagree with these two
I am going to explain, what parts of the article I disagreed with, why I disagreed with it, and the evidence I have to back up my decision. The two points I disagree with is the first point (Judicial Corporal Punishment as Implemented in Islamic Criminal Law is More Effective than Incarceration), and the last main point discussed (Judicial Corporal Punishment as Implemented in Islamic Criminal Law is More Compassionate than Incarceration). I disagree with the first main argument because I do not believe that judicial corporal punishment is more effective than imprisonment. You are unable to rehabilitate because if you lose a limb there is not getting it back or learning you lesson, where if you are incarcerated you are able to come out relies you mistakes, and try to change. Rehabilitation’s main goal is “Prevent future criminal acts by ensuring that the offender becomes the kind of person who does not want to commit crime.” If you get rid of someone’s limb or give them scars there is no retuning from that. Also, in my opinion it makes fun of people with depression who have self-harm scares and disabled people that lost a limb. They did not have this choice and whatever their circumstance it was not their fault, so why inflict pain and mock the disabled? Finally, the ending point (Judicial Corporal Punishment as Implemented in Islamic Criminal Law is More Compassionate than Incarceration). There is absolutely nothing compassionate about physically harming someone, there is a reason why we have evolved away from using inhumane acts as a justification for someone else’s wrongdoing. The Harm principal states that “Individual liberty is justifiably limited to prevent one from causing harm to others.” Who is to judge what is justifiable, and when prevention of harm will occur. This is not possible; these are the reasons why I disagree with these two