Iranian to be blinded with acid for doing same to woman

[dodzi]

CNN Iranian to be blinded with acid for doing same to woman 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. CNN

Guys what do you think? Should an official court have the right to condemn a person to such a treatment?

I mean I think it is kind of a moral gray area... I was shocked at first that such punishments were still being used in countries that have a minimum of civilization. But after reading the story, I thought to myself "that guy actually deserves it"!

In fact, how is this less barbaric than a death sentence? Death sentences are also based on an eye for an eye ideology. I think this is in no way different! Just like I cannot condemn a death sentence on a person having deliberately planned and killed innocent people, I cannot morally condemn the sentence on that man!

In fact, I think it is even admirable that the Iranian courts have ruled in favor of woman who, besides being sexually harassed, has suffered the way she did. Who knows, in another country, they might even have accused or of seducing the man and having got what she was looking for...


So guys, share your opinion on this matter. Either agree with me or convince me that it is unjustified and morally wrong...

[zoomzoom]

It is wrong. This guy should be tried in a civil judicial system. Two wrongs don't make it right. What if later on it turned out that this guy was innocent? who is going to return him his sight if it turned out he was innocent? Again, we should fight for a secular and civil judicial system where religion has no place in any judicial decision making

[Danny Z]

i am against law being a system of reprimand and vengeance, law is supposed to be present to protect society not to punish the criminals, if a criminal does something wrong he should be removed from society so he doesn't harm anybody else, until we are sure he can't harm anybody again. Only then he should be allowed to get into society.
It is all easy to say but some countries have so much crime that they need to give examples with some to show others that they can't get away with it in a minimum security jail, but lawmakers should never forget that the only difference between being civilized and acting with the instinct of revenge is the rule law.

[Jorje]

Even though I think punishment for the sake of "justice" (and not just for practical reasons i.e making sure that said criminal won't commit a crime again) is undeniably part of the legal system, I think this is taking it too far. In most cases stripping someone from his freedom is a good enough punishment, and if we take it too far we almost become in the criminal's territory. But then again, we're making judgements when we're not in her position.

[dodzi]

Originally Posted by zoomzoom

It is wrong. This guy should be tried in a civil judicial system. Two wrongs don't make it right. What if later on it turned out that this guy was innocent? who is going to return him his sight if it turned out he was innocent? Again, we should fight for a secular and civil judicial system where religion has no place in any judicial decision making

This has nothing to do with the nature of the judicial system here. I am not talking about the religiosity of the act, but rather from a moral understanding of the word justice.

Whether he turned out to be innocent is another question. No judicial system is perfect and all should be perfected in order not to punish innocent people. Besides your question is equally important in cases where innocent people have been sentenced to many years of prison or even to death

2 movies you should definitely watch:

"In the name of the father" is a true story about a group of North Irish people wrongly accused of being behind a terrorist attack, and that spent 15 years in British prisons. There was nothing religious about the court that sentenced them. In fact, it is supposed to be one of the most democratic countries in the world!

"The life of David Gale" is the fictional movie about a person sentenced to death for murder while claiming his innocence!

Originally Posted by Danny Z

i am against law being a system of reprimand and vengeance, law is supposed to be present to protect society not to punish the criminals, if a criminal does something wrong he should be removed from society so he doesn't harm anybody else, until we are sure he can't harm anybody again. Only then he should be allowed to get into society.
It is all easy to say but some countries have so much crime that they need to give examples with some to show others that they can't get away with it in a minimum security jail, but lawmakers should never forget that the only difference between being civilized and acting with the instinct of revenge is the rule law.

I agree with you about ONE of the functions of the judiciary and incarceration institutions: they are, as you say, invested in the purpose of protecting society from people who may be dangerous to it.

But in law, there is always there are the attorneys, who represent the civil party, and the lawyers, who represent individuals. When a crime is committed, the accused has to answer on charges of two kinds: those committed against society (here for being dangerous and a potential threat to others), and those committed against the individual (the woman he attacked).

According to most definitions of justice, we see concepts like "social", "control" and "deterrence", but also of "equity", "sanctioning", "punishment" and "fairness".

That woman has suffered something none of us could bear see happen to anyone close or far. In that respect, justice to her is seing that guy receive a "fair" "punishment", beside being held in a prison to "protect" society from him and "dissuade" others of doing the same.

Prison is something invented to protect society against recidivists and not to punish individuals (this is why they are often called "rehabilitation centers" or "correction centers").

[Danny Z]

Originally Posted by dodzi

I agree with you about ONE of the functions of the judiciary and incarceration institutions: they are, as you say, invested in the purpose of protecting society from people who may be dangerous to it.

