Iranian to be blinded with acid for doing same to woman

[Myrrh23]

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.acid.justice/index.html

What do you guys think of this? Not intended for political discussion....maybe moral discussion

[GiC]

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.acid.justice/index.html

What do you guys think of this? Not intended for political discussion....maybe moral discussion

They guy certainy has issues...he should probably spend the next 15-20 years in prison, but this idea of blinding him is utterly absurd and simply reveals Iran for the barbaric and unhuman regime it truly is. But what do you expect when you base laws upon religious texts...

[John of the North]

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind" - Mahatma Gandhi

[Robert W]

This is no isolated incident.

My wife is born in a country where girls risk getting disfigured faces due to acid if they refuse to marry someone. The reasoning of the men is that "if I can't get her then no one will". While this is illegal it still happen regularly and the perpetrators are rarely punished.

The fact that this man in Iran is going to get punished at all is actually great news! GO IRAN!

While we obviously think that the punishment is barbaric, and would chose prison for him instead, we must not let this get in the way of recognizing that this is a step forward for the right to life and liberty of women living under these conditions.

[Fr. George]

They guy certainy has issues...he should probably spend the next 15-20 years in prison, but this idea of blinding him is utterly absurd and simply reveals Iran for the barbaric and unhuman regime it truly is.

I'm torn.  On the one hand I agree 100% - what a barbaric practice.  On the other hand, I'm totally shocked that they decided to take the woman's side - I would think they'd have forced her to take the "blood money" instead of harming a man at her request, especially for the sake of other women.

[ialmisry]

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.acid.justice/index.html

What do you guys think of this? Not intended for political discussion....maybe moral discussion

They guy certainy has issues...he should probably spend the next 15-20 years in prison, but this idea of blinding him is utterly absurd and simply reveals Iran for the barbaric and unhuman regime it truly is. But what do you expect when you base laws upon religious texts...

...yes, the laws of Robespierre, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were SOOOO much better.

Actually, the laws of St. Vladimir were.  What did he base his law on again?

This is no isolated incident.

My wife is born in a country where girls risk getting disfigured faces due to acid if they refuse to marry someone. The reasoning of the men is that "if I can't get her then no one will". While this is illegal it still happen regularly and the perpetrators are rarely punished.

The fact that this man in Iran is going to get punished at all is actually great news! GO IRAN!

While we obviously think that the punishment is barbaric, and would chose prison for him instead, we must not let this get in the way of recognizing that this is a step forward for the right to life and liberty of women living under these conditions.

I have to agree with you.  I don't know what country your wife is from, as the description fits so many countries I know.

[GiC]

...yes, the laws of Robespierre, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were SOOOO much better.

Robespierre and Mao are definately improvements on religion, Stalin and Pol Pot vs. religion is a toss up, six of one, half dozen of the other...their ideologies had a religious ferver to them even if they wern't religious in a technical sense. The true evil is suspending reason for faith and Pol Pot especially is just as guilty of that as the Popes of Rome and the Protestant Reformers.

But I can say with certainty that I would much rather live under the laws of Locke, Franklin, and Jefferson and I am glad that I do, even though these ideals are sometimes imperfectly implemented. But if religious law is your cup of tea, Saudi Arabia awaits you.

[GiC]

While we obviously think that the punishment is barbaric, and would chose prison for him instead, we must not let this get in the way of recognizing that this is a step forward for the right to life and liberty of women living under these conditions.

Yes, it is good that they are prosecuting the crime...but punishing someone for essentially torturing someone else is hardly a human rights milestone, I could think of a hundred ways they could improve the plight of women in Iran without resorting to medieval torture...all in all, this is not a step forward for human rights, it's another example of an Islamic country being completely incapable of even recognizing human rights issues.

[Myrrh23]

How are they improvements on religion, GIC? Their actions led down the same road as the Inquisition and the Crusades: enslavement to madness. What of the evil in suspending reason for power, as Mao did?

[Myrrh23]

While we obviously think that the punishment is barbaric, and would chose prison for him instead, we must not let this get in the way of recognizing that this is a step forward for the right to life and liberty of women living under these conditions.

Yes, it is good that they are prosecuting the crime...but punishing someone for essentially torturing someone else is hardly a human rights milestone, I could think of a hundred ways they could improve the plight of women in Iran without resorting to medieval torture...all in all, this is not a step forward for human rights, it's another example of an Islamic country being completely incapable of even recognizing human rights issues.

How is it different from, say, castrating a child molestor? Unless this man is mentally ill....

[Robert W]

While we obviously think that the punishment is barbaric, and would chose prison for him instead, we must not let this get in the way of recognizing that this is a step forward for the right to life and liberty of women living under these conditions.

Yes, it is good that they are prosecuting the crime...but punishing someone for essentially torturing someone else is hardly a human rights milestone, I could think of a hundred ways they could improve the plight of women in Iran without resorting to medieval torture...all in all, this is not a step forward for human rights, it's another example of an Islamic country being completely incapable of even recognizing human rights issues.

(emphasis added)

Isn't it? Which one of the following two alternatives do you think is better?

• Iran punishes violent crimes against women in a brutal way
• Iran ignores violent crimes against women

The difference between these two alternative constitutes a milestone in my opinion.

Then of course we have the third alternative...

• Iran punishes violent crimes against women in a sensible way

...Unfortunately the real world is not a fairytale.

I am of the opinion that defending innocent women is a step a nation must take before it can start discussing the rights of violent criminals.

