The discussion isn't about how psychological punishment is any less barbarous, but how are we considering moving from a system of incarceration and AA to literally gouging out eyes?
No, we were arguing that in terms of which type of punishment is more humane and less barbarous than another. That was the point I was making, that I personally find it to be more humane than the stuff we already do. You brought up the forced therapy and stuff because you believe that that approach is the most humane one and therefore the one that the world should adopt. This argument is built entirely on the basis of which punishment is less cruel than the others.
You have taken this from attacking a government who has committed gouging to a government who says "Dude, you have an alcohol problem, go to fucking AA or go to jail" - that's a choice.
That's not a choice. That's a threat. Don't do the same crap that the state does where they force and threaten people to do what they want and then try to blame its victims for what it did to them. When you give someone the option to do something or suffer physical or psychological harm, that's a threat. Period. If we were to accept your logic, then anyone can simply point a gun to your head and say "You will either sign this contract or get shot in the head", and if you tried to argue, they'd say "No, it's a CHOICE. You made a choice. You could've easily chose to get shot, you didn't have to accept the contract to live or anything." Your reasoning is the exact same reasoning that has made our legal system as corrupt and evil as it is today. 97% of all cases end in plea deals specifically because of threats like that. The state threatens people with jail if they do not accept a plea deal which often involves -- get this -- forced therapy. And it is in no way a choice and is in every way a threat. Countless innocents get railroaded that way. There was a study done that showed that 55% of all innocent people threatened in such a manner will take the offer regardless of guilt.
I don't understand why you would hold such a position yet be so vehemently against retaliatory-type punishments. What you're arguing for is inherently retaliatory and brutal.
Did this guy have a choice between jail and an eye loss? The fact is that there is a punishment being levied, and there is a choice - the eye thing is not going to rehabilitate that guy, at all. It's is simply revenge.
Actually if you read the article you'd know that the state was going to blind the guy but the victim intervened and gave the guy a 6-month reprieve where he will get the chance to plead to keep his other eye, so I guess by your twisted logic he would have a "choice".
If anything this is just another reason to accept the eye-gouging as more humane. It is mutilation but at least their government has the balls to be honest about what it is that they're doing. The system that we have, that you're supporting, necessitates the state performing Olympic-level mental gymnastics to justify what they're doing -- "YOU have the choice. YOU could've chosen jail where you will likely be beaten, raped, tortured, enslaved or murdered! Therefor it's perfectly OK for me to threaten you and influence legal decisions that can affect your future by putting you under duress. It's never OUR fault! WE'RE not the one doing this!" At least Iran isn't doing that. At least their way calls a spade a spade -- an honest open punishment. I'd take that over the delusional cruelty you're trying to defend any day.