An Eye(s) for an Eye(s)?

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sven Sven's picture
An Eye(s) for an Eye(s)?

    

Sven Sven's picture

According to this report, the man who attacked and blinded a woman by throwing acid in her face was sentenced to be blinded by acid himself...and the appellate court has upheld the trial court's decision.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Unionist

I've got another one just like that:

Iraq did nothing to harm the United States. Punishment: Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, countless more lives destroyed.

Of course, the "justice is blind" story is much more horrifying.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture
Sven Sven's picture

Obviously, the punishment the attacker is (likely) going to receive is horrific.  Still, I have a hard time garnering much sympathy for him.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I agree. I'm suffering from cognitive dissonance on this one.

I know deep down that corporal punishment - especially mutilation - is wrong. And yet in this case it seems to be justified.

Michelle

Yeah, I have the same sort of feelings as Sven and M. Spector.  (Wow, there's a sentence you won't see often on babble...) :D

If I were this woman, I'd want to see that son of a fucker suffer too.  I'm having a hard time mustering up any sympathy for him whatsoever.  Especially since it's not very often that women see justice when violence is carried out against them.  (I had originally written "in Iran", but then realized that women here don't get much in the way of justice either when they're beaten or raped...)

But...I still believe it's wrong.  I don't believe that she is wrong - she is well within her rights to feel the way she does and to want this guy to suffer what she did. 

This is why I feel that victims should not be involved in prosecutions beyond being witnesses.  We all are outraged when something awful happens to us.  If someone killed my son, I'd want to strangle him with my bare hands.  But I know that it's wrong to allow me to carry that out, even though it's perfectly understandable for me to feel that way.

I don't blame her at all.  For once, a female victim of violence is able to work the system in her favour.  Even though I think it's wrong, I'll save my tears for other victims of the so-called "justice system" in Iran.

Michelle

P.S. You'd think that, if they were going to go with a punishment where the guy has the same thing happen to him as he did to the woman, that it wouldn't be just a few drops of acid in each eye, but a whole bunch of acid poured over his head and in his face and allowed to drip in his eyes, so that his entire face will sustain the same injuries hers did.  It's not just about her being blinded, it's about her entire face and head being disfigured by it.

remind remind's picture

Funny, that type of violence against women, and worse, happens all the time in NA and other "western" countries to women, and I do not see see men here starting threads about it, and then discussing their cognative dissonance over it!

Do you realize how "othering" you are?

 

Michelle

Well, I think probably this is an interesting case because of the sentence, remind.  I've occasionally wondered whether violence against women would stop here if women were allowed to beat the living fuck out of the guys who beat them as punishment. 

I doubt it, though.  Guys who beat women don't expect to be caught, and they don't do it for "reasonable" reasons, so I doubt they would do the reasoning necessary for the supposed deterrent to work.  And I doubt it'll work in this case as well.  The guy isn't sorry.  His "logic" now is to demand that if such a punishment is carried out against him, that they should make sure she is blinded too by digging her eyes out, just in case she can see and is lying about the extent of her injuries. 

Snert Snert's picture

I don't know that the discussion is about the violence itself, so much as the potentially state-sanctioned punishment for it, and so far that's not on the books anywhere else.

On first read, it sounds barbaric.  But I think the most interesting thing to come out of the article(s) is the revelation that the usual penalty for blinding and disfiguring a woman for life (including potentially ensuring she never marries or has children) is to have to rustle up a few bucks for "payoff" money.

When the penalty for a crime this heinous is basically a fine, it sure does make it easier to endorse something that seems a bit more in keeping with the original offense, and barbaric or not, an eye for an eye at least seems fair and proportional. 

It would be interesting if the authorities offered him a choice between this, and life in a squalid prison cell.  Which would he choose?  I cannot help wondering if having to choose between two types of miserable might prompt an epiphany of remorse in this guy.     

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

remind wrote:

Funny, that type of violence against women, and worse, happens all the time in NA and other "western" countries to women, and I do not see see men here starting threads about it, and then discussing their cognative dissonance over it!

Do you realize how "othering" you are?

