NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not normally one for the eye-for-an-eye approach, but in this case, I think it may be just what is needed...

---

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- An Iranian woman, blinded by a jilted stalker who threw acid in her face, has persuaded a court to sentence him to be blinded with acid himself under Islamic law demanding an eye for an eye.

Ameneh Bahrami refused to accept "blood money." She insisted instead that her attacker suffer a fate similar to her own "so people like him would realize they do not have the right to throw acid in girls' faces," she told the Tehran Provincial Court.

Her attacker, a 27-year-old man identified in court papers as Majid, admitted throwing acid in her face in November 2004, blinding and disfiguring her. He said he loved her and insisted she loved him as well.

He has until early this week to appeal the sentence.

Doctors say there is no chance Bahrami will recover her vision, despite repeated operations, including medical care in Spain partially paid for by Iran's reformist former president, Mohammed Khatami, who was in power when the attack took place.

Majid said he was still willing to marry Bahrami, but she ruled out the possibility and urged that he remain locked up.

"I am not willing to get blood money from the defendant, who is still thinking about destroying me and wants to take my eyes out," she told the court. "How could he pretend to be in love? If they let this guy go free, he will definitely kill me."

Bahrami told the court that Majid's mother had repeatedly tried to arrange a marriage between the two after Majid met Bahrami at university.

She rejected the offer, not even sure at first who the suitor was. Her friends told her he was a man who had once harassed her in class, leading to an argument between them.

But he refused to accept her rejection, she said, going to her workplace and threatening her.

Finally, she lied and told him she had married someone else and that "it would be better all around if he would leave [her] alone."

She told the court that she reported the conversation to police, saying he had threatened her with "burning for the rest of my life" -- but they said they could not act until a crime had been committed.

Two days later, on November 2, 2004, as she was walking home from work, she became aware of a man following her. She slowed, then stopped to let him pass.

"When the person came close, I realized that it was Majid," she said. "Everything happened in a second. He was holding a red container in his hand. He looked into my eyes for a second and threw the contents of the red container into my face."

Bahrami knew exactly what was happening, she said.

"At that moment, I saw in my mind the face of two sisters who years ago had the same thing happen to them. I thought, 'Oh, my God -- acid.'

Passers-by tried to wash the acid off Bahrami, then took her to Labafinejad Hospital.

"They did everything possible for me," she said of the doctors and nurses there.

Then, one day, they asked her to sign papers allowing them to operate on her.

"I said, 'Do you want to take my eyes out?' The doctor cried and left."

They did want to remove her eyes surgically, she learned, for fear they would become infected, potentially leading to a fatal infection of her brain.

But she refused to allow it, both because she was not sure she could handle it psychologically, and because she thought her death would be easier for her family to bear.

"If I had died, my family would probably be sad for a year and mourn my death, and then they would get used to it," she told the court. "But now every day they look at me and see that I am slowly wasting away."

The three-judge panel ruled unanimously on November 26 that Majid should be blinded with acid and forced to pay compensation for the injuries to Bahrami's face, hands and body caused by the acid.

That was what she had demanded earlier in the trial. But she did not ask for his face to be disfigured, as hers was.

"Of course, only blind him and take his eyes, because I cannot behave the way he did and ask for acid to be thrown in his face," she said. "Because that would be [a] savage, barbaric act. Only take away his sight so that his eyes will become like mine. I am not saying this from a selfish motive. This is what society demands."

Attacking women and girls by throwing acid in their faces is sufficiently common in countries such as Bangladesh and Cambodia that groups have been formed to fight it. Human rights organizations have condemned the practice in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is not clear how often such attacks take place in Iran.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are the only countries that consider eye-gouging to be a legitimate judicial punishment, Human Rights Watch has said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.acid.justice/index.html

---

What do you think of this decision? Do you think this sentence may reduce such attacks against women in Iran and other countries, or is this another example of a too-harsh sentence imposed by an authoritarian regime?

What about eye-for-an-eye in general? Do you feel such punishments are justified, or not, and why?

*sigh*

My brain says its wrong... but something inside me says it serves him right. :(

Then again, will they release him once he's blind? And if so, what's stopping him from arranging for someone else to harm her even further?

My brain says its wrong... but something inside me says it serves him right. :(

Those were my thoughts as well.

Then again, will they release him once he's blind? And if so, what's stopping him from arranging for someone else to harm her even further?

It seems he'll be released...although one would think being blinded by the state would dissuade one from trying any sort of revenge crime against the woman, espcially since if anything happens to her while he's not in custody, he'll be a principle suspect...

...but I've been wrong before.

Good.

No it's not right. Revenge is not a healthy emotion. Deuteronomy sucks and if we lived by its teachings we would still be having blood feuds. I won't stoop to their level. It is a horrible story and nothing will justify the barbaric practices that pass for "justice" in Iran.

We can do better than this. We have crawled out of the ooze to evolve. At least that's what I hope we are doing.

A person deserves better than to be treated as a revenge play-thing, regardless of past acts.

Two wrongs do not make a right

An eye for an eye is a stupid philosophy, and says more about revenge than justice.

Fighting evil with evil will do no good... only make things worse.

Fighting evil with evil will do no good... only make things worse.

It's not evil. This bastard is, but I doubt he'll go throwing acid around now that he's to be blinded.

