Blinded woman gets to put acid in attacker's eyes

[Whitney]

Re-posting from what I said on facebook:

Everything about why this crime happened in the first place and how it is being taken to justice is just wrong....civil societies shouldn't encourage retribution but they also shouldn't create an environment where the government has the problem of acid attacks that needs to be stopped. Note, the image of the woman may not be something some of you want to see so I took the thumbnail off...it's pretty bad.

An Iranian man found guilty of using acid to blind a woman who refused to marry him now will have the same done to him as punishment — and she'll be the one who carries out the sentence, her lawyer says.

The lawyer said that at noon Saturday, Ameneh Bahrami would drop acid in both eyes of Majid Movahedi, 30, after he is rendered unconscious at a judiciary hospital in Tehran, The Guardian newspaper reported, citing Iranian media.

Bahrami was disfigured and blinded in 2004 when Movahedi threw acid in her face as she returned home from work, the Guardian reported. After Movahedi admitted to the attack, Bahrami asked a court to order an eye-for-an-eye retribution, under the Islamic law system of "qisas."

The court did so in November 2008, calling for five drops of sulfuric acid to be placed in each of his eyes.

    Only on msnbc.com
        Race a factor in STD testing of young women
        Research shows setback for lab-made stem cells
        Cubans dream of being tourists — abroad
        Follow the Taliban — now on Twitter
        War for American hearts and minds rages over Islam
        As oil prices drop, Fed should get credit
        How computers got us started in space

Iranian officials have endorsed the sentence, hoping to stop an increase in acid attacks, the Guardian said.

The Washington Post reported that human rights groups and the British government had asked Bahrami to pardon Movahedi but that she had refused.

"I have been receiving numerous phone calls from Iranian human rights organizations based abroad," Bahrami told the Post in a phone interview Friday. "They are pressuring me to pardon him. But I won't do that."

Iran's government helped Bahrami, who has an electronics degree and worked in a medical engineering company before the attack, moved to Spain, where she underwent a series of unsuccessful operations.

She briefly recovered half vision in her right eye in 2007 but an infection blinded her again, the Guardian said.

Bahrami, now in her 30s, wrote a book about her ordeal, "Eye for an Eye," which was published in Germany.

source:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43029928/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa (see source for picture of woman...somewhat graphic)

[The Magic Pudding]

I liked your post with the kitten better.
More baby animals, less fundamentalist psychos please.

[Will]

It's both shocking and terrifying to actually see the old adage, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," played out live. It's more shocking still that this adage was lost on those responsible. You'd think this is a phrase which crosses geographical and linguistic boundaries.

Forgive the melodramatic tone, but it can be hard at times to live in this world. The nice thing about being an atheist, though, is we have no illusions about an afterlife, so we're inspired to do what we can to make this world a better place. The current Iranian regime is already on shaky ground. There was a presidential election protest that nearly grew into a revolution 2 years ago. With all of the revolutions in the Middle East against corrupt and extremist governments, I believe it's only a matter of time before Iran is faced with true revolution. Perhaps the best response to this terrifying story is to ask: "What can I do to help Iranian moderates?"

[Tank]

The quicker we are rid of religion the better.

[The Magic Pudding]

As barbaric as it is I think it would be worse if the guy just walked free.
Ye I'd have to say the issue of women being burnt, killed or blinded by males troubles me more.

The quicker we are rid of religion the better.

I'm not sure if this is a religious issue.

[Tank]

I'm not sure if this is a religious issue.

I think I understand what you are getting at, but as religion is at the core of Iran's world view and political system I don't see how or why it can not be held culpable to some extent for this sort of behaviour.

[Cecilie]

I read about this yesterday and some people were blogging about this and most of them thought this punishment was appropriate. That really shocked me.

[The Magic Pudding]

I'm not sure if this is a religious issue.

I think I understand what you are getting at, but as religion is at the core of Iran's world view and political system I don't see how or why it can not be held culpable to some extent for this sort of behaviour.

OK I'll be Pudding, Defender Of The Faithful for a while.

It's not an original argument, that it's the culture of people not religion that causes these atrocities.  Ancient goat herders live a harsh life, treat their woman harshly and criminals cruelly.  Plonk a religion down on them and they continue to live much as they did before.  I see this line of thought as precluding the argument that religion improves human nature, maybe I'm just not flexible enough to be a good defender of the faithful.

Oh I see where I've gone wrong, religion does improve people, but not entirely because they are so very bad, so the bad stuff can be blamed on culture.  The holy books can set out what behaviour should be punished and how.  This is great isn't it?  Everyone knows what the rules are and it never needs changing 'cause god made it and he made it to last.  Followers of a religion of love shouldn't enjoy killing, but if god says they deserve it, well it's just wrong to do god's work half heartedly. 

I hear atheists complain all the time, "these theists are following the archaic rules of ancient goat herders, it's time they evolved".  But when we embrace modern marketing, weapons, hair pieces or acids they still complain.  There's just no pleasing some people.

[Will37]

I read about this yesterday and some people were blogging about this and most of them thought this punishment was appropriate. That really shocked me.

Why?