 

The exception being those cases involving Muslim immigrants of course. 

jas

Michelle wrote:
This is why I feel that victims should not be involved in prosecutions beyond being witnesses. We all are outraged when something awful happens to us. If someone killed my son, I'd want to strangle him with my bare hands. But I know that it's wrong to allow me to carry that out, even though it's perfectly understandable for me to feel that way.

Ditto. Especially when the perpetrator says things like this:

Quote:
Movahedi said that he still loved Bahrami but that if she asked for his eyes to be taken out, he would seek the same punishment for her.
Because what he already did wasn't enough??

Quote:
"They must also completely empty out her eyes, since I'm not sure that she cannot secretly see," he said. "The newspapers have made this a huge case, but I haven't done anything bad."

Was the choice only between "blood money" or qisas? I didn't see anything on what his jail sentence might be, just that he had been in jail since he confessed. If the blood money were in lieu of a jail sentence, then yes, I would guess I would make the same choice as she did. Otherwise, he's still running around, potentially still following her (and she is even more vulnerable now with the loss of her eyesight) or potentially throwing acid on other people.

Michelle

This is true, laine lowe.  And Unionist and remind are right about how this story can be used to fuel anti-Iranian sentiment.

But perhaps the reason it's such a compelling story is because a) it's not often that victims of VAW see convictions of their abusers, much less a harsh punishment, and b) in this case, it's easy to empathize with the desire for a punishment that we would normally be horrified about.  That's where the cognitive dissonance comes in, I think - your mind and morals tell you that corporal punishment is wrong, but your emotions (and perhaps morals too?) tell you after hearing this woman's story that if anyone deserves it, it's this creep.

I think this story actually falls outside the usual "Iranians are barbarians" narrative, because this is laying out a case where westerners who think we're oh so much more enlightened can actually empathize with the reasoning behind such a judicial decision. 

Slumberjack

The sentence is wrong.  Prison is more fitting, followed by an appropriation of anything of value that he might have, and half of any future income after release from prison, for the use of the victim.  Maybe toss in a public lashing for good measure, to reinforce the deterrent effect. 

Slumberjack

Yes, the story is being used to fuel anti-Iranian sentiment.  CNN has been running it.

Sven Sven's picture

Snert wrote:

But I think the most interesting thing to come out of the article(s) is the revelation that the usual penalty for blinding and disfiguring a woman for life (including potentially ensuring she never marries or has children) is to have to rustle up a few bucks for "payoff" money.     

I thought that the victim's refusal to accept "blood money" (payment of cash from the attacker to make the matter go away) was one of the most interesting things about this case.  I think she sincerely believes that punishing the attacker in this manner will act as a serious deterent to other men doing this to women in the future.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

remind remind's picture

You mean women here, are not allowed to beat the shit out of their male attackers if they get the chance, Michelle? Funny, I have seen it happen a couple of times, and thought it was great, and just fine with me. In fact, I believe I have stated here before, that my daughter's rapist happened to attend a party a couple of years after, he drugged and raped my daughter, that my daughter was attending. In fact, he made a point of coming right up to her, she beat the living crap right out of him and everybody at the party just let her. She is like 5'2" and 120 lbs too.

Moreover, I have been known to give a man, always a stranger, or little known to me, a shot in the head, and perhaps worse, when they have tried to get violent or verbally abusive with me. I have been a victim, and did not fight back as I should have, being conditioned not to, as woman, of course by society. 

Nowadays, I ascribe to the reality it is none of my business what others think of me, and I will act/react, as I determine the need to be.

Unionist

Wait, I know:

1. Demolish his house (à la Israel, very civilized).

2. Rendition to Gitmo or Damascus.

3. Hang on - maybe the victim's family can do the torturing - bring him back!

4. When he's good and ready, send him to Texas for capital...

Whoa, wait, we're against the death penalty. Stop after point #3.

Now, can someone tell me what the purpose of this thread is? Someone's National Inquirer subscription ran out?

jas

Unionist wrote:

Now, can someone tell me what the purpose of this thread is? Someone's National Inquirer subscription ran out?