It's not evil. This bastard is, but I doubt he'll go throwing acid around now that he's to be blinded.

No matter what a persons crime, I would not throw acid in their face. 2 wrongs do not make a right.

No matter what a persons crime, I would not throw acid in their face. 2 wrongs do not make a right.

Read the article. The woman says acid won't be thrown in his face.

It seems he'll be released...although one would think being blinded by the state would dissuade one from trying any sort of revenge crime against the woman, espcially since if anything happens to her while he's not in custody, he'll be a principle suspect...

...but I've been wrong before.

My worry is that being punished brutally like this without any form of obligatory psychological treatment will make him even more determined to harm her. It's a viscious cycle... he will feel that he was wronged and it's her fault. A person like this is quite likely to take violent revenge.

I'm not really too opposed to this guy losing his eyesight, but a better question is, how to long-term stop men in Middle Eastern countries from thinking it is ok to throw acid at a woman?

Read the article. The woman says acid won't be thrown in his face.

So I see. But blinding a man will solve nothing. Sometimes you must prove you are better then them. Punish them with hard labor, with solitary confinement, but blinding a man is something that to the modern world is barbaric, and by doing the same to him will only prove we are trapped in the past, as he is.

No it's not right. Revenge is not a healthy emotion. Deuteronomy sucks and if we lived by its teachings we would still be having blood feuds. I won't stoop to their level. It is a horrible story and nothing will justify the barbaric practices that pass for "justice" in Iran.

We can do better than this. We have crawled out of the ooze to evolve. At least that's what I hope we are doing.

^This.

I'm not really too opposed to this guy losing his eyesight, but a better question is, how to long-term stop men in Middle Eastern countries from thinking it is ok to throw acid at a woman?

By threatening humiliation... like having shoes thrown at them or something.
Death or pain can be glorified by sickos like that, they'll feel like martyrs. So whatever the punishment, they need to find it humiliating, and they need to be aware that it's highly likely they will be sentenced to it.

something that to the modern world is barbaric

Not to everyone in the modern world, obviously.

Not to everyone in the modern world, obviously.

Going by gut feeling tends to create a violent, intolerant and injust society...

Going by gut feeling tends to create a violent, intolerant and injust society...

It's not necessarily a gut feeling.

It's not necessarily a gut feeling.

Then what is it?

[QIt seems he'll be released...although one would think being blinded by the state would dissuade one from trying any sort of revenge crime against the woman, espcially since if anything happens to her while he's not in custody, he'll be a principle suspect...

...but I've been wrong before.
Or his injuries will leave him with no reason not to attack her again. Once you've been blinded, what else is there to lose? There certainly is no hope for rehabilitation for someone like that.
I'm not really too opposed to this guy losing his eyesight, but a better question is, how to long-term stop men in Middle Eastern countries from thinking it is ok to throw acid at a woman?
Well, for one thing they have to get rid of the asinine "marry the woman you raped/mutilated/whatever and get out of jail free"-thing. I understand the justification (that it protects the woman from further consequences and lessens the harm done), but it just doesn't work. All it does is let jerkasses mark their territory by force when the normal channels (well, as normal as arranged marriages can be) fail.
There is an extent, however, to which stuff like this can't really be stomped out. From the story, it sounds like this man was mentally disturbed. He used acid because that is part of Middle Eastern culture, but if he'd been in the West he'd have attacked her with a knife or gun.

Then what is it?

Well read the article. It's not as if he was immediately arrested then blinded, they've thought it out and believe it's what he deserves.

Well read the article. It's not as if he was immediately arrested then blinded, they've thought it out and believe it's what he deserves.

True... but why? I'd say out of a feeling that revenge is appropriate in this case.
And what is revenge, if not a gut feeling?

And what is revenge, if not a gut feeling?

Well, it can be premeditated and well thought out etc. Pros and cons, all of that.

Well, it can be premeditated and well thought out etc. Pros and cons, all of that.

And yet any resulting action will still be based on one of the most archaic emotions.
It's got nothing to do with justice, and that's all courts ought to be concerned about.

And yet any resulting action will still be based on one of the most archaic emotions.

As will almost any decision.


It's got nothing to do with justice

Yes it does.

As will almost any decision.


Justice, as in find an adequate punishment that will minimise the risk of this person re-offending, as well as serve as deterrent for possible immitators, is not based on emotions.


Yes it does.

Really? Do courtrooms where you are have an avenging angle as decoration rather than Justitia?
Is law where you are concerned with avenging crime, or with punishing and preventing it?

Is law where you are concerned with avenging crime, or with punishing and preventing it?

This is a punishment, and what is the difference between punishing and avenging?

This is a punishment, and what is the difference between punishing and avenging?

The intended goal.

"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by observing its prisoners" - Fyodor Dostoevsky

I don't have more to add.

The intended goal.

To do something bad to them so they don't reoffend? That's the goal of both.

To do something bad to them so they don't reoffend? That's the goal of both.

Can you tell me how blinding that man will stop him from re-offending? I'm curious.

Can you tell me how blinding that man will stop him from re-offending? I'm curious.

He won't want something even worse to happen to him. If I was blinded I doubt I'd commit another foul crime in a hurry.

