I think her attack and the punishment are both horrific, but I believe she is 100% correct that the punishment will serve as a deterrent.
As barbaric as it may seem (and truly is), I think the only way to get across the point that acid attacks are not acceptable is to make it clear that you will get a dose of your own medicine in return. I don’t see how there would have to be more than a few examples made of men who do this before the number of acid attacks on women drop drastically.
FYI, she turned down financial compensation. I was a bit astonished that both parties are well-educated professionals and not rural villagers.
How about this for an outcome? She blinds her assailant. The assailant is angry and hurt. She’s angry and hurt. They fight, and end up making passionate love. They live happily ever after.
And here’s where my own feelings of outrage in support of this punishment have to be qualified. Yes, taken out of context, the guy’s punishment should be even greater. But bear in mind that this punishment should exist in the context of a “justice system,” which doesn’t really exist in Iran. The system they have bears little resemblance to “justice,” which pretty much invalidates their punishments in general.
So if these two individuals lived in a country that practiced “an eye for an eye” within a system of actual objective justice, I’d definitely be in favor of it. But in the context of Iranian jurisprudence, I wouldn’t assume the guilty verdict was arrived at objectively.
Have I wandered back into the middle ages somehow? Seriously. I’m not naive but the fact that so many people support this, or would go further, disturbs me greatly.
And this is a liberal board. You should check out a more mainstream or conservative one sometime. Plenty of people think it is a swell idea, myself including. If you don’t worship humans as little deities of their own like humanists seem to, there is nothing to stop rational and otherwise compassionate people people from wanting brutal punishments for special crimes.
You can add me to the “namby-pamby”, “do-gooders” who think the guy shouldn’t be blinded.
The only arguments you could give to support revenge-based punishments are emotional ones. Disabling another person doesn’t help anything or benefit anyone, maybe not even the victim, in the long run (although, due to the specifics of this particular case, I suspect the victim will have few regrets about the revenge).
And as for deterrent, it’s actually the opposite. It’s society saying revenge is right, and appropriate. And if someone does something sufficiently bad to you, they should be blinded, say.
There seems to be a lot of straw-manning going on. Nobody is claiming that vengeance/revenge is the SAME as justice. I, at least, am claiming that vengeance can be just and in this case it is. Nobody is claiming that retributive punishment should form the BASIS of a justice system. Nobody is advocating a middle-ages style justice system (afaik - I’m no middle ages expert). That is, nobody is advocating branding for stealing and the like.
To those of you who are repulsed by the responses in favor of the punishment, can you elaborate on the reasons for this? As in, can you lay down some plausible moral principles that would preclude the punishment? Myself, I’m starting to think he’s actually getting off easy - she’s blinded and pretty badly disfigured, he’d just be blinded.
I agree that blinding the guy isn’t going to help anyone. On the other hand, locking him up isn’t going to help anyone either. I suspect he doesn’t have the money to actually help the woman so financial restitution isn’t a realistic option. Given that he deliberately blinded and mutilated a woman, I wouldn’t want him doing any kind of community service anyway. I don’t think there is any kind of restitution possible.
In this case, I believe that blinding people that throw sulfuric acid on someone WOULD be a powerful deterrent. A few blind guys hanging around would certainly deter others. It isn’t much and wouldn’t help her, but it might make someone think before they started throwing acid around. If it turns out that blinding him didn’t deter others, who gives a damn?
Put me down in favor of him getting exactly the same punishment he gave her.
I am stunned that your alternative is to have someone convicted of an acid attack be left in charge of feeding, clothing & bathing people and taking care of their children.
I supposed child molestors have to do community service as babysitters, and bank robbers must be bank tellers. Is that what a “civilized” society does?
OK, but no modern state can operate under a “play it by ear” justice system.
There can be some flexibility but generally you need to lay down principles, and stick to them.
I don’t see the basis for saying eye for an eye looks right here, but we’re not going to do it for this or that rape, or GBH, or whatever.
I’m not so sure. But I think this is one of the better angles for the pro-retribution position.
If acid attacks are endemic to their society, and many people feel they can get away with it, then the government / judiciary may decide they need to crack down on the problem, no matter what.
IOW I don’t think you can justify the revenge in itself, but to bring an end to the greater evil of commonplace acid attacks…then it gets more complicated.
If we’re not going to blind this guy the only alternative is to give him some sort of ironic community service where we knowingly put people at risk. Clearly those are the ONLY two options. :rolleyes:
I am agnostic and I love good revenge just like most people do and I am not afraid to admit it. Regardless or any grand philosophical reasons, I find it brings some immediate symmetry to existence and also some entertainment. Those are good enough reasons for me. I don’t think humans have any special place in nature. I would just put him to death personally like we would an aggressive dog if it was up to me but blinding is a good compromise if it might help spread a message throughout the warren.
Actually it is claimed that in the interview she gave that she said she’d have to pay an extra fee of 20,000 Euros for the priviledge of blinding him in both eyes, rather than just one. Which perhaps she did, as every single news agency is claiming it will be both eyes. I’m rather curious what Iranian law actually says on this topic, but can’t immediately find anything on the web.