Why, did another snowmobiler die? 

Sven Sven's picture

remind wrote:

You mean women here, are not allowed to beat the shit out of their male attackers if they get the chance, Michelle? Funny, I have seen it happen a couple of times, and thought it was great, and just fine with me. In fact, I believe I have stated here before, that my daughter's rapist happened to attend a party a couple of years after, he drugged and raped my daughter, that my daughter was attending. In fact, he made a point of coming right up to her, she beat the living crap right out of him and everybody at the party just let her. She is like 5'2" and 120 lbs too.

Moreover, I have been known to give a man, always a stranger, or little known to me, a shot in the head, and perhaps worse, when they have tried to get violent or verbally abusive with me. I have been a victim, and did not fight back as I should have, being conditioned not to, as woman, of course by society. 

Nowadays, I ascribe to the reality it is none of my business what others think of me, and I will act/react, as I determine the need to be.

That is wonderful, actually.  I wish more women felt empowered to do just that. 

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Unionist

Jas, my concern about this thread is simply the impression given that some foreign society is barbaric. If someone has a crime of this nature to report from Canada, where we have the ability and the duty to deal with it, and where it can shed light on ourselves rather than on those "less civilized" folk abroad, my attitude will be different.

It doesn't take much, though, for our civilized babblers, upon hearing of an atrocious crime far away, to start dreaming up punishments that they would never dare to suggest out loud in Canada.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
It doesn't take much, though, for our civilized babblers, upon hearing of an atrocious crime far away, to start dreaming up punishments that they would never dare to suggest out loud in Canada.

Who is saying some punishments shouldn't be applied in Canada?  And besides, the sentence of life in prison for polyagamy coercion worked for you.

Sven Sven's picture

 

Sven Sven's picture

Unionist wrote:
Jas, my concern about this thread is simply the impression given that some foreign society is barbaric.

If a foreign country permits punishing someone by pouring acid in their eyes or if another foreign country (such as the USA) permits the execution of prisoners (when they are given, to put it charitably, substandard defense resources), are you saying that you must refrain from commenting on those things because Canada doesn't have a perfect justice system?

If that were the case, you'd pretty much have to close the entire International forum because nothing in Canada is perfect and, therefore, no denigrating comments about other countries would be appropriate.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

jacki-mo

I always felt that convicted rapists and child molesters should be castrated. Its not a horrific punishment and it would prevent further perpetration. (Note: I imply that the perpetrators are males)

sanizadeh

Unionist wrote:
Jas, my concern about this thread is simply the impression given that some foreign society is barbaric. If someone has a crime of this nature to report from Canada, where we have the ability and the duty to deal with it, and where it can shed light on ourselves rather than on those "less civilized" folk abroad, my attitude will be different. It doesn't take much, though, for our civilized babblers, upon hearing of an atrocious crime far away, to start dreaming up punishments that they would never dare to suggest out loud in Canada.

I think this sentence (which I doubt would be carried out in light of the publicity) should be viewed with some perspective. This problem of violence against women, be it acid throwing by a former lover or rape or physical assault, has been a bit on the rise lately in Iran. Typical deterrents haven't worked. A horrific punishment like this could be a deterrent in short term in a judicial system that otherwise has few tools to effectively deal with violence against women.

That's probably why when this news was posted on an Iranian Canadian forum where almost all members were western educated and secular, many of them Western born and most of them against death penalty, almost 90% thought the guy deserved it. Now it doesn't mean we support adding that to penal code, but that many of us have no moral problem with this particular case. I see many Babblers here agree with that point.

 

Sven Sven's picture

Here's a [url=new">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090304/ap_on_re_mi_ea/eu_spain_eye_for_eye]... twist to this story[/url]:

But Bahrami [the blinded woman], who moved to Spain after the attack to get medical treatment, said Wednesday that under Iranian law, she is entitled to blind him [her attacker] in only one eye, unless she pays euro20,000 ($25,110), because in Iran women are not considered equal to men.

"They have told us that my two eyes are equal to one of his because in my country each man is worth two women. They are not the same," she told Cadena SER.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!