He won't want something even worse to happen to him.
Worse than having an eye burned off? Are you kidding me?
If I was blinded I doubt I'd commit another foul crime in a hurry.
I think the patch would be a dead giveaway to any members of the police present.

What happens when a gay muslim is giving a hetero muslim, against his will, a blowjob?

Will the gay muslim be punished with a blowjob from the hetero muslim?

What happens when a gay muslim is giving a hetero muslim, against his will, a blowjob?
Everyone dies. Maybe.

He won't want something even worse to happen to him. If I was blinded I doubt I'd commit another foul crime in a hurry.

That's the same school of thought that believes it a good idea to terrify civil populations, because if they're scared and see that we can kill whoever we want, they won't want to rebel and fight us...

Tell me, do you know of a single example where that ever worked?

Tell me, do you know of a single example where that ever worked?

Nazi Germany. Who rebelled there?


In all seriousness you're just clutching at straws. That's totally unrelated anyway.

Nazi Germany. Who rebelled there?
That was as much about collaboration with the regime as state terror.

Nazi Germany. Who rebelled there?


In all seriousness you're just clutching at straws. That's totally unrelated anyway.

The truth is, Adunabar (Nazi Germany or not), that an eye for an eye (la ley del talión) is never an alternative.

Nazi Germany. Who rebelled there?


In all seriousness you're just clutching at straws. That's totally unrelated anyway.

The White Rose, The Kreisauer Kreis, Graf von Stauffenberg...
Nazi Germany worked mainly with misinformation of the population, not terror alone. The aim was to get people to believe what the party was saying, not having them tremble in fear all day.

I'd say you're the one clutching here. You try to sell off revenge as justice, and claim it will work as a deterrent, while knowing full well that it doesn't.

while knowing full well that it doesn't.

It does work.

It does work.

Nu-uh!

It does work.

If it worked, surely countries that punish murder with execution would be the safest places on earth, with the least number of murders per capita?

It does work.

No, it doesn't.

What about SM slave people?

You use a whip on some unlucky and next you're punished with a reward.

The degree of punishment doesn't matter for criminals.
What is working, is the degree of getting caught.

Some states and countries do have the death penalty, but they don’t count fewer murderers

No, it doesn't.

We can play this game all afternoon. It works. If you cut off someone's dick, say, then yours is cut off, I doubt you're gonna break the law again any time soon.

The degree of punishment doesn't matter for criminals.
What is working, is the degree of getting caught.

Some states and countries do have the death penalty, but they don’t count fewer murderers

Well, catching them and then releasing them again, even if you catch 100% of criminals, isn't going to imrpove anything.
There needs to be punishment, but humiliation is much more effective than pain or death. As I said before, pain and death can be glorified. Being socially humiliated can't.

"Of course, only blind him and take his eyes, because I cannot behave the way he did and ask for acid to be thrown in his face," she said. "Because that would be [a] savage, barbaric act. Only take away his sight so that his eyes will become like mine. I am not saying this from a selfish motive. This is what society demands."

You see, blinding someone with acid is savage and barbaric if and only if you disfigure their face in the process. :rolleyes:

Oh, Iran, why must you be such a shithole?

We can play this game all afternoon. It works. If you cut off someone's dick, say, then yours is cut off, I doubt you're gonna break the law again any time soon.

You might want to read up on this before making such statements.
Punishments like that have been shown not to be efficient decades ago.

We can play this game all afternoon. It works. If you cut off someone's dick, say, then yours is cut off, I doubt you're gonna break the law again any time soon.

You doubt, but there is still some doubt. Ahhh I see.:D

You see, blinding someone with acid is savage and barbaric if and only if you disfigure their face in the process. :rolleyes:

Read the article, they're not gonna blind him with acid.

Punishments like that have been shown not to be efficient decades ago.

Prove it. Using my example.

You doubt, but there is still some doubt. Ahhh I see.:D

*Pushes away old man's face*

Prove it. Using my example.

You're the one proposing the claim.
Burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid.

Well, catching them and then releasing them again, even if you catch 100% of criminals, isn't going to imrpove anything.
There needs to be punishment, but humiliation is much more effective than pain or death. As I said before, pain and death can be glorified. Being socially humiliated can't.

In the 18th century sheep theft was a huge problem in England. It occurred that much that the government gave the death penalty for steeling sheep.

It didn't help. Why? Odds were low to be caught.

If you are sure to be caught, you'll think twice to commit the crime.

You're the one proposing the claim.
Burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid.

Not really. You said it's been proven not to work. The burden is on you.

We can play this game all afternoon. It works. If you cut off someone's dick, say, then yours is cut off, I doubt you're gonna break the law again any time soon.

Retaliation like that never works. This is not a game, though. Stop and think a little bit and check what others are telling you. Does the crime rate in Texas (a state that has the death penalty) is any lower? No, it's not.

In Muslim countries, people still steal, and they know their hands could be cut off if caught. But they still do it. Necessity drives them to it.

Read the article, they're not gonna blind him with acid.

Is that so?
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- An Iranian woman, blinded by a jilted stalker who threw acid in her face, has persuaded a court to sentence him to be blinded with acid himself under Islamic law demanding an eye for an eye.
...
The three-judge panel ruled unanimously on November 26 that Majid should be blinded with acid and forced to pay compensation for the injuries to Bahrami's face, hands and body caused by the acid.

