Blinded woman gets to put acid in attacker's eyes

[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.  

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.

I think that maybe a more reasonable approach would be to ask the victim for a list of possible punishments that she feels would give her a sense of closure, such as being blinded in one eye, having acid thrown on a part of his choosing, spending time in jail or paying her a life long pension for instance and have him choose which. That way the 'eye for an eye' would apply in its non literal form and she will feel that justice has been made.

I just realised that the guy who threw acid on her face is more probably insane rather than sadistic (in which I'm all for an eye for an eye).  

[Will37]

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.

You can't undo any punishment.  You can't give back to somebody the ten years of their life that they spent in prison.  You can't undo the pshycological trauma of being taken away from everything familiar locked in a prison. 

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 they are a suspect.  The state can't punish someone for something it hasn't determined that they are actually guilty of. 

More importantly, this is Iran that we are talking about.  There is no slope for them to slide down.  They're already there.  Many aspects of Sharia I do not find compatable with modernity, but this particular punishment strikes me as totally fair. 

[xSilverPhinx]

More importantly, this is Iran that we are talking about.  There is no slope for them to slide down.  They're already there.  Many aspects of Sharia I do not find compatible with modernity, but this particular punishment strikes me as totally fair.  

The think the main problem with an eye for an eye though is that the victim degrades themselves to perpetrators level. It is fair, but no stable society can base itself on it because there will always be those who actively go out of their way to intentionally harm others.

If I personally feel certain people to be repulsive and do things that I think are revolting such as crime (even those playing at being criminals), I wouldn't want to lower myself to their level by doing what they do...though it is satisfying. I actually feel the strong need to distance myself from what they are and represent.  

I have mixed feelings on the whole eye for an eye thing.

[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.

You can't undo any punishment.  You can't give back to somebody the ten years of their life that they spent in prison.  You can't undo the pshycological trauma of being taken away from everything familiar locked in a prison. 

Agreed. But while you can compensate and acknowledge the injustice of a prison sentence you can't do the same if you have hung somebody.

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 they are a suspect.  The state can't punish someone for something it hasn't determined that they are actually guilty of. 

More importantly, this is Iran that we are talking about.  There is no slope for them to slide down.  They're already there.  Many aspects of Sharia I do not find compatable with modernity, but this particular punishment strikes me as totally fair. 

I wasn't discussing Iran in particular but why mutilation as a punishment is not acceptable in a civilised society. I agree it's technically fair, but that still does not make it socially acceptable. Just because he committed a horrendous crime does not hand society an equivalent mandate in my opinion. Society should be held to the highest values of behaviour and should set an example of what is acceptable behaviour. If you don't want citizens throwing acid around then you don't do it yourself, or sanction the state to do it either.

[xSilverPhinx]

http://foreign.peacefmonline.com/news/201105/41091.php

Apparently they've changed the sentence.

[karadan]

It saddens me to say that there are far worse atrocities being committed in that part of the world in the name of 'justice'. The word subhuman comes to mind when reading about some of their more fundamental practices.

I'm still unable to get my head around simple things like the extent to which a man can own a woman in places like Saudi, let alone the punishment they feel is rightfully due to a woman who makes the simplest of mistakes. Accidental eye contact being one of them.

I read an article in the National Geographic earlier this year about a 13 year old girl - wife of a 30-something Taliban member in Afghanistan who was taken to the hills and had her nose and ears cut off as a punishment for going outside without permission. The photos were horrific. I'm usually quite liberalistic in my views but shit like the above only makes me want them dead. Should a point of view be punishable by death? Yes. Especially when that view enables a man to lawfully cut off the nose and ears of a 13 year old girl. Extreme, yes, but an obvious example of the dangers unchecked fundamentalism represents.

The older I get, the more I see these enclaves of nutters as simple savages, beyond the workings of a modern world. The western world needs to lose its dependency on oil and then completely cut off places like Saudi.

It therefore comes as no surprise to me that the blinded woman in the article was offered the retribution punishment by the authorities. That's exactly the way they've been conditioned to think by their twisted religion.

Fuck 'em all.

[Asmodean]

Hmm... I can't quite figure out where I stand on this...  ???

[xSilverPhinx]

The western world needs to lose its dependency on oil and then completely cut off places like Saudi.

Yes.

[Will37]

It saddens me to say that there are far worse atrocities being committed in that part of the world in the name of 'justice'. The word subhuman comes to mind when reading about some of their more fundamental practices.

I'm still unable to get my head around simple things like the extent to which a man can own a woman in places like Saudi, let alone the punishment they feel is rightfully due to a woman who makes the simplest of mistakes. Accidental eye contact being one of them.

I read an article in the National Geographic earlier this year about a 13 year old girl - wife of a 30-something Taliban member in Afghanistan who was taken to the hills and had her nose and ears cut off as a punishment for going outside without permission. The photos were horrific. I'm usually quite liberalistic in my views but shit like the above only makes me want them dead. Should a point of view be punishable by death? Yes. Especially when that view enables a man to lawfully cut off the nose and ears of a 13 year old girl. Extreme, yes, but an obvious example of the dangers unchecked fundamentalism represents.

The older I get, the more I see these enclaves of nutters as simple savages, beyond the workings of a modern world. The western world needs to lose its dependency on oil and then completely cut off places like Saudi.

It therefore comes as no surprise to me that the blinded woman in the article was offered the retribution punishment by the authorities. That's exactly the way they've been conditioned to think by their twisted religion.

Fuck 'em all.

What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry. 

[Whitney]

What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry. 

When disagreeing with someone please explain why instead of just saying they have a wrong opinion.

thanks.