But in law, there is always there are the attorneys, who represent the civil party, and the lawyers, who represent individuals. When a crime is committed, the accused has to answer on charges of two kinds: those committed against society (here for being dangerous and a potential threat to others), and those committed against the individual (the woman he attacked).

According to most definitions of justice, we see concepts like "social", "control" and "deterrence", but also of "equity", "sanctioning", "punishment" and "fairness".

That woman has suffered something none of us could bear see happen to anyone close or far. In that respect, she deserve to see that guy receive a "fair" "punishment", even if he would be held in a prison to "protect" society from him and "dissuade" others of doing the same.

Prison is something invented to protect society against recidivists and not to punish individuals (this is why they are often called "rehabilitation centers" or "correction centers").

In the civil part of justice, cost/benefit analysis is usually used to determine the cost of the crime and the criminal pays in money what he caused, how to determine the cost is another story but compensation is mostly financial.
In no way blinding will get anything fixed neither in the criminal nor in the civil part of law, blinding him is just pure instinctive revenge.

[dodzi]

Originally Posted by Danny Z

In the civil part of justice, cost/benefit analysis is usually used to determine the cost of the crime and the criminal pays in money what he caused, how to determine the cost is another story but compensation is mostly financial.
In no way blinding will get anything fixed neither in the criminal nor in the civil part of law, blinding him is just pure instinctive revenge.

Well, if he broke her leg, he might pay her the operation and moral damage in case it were permanent. But in this case, no amount can ever get her fixed! Nor does prison-time!

btw have you seen "The Godfather"?

In the first scene of the movie, a man (Bonasera) calls upon Don Corleone to avenge his daughter rape's and disfigurement. He asks the Don to kill the guys who did it. To that, Don Corleone responds "that is not justice, you're daughter is still alive". So he then says "make them suffer then!"

The moral of the story is: yes justice is good, and we must obey the law and blablabla... But the truth is: justice is not what the law stipulates. Justice is what one think is right! And in theory, justice as an institution should prevent people of "doing to others what they do not wish others would do to them!" If anything similar would happen to me or any of the people I love, I would assure you that I would wish the same for the person who did it!

PS: are you for or against capital punishment? If against, what do you think about capital punishment for people accused of rape and murder of little children? (just a question to show you the relativity of what you call justice)

[Danny Z]

Originally Posted by dodzi

Well, if he broke her leg, he might pay her the operation and moral damage in case it were permanent. But in this case, no amount can ever get her fixed! Nor does prison-time!

Nor does burning his eyes really!
but by the way they can operate her and give her his eyes, so his eyes can be useful, better than burning them. Again it is a cost/benefit analysis. Economists have a way to determine the price of intangibles.
Do you attack the somali coast and kill thousands of innocent people and hostages to safeguard the coastline from pirates? is it worth it? that's a cost/benefit analysis example.

Originally Posted by dodzi

If anything similar would happen to me or any of the people I love, I would assure you that I would wish the same for the person who did it!

Because if it happens to you, you would be furious and your instinct will kick off, i don't blame you, when people are angry the first thing they think off is their instinct of revenge, but just as wars usually happen when people are angry, war is most of the time futile.

Originally Posted by dodzi

PS: are you for or against capital punishment? If against, what do you think about capital punishment for people accused of rape and murder of little children? (just a question to show you the relativity of what you call justice)

I am only with capital punishment when the cost of maintaining a dangerous individual criminal in society is too high for the society to maintain, again too high is relative between a society and another.

[Red Phoenix]

hey, i don't think that even the guy himself is denying what he did.

he is probably trying to justify it.

for blinding someone a prison trip of no less that 10 years is in order in my opinion.

now, if he wants to take out his own eyes or someone will do it for him ,whether he likes it or not, is just a technicallity. who cares what he thinks and who cares about his sight and whether he wants it or not.

blind someone, and go to prison for a long time for it.

prison by itself is punishment enough in the long run.

this guy might deserve more than getting blinded if our emotions are to judge, but that should not be the case with the verdicts of society.

that is not to say that if her father decided to kill him i would not understand that act.

but still, living in a society has its tolls, pros and cons.

the better the society the better the end result for the individual.

most important of those results is a higher rate of capture for criminals and a better system to incarcerate them when they are convicted.

apart from that, it's the wild wild west. in the wild wild west i don't expect someone to go to prison for blinding another. i expect someone else to shoot him in the head.

[TripolySunni]

He deserves it, Let it be a Lesson to him and All others. An Eye for an Eye is Always the Best way to go.