And with your dick removal hypothetical, consider that the perpetrator, barring a total disconnect with reality or a "heat of the moment" kind of thing, would have felt that his victim deserved to have his dick removed. Being punished so severely for doing something he felt was right will make him feel angry, no? "First this bastard did [whatever], and now because of him I don't have a dick! Well, I think I'll just get on with my life and become a good, upstanding, dickless member of society now". Yeah, seems likely to me.

Necessity drives them to it.

Drives you to throw acid in someone's face?

Retaliation like that never works. This is not a game, though. Stop and think a little bit and check what others are telling you. Does the crime rate in Texas (a state that has the death penalty) is any lower? No, it's not.

In Muslim countries, people still steal, and they know their hands could be cut off if caught. But they still do it. Necessity drives them to it.

No no. We all know that muslims are counting more criminals ;)

If you check your posts, you were first to claim that it does....


You don't have to proof. A forum is like a bar. You can enter a bar and talk real nonsense but no one will demand you for some proof.

Who invented that whole proof procedure anyway?

It's rare that I provide proof. If they aren't prepared to eat my words, so be it. :)

Drives you to throw acid in someone's face?

To steal. You do remember your reading comprehension skills, don't you?
You don't have to proof. A forum is like a bar. You can enter a bar and talk real nonsense but no one will demand you for some proof.
On the contrary, people here will very regularly demand proof. It's the whole "having access to vast amounts of information" thing.

On the contrary, people here will very regularly demand proof. It's the whole "having access to vast amounts of information" thing.

If they are really interested in the subject they can hunt for information rather easy by themselves.

The problem with proof demanders is that they often just demand 'proof' to keep you busy searching data. I don't like unpaid labor.

If they are really interested in the subject they can hunt for information rather easy by themselves.
Which amounts to them doing your work for you. If you make a claim then why should I find out if it's true?

The problem with proof demanders is that they often just demand 'proof' to keep you busy searching data. I don't like unpaid labor.

Lazy git :tongue:

Which amounts to them doing your work for you. If you make a claim then why should I find out if it's true?



Lazy git :tongue:

hehe :)

This is not a courtroom and we aren't doing science.

Please, can I state nonsense without the proof?

Btw, do you have proof that I have to proof? :)

Drives you to throw acid in someone's face?

Nice, you're basically reading what you want to read from my statement.

Necesity drives some people to steal, not a good thing, but it happens. The fear of being punished with the Eye for an Eye law in the Muslim world is great, but that doesn't stop people from committing crimes. That's why your cutting a dick and then cutting your own statement doesn't proceed. That's why retaliation like eye for an eye doesn't work.

We can do better than this.

Oh we can do better. Permanent state enforced slavery in hard labor until he dies sounds about right. I believe in making people pay for their crimes to the last metaphorical cent.

Some people are simply too dangerous to themselves and society to let loose or rehabilitate at all, and since you can't bring back the dead, slavery opens up the option of acquittal if evidence shows innocence.

We can play this game all afternoon. It works. If you cut off someone's dick, say, then yours is cut off, I doubt you're gonna break the law again any time soon.
Or maybe I will. After all, I cut off someone's dick, someone cuts off my dick, I cut off the dick of second person, and then they cut off my . . . ?
We seem to have reached a problem.
You don't have to proof. A forum is like a bar. You can enter a bar and talk real nonsense but no one will demand you for some proof.
I have a very high demand for proof when I go to a bar.

Or maybe I will. After all, I cut off someone's dick, someone cuts off my dick, I cut off the dick of second person, and then they cut off my . . . ?
We seem to have reached a problem.
No, we'll use your DNA to grow a replacement penis on a mouse's back, reattach it, then remove it again.

I have a very high demand for proof when I go to a bar.

I go by ABV myself.

No no. We all know that muslims are counting more criminals ;)

Infidel!:D

So if his nose accidentally gets burned off while removing his eyes, he then gets to burn the nose off the person who carried out the sentence?

So if his nose accidentally gets burned off while removing his eyes, he then gets to burn the nose off the person who carried out the sentence?

Or get blood money from them, apparently.

He won't want something even worse to happen to him. If I was blinded I doubt I'd commit another foul crime in a hurry.
that's like saying castrating rapists will prevent more rapes.

What happens when a gay muslim is giving a hetero muslim, against his will, a blowjob?

Will the gay muslim be punished with a blowjob from the hetero muslim? I remember a similar question being asked in a little known play. "so what happens if someone rapes me? will you then rape him?"

Is that so?

That was what she had demanded earlier in the trial. But she did not ask for his face to be disfigured, as hers was.
guess they will be using Eye Drops to deliver the acid...

in the US, such a punishment would be seen as Cruel and Unusual and thus illegal, but this is NOT the US. Some countries allow Caning as a form of legal punishment. and some allow death as a form of legal punishment. if death is not a deterrant, then why would blinding a person be a deterrant?

Would it stop him from committing more acts against her? there is no proof. It would make it harder for him, but not impossible.

No, we'll use your DNA to grow a replacement penis on a mouse's back, reattach it, then remove it again.
That's more of a punishment to the poor mouse. He'll be crushed . . .
I go by ABV myself.
But proof gets you twice as much for the same price!