[The Magic Pudding]

It saddens me to say that there are far worse atrocities being committed in that part of the world in the name of 'justice'. The word subhuman comes to mind when reading about some of their more fundamental practices.

I'm still unable to get my head around simple things like the extent to which a man can own a woman in places like Saudi, let alone the punishment they feel is rightfully due to a woman who makes the simplest of mistakes. Accidental eye contact being one of them.

I read an article in the National Geographic earlier this year about a 13 year old girl - wife of a 30-something Taliban member in Afghanistan who was taken to the hills and had her nose and ears cut off as a punishment for going outside without permission. The photos were horrific. I'm usually quite liberalistic in my views but shit like the above only makes me want them dead. Should a point of view be punishable by death? Yes. Especially when that view enables a man to lawfully cut off the nose and ears of a 13 year old girl. Extreme, yes, but an obvious example of the dangers unchecked fundamentalism represents.

The older I get, the more I see these enclaves of nutters as simple savages, beyond the workings of a modern world. The western world needs to lose its dependency on oil and then completely cut off places like Saudi.

It therefore comes as no surprise to me that the blinded woman in the article was offered the retribution punishment by the authorities. That's exactly the way they've been conditioned to think by their twisted religion.

Fuck 'em all.

What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry. 

I wouldn't call it bigotry, tolerance has its limits, in a sense by definition.
Twisted by their religion or twisters of their religion I don't know, but it's not hard to find sanctioned brutality in the divinely inspired tomes.

After we solve our oil dependency problem opium would be worth a thought.

[Will37]

What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry. 

When disagreeing with someone please explain why instead of just saying they have a wrong opinion.

thanks.

I didn't say he was wrong.  His rantings were too vague to be exactly called wrong. I said the bolded comments are bigoted.  If that needed further explaining I apologize.  In some corners, referring to a part of the world as an enclave of savages who are unable to grasp modernity due to their twisted religion would be considered bigoted.  If this requires further elaboration I'd be happy to oblige.

[Will37]

It saddens me to say that there are far worse atrocities being committed in that part of the world in the name of 'justice'. The word subhuman comes to mind when reading about some of their more fundamental practices.

I'm still unable to get my head around simple things like the extent to which a man can own a woman in places like Saudi, let alone the punishment they feel is rightfully due to a woman who makes the simplest of mistakes. Accidental eye contact being one of them.

I read an article in the National Geographic earlier this year about a 13 year old girl - wife of a 30-something Taliban member in Afghanistan who was taken to the hills and had her nose and ears cut off as a punishment for going outside without permission. The photos were horrific. I'm usually quite liberalistic in my views but shit like the above only makes me want them dead. Should a point of view be punishable by death? Yes. Especially when that view enables a man to lawfully cut off the nose and ears of a 13 year old girl. Extreme, yes, but an obvious example of the dangers unchecked fundamentalism represents.

The older I get, the more I see these enclaves of nutters as simple savages, beyond the workings of a modern world. The western world needs to lose its dependency on oil and then completely cut off places like Saudi.

It therefore comes as no surprise to me that the blinded woman in the article was offered the retribution punishment by the authorities. That's exactly the way they've been conditioned to think by their twisted religion.

Fuck 'em all.

What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry. 

I wouldn't call it bigotry, tolerance has its limits, in a sense by definition.
Twisted by their religion or twisters of their religion I don't know, but it's not hard to find sanctioned brutality in the divinely inspired tomes.

After we solve our oil dependency problem opium would be worth a thought.

I would call it bigotry.  He didn't remark on the specifics of Sharia' law he was making comments about the people of Iran in particular and the Muslim world in general. 

[Whitney]

What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry. 

When disagreeing with someone please explain why instead of just saying they have a wrong opinion.

thanks.

I didn't say he was wrong.  His rantings were too vague to be exactly called wrong. I said the bolded comments are bigoted.  If that needed further explaining I apologize.  In some corners, referring to a part of the world as an enclave of savages who are unable to grasp modernity due to their twisted religion would be considered bigoted.  If this requires further elaboration I'd be happy to oblige.

Considering that he mentioned specific practices which he is ranting against and not simply that he hates them for living in a certain place or having a certain religion (though the religion is mentioned as the root cause of the problem) it wasn't an example of bigotry so, yes, you need to elaborate.  From my view he is claiming that the teachings of a backwards religion have ingrained such horrible ideas into a culture that he sees no possible cure to their social ills and has given up on even bothering to try to help them anymore...saying the same with stronger rant wording (as done with the post in question) doesn't bring it into bigotry by any common contextual use of the word.

[Will37]

What delightful, almost quaint, bigotry. 

When disagreeing with someone please explain why instead of just saying they have a wrong opinion.

thanks.

I didn't say he was wrong.  His rantings were too vague to be exactly called wrong. I said the bolded comments are bigoted.  If that needed further explaining I apologize.  In some corners, referring to a part of the world as an enclave of savages who are unable to grasp modernity due to their twisted religion would be considered bigoted.  If this requires further elaboration I'd be happy to oblige.

Considering that he mentioned specific practices which he is ranting against and not simply that he hates them for living in a certain place or having a certain religion (though the religion is mentioned as the root cause of the problem) it wasn't an example of bigotry so, yes, you need to elaborate.  From my view he is claiming that the teachings of a backwards religion have ingrained such horrible ideas into a culture that he sees no possible cure to their social ills and has given up on even bothering to try to help them anymore...saying the same with stronger rant wording (as done with the post in question) doesn't bring it into bigotry by any common contextual use of the word.

He did mention specific practices.  And I did not fault him for being outraged by particular practices.  I faulted him for his transition to ranting about the inferiority about the group of people who practiced the religion that arguable permitted those practices.