Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Attack victims in Iran usually accept "blood money": a fine in lieu of harsh punishment. With no insurance and mounting medical bills, Bahrami could've used the cash, but she said no.
"I told the judge I want an eye for an eye," Bahrami said. "People like him should be made to feel my suffering".
Bahrami's demand has outraged some human rights activists. Criticizing acid-attack victims is almost unheard of, but some Internet bloggers have condemned Bahrami's decision.
"We cannot condone such cruel punishment," wrote one blogger. "To willingly inflict the same treatment on a person under court order is a violation of human rights."
Late last year, an Iranian court gave Bahrami what she asked for. It sentenced Movahedi to be blinded with drops of acid in each eye. This month, the courts rejected Movahedi's appeal.
Bahrami's lawyer, Sarrafi, said the sentencing might be carried out in a matter of weeks. He said he doesn't think Bahrami will change her mind. Neither does Bahrami.
Interesting post, interesting responses. It gets me thinking a couple of things. One is that these people practice their religion in a fashion very similar to Christianity back around the time when they split off and before, around 500 AD. As I've heard Catholics comment, most Christians have dropped the literal practice of some extreme Biblical guidance, while the Moslems remain about the same as they were in 500 AD.
The other is that many people think the verse about "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is a command to seek revenge, or as condoning revenge. That isn't the meaning at all. In the time when those words were set down, revenge was the norm. If someone offended someone else, it was common for them to respond by killing the offender's whole family, or burning their entire village to the ground. That's a very old standard across many cultures. The teaching in the Bible was against those kinds of practices, telling people that if they must seek revenge, don't let the punishment exceed the crime.
From the standpoint of the Bible this Lady is well within what is written, but would be in a more favorable light if she could forgo revenge altogether.
I really like what you posted. I wish that every human could react this way. I can tell you I don't think that I would be as forgiving. Why shouldn't the man who inflicted such pain suffer the same fate? So, she can be looked at in a better light...mmm, I really would like to be that way, and I'm being sincere when I say that, I just don't think I could be.
But if what you spoke about was put into practice, things this barbaric may never even occur. Then it would be a somewhat peaceful place to live in.
I say the woman deserves to get whatever will provide her closure. I doubt that she could give a damn about her "reputation" or international outrage in blogs. Some have suggested she demand this person do community service as repatriation, but who does that benefit? Some victims of crime do not believe capital punishment provides them closure and healing for what they went through. I respect that. However, I respect the rights of the victims as well within the governance of their laws. If the woman can move on with her life as a blind person knowing that the perpetrator of the crime can now go on with his life in the same blind environment she would, I don't blame her one bit.
Attack victims in Iran usually accept "blood money": a fine in lieu of harsh punishment. With no insurance and mounting medical bills, Bahrami could've used the cash, but she said no.
"I told the judge I want an eye for an eye," Bahrami said. "People like him should be made to feel my suffering".
Bahrami's demand has outraged some human rights activists. Criticizing acid-attack victims is almost unheard of, but some Internet bloggers have condemned Bahrami's decision.
"We cannot condone such cruel punishment," wrote one blogger. "To willingly inflict the same treatment on a person under court order is a violation of human rights."
Late last year, an Iranian court gave Bahrami what she asked for. It sentenced Movahedi to be blinded with drops of acid in each eye. This month, the courts rejected Movahedi's appeal.
Bahrami's lawyer, Sarrafi, said the sentencing might be carried out in a matter of weeks. He said he doesn't think Bahrami will change her mind. Neither does Bahrami.
This is a very sad, depressing and complex issue. While I certainly don't believe in 'an eye for an eye' as a basis for state action, I sympathize for the woman in this case and understand why she wants this done even if I don't agree with the approach. This particular situation is made more complex by the social setting in which it is embedded; women are not treated equally to men in Iran and all too often this leads to women being abused and ignored. This creates something of a quasi-paradox: if the woman wins in this case it could be construed, in one sense, as a victory for women generally in Iran since it will send a message that women have the power to fight back against those who would take advantage of their inferior legal status. At the same time, if the woman wins it will, in part, help justify an unjust and barbaric legal system.
in iran they have punishment. we dont do punishment here, its not allowed. how is that working out by the way.
I don't think it is Huckle and i think that is what you intended to convey. I know people will think I'm crazy for this, but if you had some public hangings in Times Square, do you think that would detur some people from random crimes? I know fully this does not help those who are sick. I'm not addressing that, but the idiot who kills somebody for 12$ is a perfect candidate for this. I know this sounds extreme, but 15 years to a 20 year old kid for murder, out in 8 years with good behavior, all we have done is create a better criminal to be released to the streets to commit more crimes.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about nickel and dime criminals. This would be for the worst of the worst. But this of course is just in my perfect world's answer for murderous people.
I recommend reading up on past threads covering the 'pros and cons' of multiculturalism, for a thorough explanation of how I feel about this. (hint...I don't want my next-door neighbor arguing about whether or not to 'blind' someone, rather than put them in jail)..
I recommend reading up on past threads covering the 'pros and cons' of multiculturalism, for a thorough explanation of how I feel about this. (hint...I don't want my next-door neighbor arguing about whether or not to 'blind' someone, rather than put them in jail)..
Honestly as a third party, if you had blinded them with acid I would wonder about your bias. If you had blinded them with acid I would know you want to be absolved of what you did. If you didn't I would know what the victim wanted was way the heck to extreme.
Is an eye for an eye justice?
I'd rather settle for forcing the attacker to choose between the death penalty or becoming the personal slave (becoming property) of the victim.
If he chooses for the death penalty he won't become a burden to society and if he chooses to live by becoming the victim's slave it would lighten the load for society.
I believe in capitol punishment. That said, certain heinous crimes do deserve a different manner of capitol punishment. The punishment needs to more suit the crime. Serial butchers, child rapists and killers and such should be made to feel the pain and fear of their victims and lethal injection does not do that. A good ol' fashioned hanging comes close but not always close enough. This blinding case brought up here...I don't find it to be overly harsh. he deprived the woman of her sight and knowingly and willfully did so.....let him suffer the same fate. He won't commit a similar crime again. A lot of people want to paint capitol punishment as vengeance rather than justice. I don't see it that way, personally. The victim should be the first consideration and potential future victims of these Goblins should be as well. Let justice be served. Justice is not always pretty or "humane" but neither are the recipients of that justice. They are vermin, and deserve to be treated as such. IMHO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is an eye for an eye justice?