That's more of a punishment to the poor mouse. He'll be crushed . . .
Maybe they could get a dog or a small horse instead. Something that could support the weight of your immense phallus.

But proof gets you twice as much for the same price!

Using percentages makes me feel smrt.

So I see. But blinding a man will solve nothing. Sometimes you must prove you are better then them. Punish them with hard labor, with solitary confinement, but blinding a man is something that to the modern world is barbaric, and by doing the same to him will only prove we are trapped in the past, as he is.

Iran is hardly the Modern World VKZ.

Just the responses I would expect from the happy go lucky folks on NSG.

I however, fully agree with the punishment given to the stalker. Further, the attackers assets should be liquidated to pay for reconstructive surgery for the woman.

Eye for an eye is a fine philosophy and way of life. Sometimes eye for eye and a bit more is called for, though.

lol @ Middle Eastern "justice".

Just the responses I would expect from the happy go lucky folks on NSG.

Yeah, damn happy go lucky folks on NSG thinking with their brains and believing in human rights.

I however, fully agree with the punishment given to the stalker. Further, the attackers assets should be liquidated to pay for reconstructive surgery for the woman.

This is expected.

Eye for an eye is a fine philosophy and way of life. Sometimes eye for eye and a bit more is called for, though.

Silly.

An eye for an eye means the whole world will have to wear eye-patches, making us all pirates, and pirates rule. w00t!

An eye for an eye means the whole world will have to wear eye-patches, making us all pirates, and pirates rule. w00t!

That is almost sigworthy.

An eye for an eye means the whole world will have to wear eye-patches, making us all pirates, and pirates rule. w00t!
But we'd all be without any depth perception. Imagine a world filled with pirates who are awful at estimating distances so they keeping bumping into walls closer than they expected.

Actually that sounds kind of awesome. w00t, indeed.

There is nothing within me that can accept this as right.

Just the responses I would expect from the happy go lucky folks on NSG.
We love you too :)

I however, fully agree with the punishment given to the stalker. Further, the attackers assets should be liquidated to pay for reconstructive surgery for the woman.
That's what civil suits are for in the rest of the world. And what'll you do if new evidence finds him not guilty? Liquidate her assets to repay him, thus potentially ruining the victim of a violent crime because of your own short-sightedness.

Eye for an eye is a fine philosophy and way of life. Sometimes eye for eye and a bit more is called for, though.

The problem with an eye for an eye is that it only satisfies the revenger and the revenged(who are sometimes the same person). I won't blind you unless I think you deserve it. If you have me blinded I sure as hell won't think we're even. The justice system as it is now doesn't eliminate this, but it at least tries to lessen it, with some success IMO.

To do something bad to them so they don't reoffend? That's the goal of both.
Retributive justice doesn't attack the core of the issue, though. Either you rehabilitate or you simply remove completely. I'm not an idiot so I see the dangers of killing people for any crime, whatsoever, that they commit rather than attempt rehabilitation.
We can play this game all afternoon. It works. If you cut off someone's dick, say, then yours is cut off, I doubt you're gonna break the law again any time soon.
No, it doesn't work. There's a reason offenders in retributive justice systems tend to be repeat offenders.
Some people are simply too dangerous to themselves and society to let loose or rehabilitate at all, and since you can't bring back the dead, slavery opens up the option of acquittal if evidence shows innocence.

This doesn't make sense to me. These people are most in need of rehabilitation, therefore we will not rehabilitate them.

Look, it should not be the goal of a justice system to satisfy your bloodlust and make you feel all warm and fuzzy. Its goal is to enforce a reasoned law and therefore ensure society's gears operate efficiently. Law is the oil, society is the mechanism and lawyers, judges and legislators are various components of the oil manufacturer that ensure that the social mechanism constantly operates at peak efficiency. Your petty emotional desires do not, and cannot for efficiency's sake, factor into it. I get pissed at components of my computer when they fail to work properly...so I fix them, even though, emotionally, I want to throw them out a fucking window.

I however, fully agree with the punishment given to the stalker. Further, the attackers assets should be liquidated to pay for reconstructive surgery for the woman.

Finally.

and way of life.

Maybe...

Sometimes eye for eye and a bit more is called for, though.

No.

Just the responses I would expect from the happy go lucky folks on NSG.

I however, fully agree with the punishment given to the stalker. Further, the attackers assets should be liquidated to pay for reconstructive surgery for the woman.

Eye for an eye is a fine philosophy and way of life. Sometimes eye for eye and a bit more is called for, though.

How? If the crime is met with the same thing in punishment, then why aren't those who do the punishing, punished as well?

How? If the crime is met with the same thing in punishment, then why aren't those who do the punishing, punished as well?

The assumption is that the crime, being a crime, is a negative version of the action and the punishment, being retribution, is a positive version, thus negating each other, to break it down into its most basic principle. However, justice is not zero-sum.

Good. The salient flaw of occidental justice at present is a concern with legislature and failure to provide any form of personal, moral justice.

Revenge is good. Very good. Excellent basis for a juridical system.

Revenge is good. Very good. Excellent basis for a juridical system.

Explain?

Good. The salient flaw of occidental justice at present is a concern with legislature and failure to provide any form of personal, moral justice.

Revenge is good. Very good. Excellent basis for a juridical system.