Had he done this in the west we would have locked him in a small cage with other violent men for months to years on end.  I fail to see how that is inherently enlightened while this is somehow inherently savage and barbaric.

[Cecilie]

I read about this yesterday and some people were blogging about this and most of them thought this punishment was appropriate. That really shocked me.

Why?

Had he done this in the west we would have locked him in a small cage with other violent men for months to years on end.  I fail to see how that is inherently enlightened while this is somehow inherently savage and barbaric.

Actually the prisons here are pretty comfortable. Or so I've heard.

[Will37]

It's both shocking and terrifying to actually see the old adage, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," played out live. It's more shocking still that this adage was lost on those responsible. You'd think this is a phrase which crosses geographical and linguistic boundaries.

The quote sounds nice.  And it is perfectly consistent with the religious would views of an Indian ascetic who would have viewed it as morally preferable for every Jew in europe to be exterminated rather than they return the violence of the Nazi's with violence of their own.  I'd rather live in a world where the Jews of Europe fight back.

Anyway.  I don't see anything sad about this.  This man disfigured and blinded this woman because she rejected him.  Being blinded as punishment for blinding somebody is, by definition, just.  That is to say that it is fair.  More importantly the regime is doing this to make an example out of this man to stop the growing trend of acid attacks in Iran.  Good.  Women shouldn't have to live in fear of this.  I see nothing wrong with sending a clear signal to young Iranian men that if they intend to deal with rejection in this way they can expect a response of equal severity.  

Violence is an inherent part of the state.  This is an explicit example of that violence.  I don't see what's noble about hiding out violence and pretending that we're somehow enlightened because we've decided that our punishment of choice is locking individuals in a small cage for years on end.  

[Will37]

I read about this yesterday and some people were blogging about this and most of them thought this punishment was appropriate. That really shocked me.

Why?

Had he done this in the west we would have locked him in a small cage with other violent men for months to years on end.  I fail to see how that is inherently enlightened while this is somehow inherently savage and barbaric.

Actually the prisons here are pretty comfortable. Or so I've heard.

I think there's probably a lot to be said for Europe's emphasis on rehabilitation.  At least for certain offenses.  But no matter how humane your prisons are compared to those here you still have at bottom a system whereby men and women are forcibly removed from the streets and taken away from their famlies and locked away.  You can dress it up all you like.  And there's a lot to be said for some of it, but you still have a system maintaine by violence or the threat of violence.  I'm ok with that.  But if some people aren't then they need to work for the transition away from the modern state system as a whole.

[Tank]

Personally I think that state sectioned mutilation is a bad thing, irrespective of the justification in any particular case. It has taken hundreds of years to rein in state sanctioned mutilation in the form of barbaric punishments including the death penalty. The reason that punishments such as this, cutting off of hands and the death penalty are now no longer acceptable in the civilised world is that you can't undo the punishment if the accused is found guilty in error.

So while an individual may feel that a given punishment is just and therefore justifiable society as a whole should take responsibility for the actions of the state. If this were not the case I would be at liberty to shoot the driver who cuts me up if I wanted to as I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do to a person who endangers my life and the life of my family. I would be doing society a favour by removing a dangerous element.

There is also the 'slippery slope' argument. If you can mutilate a person as punishment why not mutilate a person suspected of being a terrorist/paedophile/rapist/murderer to find out is they really are what you suspect? Surly a few burns, broken fingers or a few sessions of water boarding would be acceptable to find a child rapist?

My $0.02

[xSilverPhinx]

There is also the 'slippery slope' argument. If you can mutilate a person as punishment why not mutilate a person suspected of being a terrorist/paedophile/rapist/murderer to find out is they really are what you suspect? Surly a few burns, broken fingers or a few sessions of water boarding would be acceptable to find a child rapist?

My $0.02

Because torture is not the best way to get information out of people and whatever information you do get is unreliable. It's gratuitous violence and can be ultimately pointless if the goal is interrogation.

But this case is not one of interrogation but some form of justice. I think the woman who was blinded and disfigured has the right. And, if you read a little bit more, it seems that the guy is only going to have acid dropped on one and and while under anesthesia. 

[Tank]

There is also the 'slippery slope' argument. If you can mutilate a person as punishment why not mutilate a person suspected of being a terrorist/paedophile/rapist/murderer to find out is they really are what you suspect? Surly a few burns, broken fingers or a few sessions of water boarding would be acceptable to find a child rapist?

My $0.02

Because torture is not the best way to get information out of people and whatever information you do get is unreliable. It's gratuitous violence and can be ultimately pointless if the goal is interrogation.

But this case is not one of interrogation but some form of justice. I think the woman who was blinded and disfigured has the right. And, if you read a little bit more, it seems that the guy is only going to have acid dropped on one and and while under anesthesia. 

The point about torture was that once the state is given permission to carry out physical punishments of a barbaric nature on it's citizens then torture is one possible result of that.

I agree that torture is not generally a reasonable approach to extracting accurate information, but should one just want to get a scapegoat and tick a box for a crime solved then it's very attractive. It can also give the perpetrator a great sense of power which we know is very seductive to people who crave power, e.g. politicians.

I don't agree with state sanctioned mutilation, however just it would appear to be.