There is no such thing as "personal" justice as regards the actual law and moral justice only makes sense when determined within the contest of that particular justice system.

Sometimes eye for eye and a bit more is called for, though.Pour acid on his dick?

To those who object to the proposed blinding sentence: What about the concept of the punishment fitting the crime?

Besides, you shouldn't be so judgemental. Learn to be inclusive and respect the traditions of other cultures. Don't try to force your moral views on others, bacause all views are equal. :p

To those who object to the proposed blinding sentence: What about the concept of the punishment fitting the crime?


The punishmen fitting the crime isnt "Do unto others as they do to you!"

To those who object to the proposed blinding sentence: What about the concept of the punishment fitting the crime?

Besides, you shouldn't be so judgemental. Learn to be inclusive and respect the traditions of other cultures. Don't try to force your moral views on others, bacause all views are equal. :p

Jail. Simple as that. You take away their freedom to move about and make trouble. That is the punishment.

The punishmen fitting the crime isnt "Do unto others as they do to you!"

^This.

Who's going to blind the judge?

Justice is already blind!

The punishmen fitting the crime isnt "Do unto others as they do to you!"

I never understood that. If its "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" than why not throw acid in his face? After all he threw acid in her face. In principle, that's asking to have acid thrown in his.

What's so wrong with giving him what he asked for?

I never understood that. If its "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" than why not throw acid in his face? After all he threw acid in her face. In principle, that's asking to have acid thrown in his.

What's so wrong with giving him what he asked for?

Because then they have to throw acid at whoever throws acid at that guy?

I never understood that. If its "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" than why not throw acid in his face? After all he threw acid in her face. In principle, that's asking to have acid thrown in his.

What's so wrong with giving him what he asked for?

Because youre supposed to do to others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to have acid thrown in your face because you did it to someone else? No. And if you say you would, youre a liar.

It always tickles me when the religious right is all about justice as punishment, totally ignoring "turning the other cheek" and "loving your enemies".

I never understood that. If its "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" than why not throw acid in his face? After all he threw acid in her face. In principle, that's asking to have acid thrown in his.

What's so wrong with giving him what he asked for?

Because that's precisely what "do unto others...." DOESN'T mean. It doesn't mean do to others what they've already done to you, it means treat others in a way you would like to be treated. "Do unto others...." means turning the other cheek when someone injures you and, generally, being the better person than those who slight you.

It always tickles me when the religious right is all about justice as punishment, totally ignoring "turning the other cheek" and "loving your enemies".

My boss calls that the 23 hour regime.

23 hours with Satan
1 hour with God.

Because you're supposed to do to others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to have acid thrown in your face because you did it to someone else? No. And if you say you would, youre a liar.


The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't make sense to me as an argument against a fitting punishment. If the perp in question isn't acting out this so-called "golden rule" then why should society apply it to him? I'm all for taking the moral high road, but when it comes to violent crimes I just can't help but cheer on the unruly mob.


It always tickles me when the religious right is all about justice as punishment, totally ignoring "turning the other cheek" and "loving your enemies".

Yes. Aren't they all a bunch of hypocrites?

The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't make sense to me as an argument against a fitting punishment. If the perp in question isn't acting out this so-called "golden rule" then why should society apply it to him? I'm all for taking the moral high road, but when it comes to violent crimes I just can't help but cheer on the unruly mob.


The Golden Rule isn't really about what is a just punishment; it's about what you should do to be a virtuous person. It doesn't address how to treat those who break it.

The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't make sense to me as an argument against a fitting punishment. If the perp in question isn't acting out this so-called "golden rule" then why should society apply it to him?

Because thats what your supposed to do? Thats what makes you better than him?

If the perp in question isn't acting out this so-called "golden rule" then why should society apply it to him?
Because that's what right to do, regardless of what HE does. He doesn't get to dictate how WE choose to be.

Because thats what your supposed to do? Thats what makes you better than him?

By whose standards? Not mine. As far as I'm concerned, blind him and then throw his ass in jail for 20 years. Keep him away from society and more importantly the woman and her family.

By whose standards? Not mine. As far as I'm concerned, blind him and then throw his ass in jail for 20 years. Keep him away from society and more importantly the woman and her family.

Then by those standards, you're no better than him who threw acid into the woman's face.:(

Then by those standards, you're no better than him who threw acid into the woman's face.:(

Why? Because i believe he shouldn't get away with such a cruel and horrible act against another human being?

Why? Because i believe he shouldn't get away with such a cruel and horrible act against another human being?

No one is denying the fact that the act was horrible and cruel. But an eye for an eye doesn't work. By wishing something horrible to happen to this man you're being as bad as him.

By wishing something horrible to happen to this man you're being as bad as him.

I think at this point we should just agree to disagree.

I think at this point we should just agree to disagree.

That's fine with me.:wink:

My worry is that being punished brutally like this without any form of obligatory psychological treatment will make him even more determined to harm her. It's a viscious cycle... he will feel that he was wronged and it's her fault. A person like this is quite likely to take violent revenge.

It sounds like this guy has psychological problems imo, and if we were following the western model, he might be put in an asylum.

Why? Because i believe he shouldn't get away with such a cruel and horrible act against another human being?

Nope because you see nowt wrong with performing the same cruel and horible act upon him.

Either throwing acid in somebodies face is wrong, or it is not, how can it be wrong for some people and right for others? That makes no sense at all.

Because youre supposed to do to others as you would have them do unto you. Would you like to have acid thrown in your face because you did it to someone else? No. And if you say you would, youre a liar.

It always tickles me when the religious right is all about justice as punishment, totally ignoring "turning the other cheek" and "loving your enemies".

An advantage, I've always felt, of being a secular bastard.

I'm not normally one for the eye-for-an-eye approach, but in this case, I think it may be just what is needed...

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- An Iranian woman, blinded by a jilted stalker who threw acid in her face, has persuaded a court to sentence him to be blinded with acid himself under Islamic law demanding an eye for an eye.

That's why the victim shouldn't have a say about the sentence. It's hard to be objective when you're the victim.

It would be far better to send him to 10 years forced labour AND give the profits to the victim (for the surgery) and to some anti-violence project.


What do you think of this decision? Do you think this sentence may reduce such attacks against women in Iran and other countries, or is this another example of a too-harsh sentence imposed by an authoritarian regime?

Harsh sentences don't reduce crime rates. Proven oh-so-many-times-in-history.

What about eye-for-an-eye in general? Do you feel such punishments are justified, or not, and why?
Eye for an eye is one of the most stupid ideas ever. That's vendetta, not justice. Justice is about rights and society; vendetta is about emotions and individuals. When the State steps in on emotions, it's deep shit.

This doesn't make sense to me. These people are most in need of rehabilitation, therefore we will not rehabilitate them.

Rehab how? Show me one guaranteed measure that doesn't offend your sensibilities of brainwashing, because that's what it is, no matter how prettily you try to dress it up.

Humanity is a diverse lot, and you end up with a fair number of sociopaths and outright murderous lunatics who do it for kicks who are too damned dangerous to let loose. Even worse are those who can play a convincing game of "Oh! I'm so sorry, I won't ever do it again, sucker!" and then stab your eyes out when your guard is down. Either you put them away for good or you brainwash them so completely, their past selves are effectively dead.


Look, it should not be the goal of a justice system to satisfy your bloodlust and make you feel all warm and fuzzy.


Isn't that what you're trying to do? "Oh, we're more civilized than that. We can't think of bringing any negative based corrective measures into play"

Of course you'll play a nice pseudo shock and horror when the same people go out and re-offend and then cry for more of the same oh so ineffective treatment.


Its goal is to enforce a reasoned law and therefore ensure society's gears operate efficiently.


Jail is the recognized punishment for a vast majority of crimes. Hard labor has been recognized as legal punishment for just as long. I see no reason why the law and societies gears cannot operate efficiently by ensuring that the damage done by the perpetrators be repaid in their sweat.


Your petty emotional desires do not, and cannot for efficiency's sake, factor into it.

Humanism and compassion has no place in the law whatsoever. The law exists to create order and eliminate disorder.


I get pissed at components of my computer when they fail to work properly...so I fix them, even though, emotionally, I want to throw them out a fucking window.

You replace components that fail to work, and dispose of the ones that are irreparable. A good way to treat society and the hazardous elements inside it as a whole.

Nope because you see nowt wrong with performing the same cruel and horible act upon him.

Either throwing acid in somebodies face is wrong, or it is not, how can it be wrong for some people and right for others? That makes no sense at all.

But one will never actually control or regulate crime from the moral highground.

Why? Because i believe he shouldn't get away with such a cruel and horrible act against another human being?

No, because your response to a cruel and horrible act against a human being is to carry out a cruel and horrible act against a human being.

But one will never actually control or regulate crime from the moral highground.

Nor will crime be controlled or regulated from the moral lowground.

Nor will crime be controlled or regulated from the moral lowground.

Yes, it will.

But one will never actually control or regulate crime from the moral highground.

And the same can be said for the princliple of eye for an eye.

Crime will always be with us, by acting in the same way as those we condeme, well that makes us guilty of the same crime huh.

Yes, it will.

So you favour an IRA punishment beating approach to justice?

So you favour an IRA punishment beating approach to justice?

As opposed to the premise that any crime can be expiated for by a fixed term of incarceration or fine? Yes. It has its merits.

And the same can be said for the princliple of eye for an eye.

Crime will always be with us, by acting in the same way as those we condeme, well that makes us guilty of the same crime huh.

Or not, since by that logic responding to an invasion makes us the aggressor.

Yes, it will.

So in response to someone violating the standards of society, we should drop those standards. Makes one wonder what worth the standards are if the people charged with upholding them don't.

Or not, since by that logic responding to an invasion makes us the aggressor.

Hah thats some twisted logic there. I would have said that by that logic responding to an invasion makes you as guilty of violence as the invader.

Or not, since by that logic responding to an invasion makes us the aggressor.

That depends on your response. In the context of this debate, responding to an invasion by INVADING your invader isn't justified. Only defending yourself.

That makes perfect sense to me.

So in response to someone violating the standards of society, we should drop those standards. Makes one wonder what worth the standards are if the people charged with upholding them don't.

I really don't see this argument at all, and never have. No society can be defended from the depravity of mankind without moral sacrifices.

That depends on your response. In the context of this debate, responding to an invasion by INVADING your invader isn't justified. Only defending yourself.

That makes perfect sense to me.

That's just weak. Spineless, "soft power" influenced weakness.

I really don't see this argument at all, and never have. No society can be defended from the depravity of mankind without moral sacrifices.

Yet there are plenty of examples where changes have come about without sacrificing morality.

"Do unto others...." means turning the other cheek when someone injures you and, generally, being the better person than those who slight you.

And being the victim (usually dead at that) 100% of the time too?

Do unto others is all well and good, until someone presses the barrel of a gun into your face or decides that you would look pretty with your intestines on the outside.

That's just weak. Spineless, "soft power" influenced weakness.

No, it's logic. Your opinion on 'soft power' is irrelevant to the discussion.

The whole retribution against Germany for World War I, worked out so remarkably well for the whole world. Nope of course it didn't...

Nope because you see nowt wrong with performing the same cruel and horible act upon him.

Either throwing acid in somebodies face is wrong, or it is not, how can it be wrong for some people and right for others? That makes no sense at all.

You are opposed to the concept of imprisonment then?

Let's say you know someone who has a daughter. And that someone for the last twenty years, has kept that daughter chained up in his basement for his own sick personal amusement. Putting aside the question of personal amusement, the act of imprisoning another human being for that long would put him in jail for jsut as long, if not longer.

It's about the same thing as what he did after all, pruning out a few small things.

No, it's logic. Your opinion on 'soft power' is irrelevant to the discussion.

I wouldn't have mentioned it if it were not germane.

You are opposed to the concept of imprisonment then?

Let's say you know someone who has a daughter. And that someone for the last twenty years, has kept that daughter chained up in his basement for his own sick personal amusement. Putting aside the question of personal amusement, the act of imprisoning another human being for that long would put him in jail for jsut as long, if not longer.

It's about the same thing as what he did after all, pruning out a few small things.


Of course not. I get the point, but there has to be some reaction against those who would commit crime.

Jail, is far more humane than an eye for an eye treatment.

Take somebodies freedom, not their eyes.

Of course not. I get the point, but there has to be some reaction against those who would commit crime.

Jail, is far more humane than an eye for an eye treatment.

So is enforced hard labor equal to the cost of damage done. And yet people still balk at the idea.


Take somebodies freedom, not their eyes.

There'd be ironic justice if his eyes could be taken to restore her sight I think. Compensation of the victims at cost to the criminal is accepted practice in most countries, even those that sit on top of the human rights index. It's monetary usually, but there might be some merit in ironic compensation.

I wouldn't have mentioned it if it were not germane.

It wasn't germane, it was just some rhetoric which had no bearing on my point.

So is enforced hard labor equal to the cost of damage done. And yet people still balk at the idea.

Yeah I'm all for that also.

I'm not really too opposed to this guy losing his eyesight, but a better question is, how to long-term stop men in Middle Eastern countries from thinking it is ok to throw acid at a woman?

Marmite.

I really don't see this argument at all, and never have. No society can be defended from the depravity of mankind without moral sacrifices.

Why not?

Marmite.

A fan of Edward De Bono eh?

A fan of Edward De Bono eh?

Of course. Who isn't.

He should be proclaimed World Emperor.

Of course. Who isn't.

He should be proclaimed World Emperor.

With six different coloured crowns for his coronation?

According to a friend of mine from the British Virgin Islands, if you kill, stab, shoot, strangle anyone. Someone will kill, stab, shoot, strangle you back respectively. If you rape someone, I am surprised I did not ask what happens to you back.

He should have to pay for and care for her but not get to be with her for the rest of his life. The other option is he should really never see the light of day again. Prison for life would work.

No society can be defended from the depravity of mankind without moral sacrifices.
That's assuming we're all somehow, by default, morally depraved, which is a Fairly Big Assumption.

And being the victim (usually dead at that) 100% of the time too?

No. "Do unto others" doesn't mean you have to be a pacifist wuss who doesn't defend himself.

What do you think of this decision? Do you think this sentence may reduce such attacks against women in Iran and other countries,
Not in the slightest.

or is this another example of a too-harsh sentence imposed by an authoritarian regime?
Yes.

What about eye-for-an-eye in general? Do you feel such punishments are justified, or not, and why?
Such an outdated system of meeting out "justice" is better laid to rest.

Such an outdated system of meeting out "justice" is better laid to rest.

Agreed :)

i say fuck him. the bastard deserves it

I support the woman's decision for the reasons that are not revenge, as an extreme awareness to a recurring problem. If it was me they would also sterilize him.

Depriving someone of their senses is abhorrent, but I believe that in this specific case, it is justified. (Being ordered by a tribunal, it would have to be, wouldn't it?)

I don't know enough about Iran to guess whether a well-publicized eye gouging wouldn't be an effective deterrent to this sort of thing - that's for experts within that culture to say. It might not be business as usual for us, but that alone doesn't make it wrong. That alone means nothing at all, really.

Depriving someone of their senses is abhorrent, but I believe that in this specific case, it is justified. (Being ordered by a tribunal, it would have to be, wouldn't it?)

Absolutely not. It being the law doesn't make it right. It makes it legal, but not right.

I prefer the concept that "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would leave us all blind and toothless".

There is a difference between vengeance and justice. Let this man suffer the loss of his liberty and wealth as considered just by impartial moderators.