[John of the North]

While we obviously think that the punishment is barbaric, and would chose prison for him instead, we must not let this get in the way of recognizing that this is a step forward for the right to life and liberty of women living under these conditions.

Yes, it is good that they are prosecuting the crime...but punishing someone for essentially torturing someone else is hardly a human rights milestone, I could think of a hundred ways they could improve the plight of women in Iran without resorting to medieval torture...all in all, this is not a step forward for human rights, it's another example of an Islamic country being completely incapable of even recognizing human rights issues.

How is it different from, say, castrating a child molestor? Unless this man is mentally ill....

The castration of child molesters is performed to decrease their sex drive, in order to hopefully prevent them from offending again...

[Myrrh23]

While we obviously think that the punishment is barbaric, and would chose prison for him instead, we must not let this get in the way of recognizing that this is a step forward for the right to life and liberty of women living under these conditions.

Yes, it is good that they are prosecuting the crime...but punishing someone for essentially torturing someone else is hardly a human rights milestone, I could think of a hundred ways they could improve the plight of women in Iran without resorting to medieval torture...all in all, this is not a step forward for human rights, it's another example of an Islamic country being completely incapable of even recognizing human rights issues.

How is it different from, say, castrating a child molestor? Unless this man is mentally ill....

The castration of child molesters is performed to decrease their sex drive, in order to hopefully prevent them from offending again...

And the blinding of this offender might serve to keep him from eyeing another bottle of acid. Or it could just prevent him from holding down a job and place him on the streets...

[GiC]

While we obviously think that the punishment is barbaric, and would chose prison for him instead, we must not let this get in the way of recognizing that this is a step forward for the right to life and liberty of women living under these conditions.

Yes, it is good that they are prosecuting the crime...but punishing someone for essentially torturing someone else is hardly a human rights milestone, I could think of a hundred ways they could improve the plight of women in Iran without resorting to medieval torture...all in all, this is not a step forward for human rights, it's another example of an Islamic country being completely incapable of even recognizing human rights issues.

(emphasis added)

Isn't it? Which one of the following two alternatives do you think is better?

• Iran punishes violent crimes against women in a brutal way
• Iran ignores violent crimes against women

The difference between these two alternative constitutes a milestone in my opinion.

Then of course we have the third alternative...

• Iran punishes violent crimes against women in a sensible way

...Unfortunately the real world is not a fairytale.

I am of the opinion that defending innocent women is a step a nation must take before it can start discussing the rights of violent criminals.

No, a state doesn't have to violate the human rights of one group to uphold those of another. If the current regime cannot both protect their population and prosecute crimes in a sensible way, perhaps another would be more capable...

And it's not a fairytale, several other nations seem to be able to manage to protect the rights of traditionally disadvantaged groups without resorting to torture. I fail to see why this is particularly difficult for Iran.

[ialmisry]

...yes, the laws of Robespierre, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were SOOOO much better.

Robespierre and Mao are definately improvements on religion, Stalin and Pol Pot vs. religion is a toss up, six of one, half dozen of the other...their ideologies had a religious ferver to them even if they wern't religious in a technical sense. The true evil is suspending reason for faith and Pol Pot especially is just as guilty of that as the Popes of Rome and the Protestant Reformers.

How so?  No faith, except in human reason.  Pol Pot reasoned out his whole regimes.

But I can say with certainty that I would much rather live under the laws of Locke, Franklin, and Jefferson and I am glad that I do, even though these ideals are sometimes imperfectly implemented. But if religious law is your cup of tea, Saudi Arabia awaits you.

Islam's not my cup of tea.  One religion is not as good as another, or are you indifferent between Locke, Marx, Lenin and Hitler, all enlightenment children?  I might be in the UAE next month.  Close enough for you?

And Cuba awaits you.  Castro's law is all secular, and founded rock solid on your enlightement.

[John of the North]

While we obviously think that the punishment is barbaric, and would chose prison for him instead, we must not let this get in the way of recognizing that this is a step forward for the right to life and liberty of women living under these conditions.

Yes, it is good that they are prosecuting the crime...but punishing someone for essentially torturing someone else is hardly a human rights milestone, I could think of a hundred ways they could improve the plight of women in Iran without resorting to medieval torture...all in all, this is not a step forward for human rights, it's another example of an Islamic country being completely incapable of even recognizing human rights issues.

How is it different from, say, castrating a child molestor? Unless this man is mentally ill....

The castration of child molesters is performed to decrease their sex drive, in order to hopefully prevent them from offending again...

And the blinding of this offender might serve to keep him from eyeing another bottle of acid. Or it could just prevent him from holding down a job and place him on the streets...

Highly doubtful. I doubt he learned his lesson.

[scamandrius]

i'm surprised that the Iranian authorities are actually going to act on behalf of a woman.  Normally, the crime against a woman would somehow be her fault and thus the guy would get off scott free.  At least, Iran is applying its twisted sense of punishment and justice equally between the sexes.

Have any offers been made to this woman for some free reconstructive surgery for her face from doctors around the world?  It'd be a nice gesture.

[Asteriktos]

He said he loved her and insisted she loved him as well.

Uh huh. I don't particularly like the punishment, but I'm glad he's getting some punishment.

[SolEX01]

There's one more reason I'm opposed to the Death Penalty anywhere in the world.

"An eye for an eye" punishments are anachronisms.

If someone doesn't wish to be "good for goodness sake" and throws acid into the faces of Muslim women, how does one rehabilitate an anti-social person anywhere in the world (including countries with Sharia Law)?   

[Orual]

That man belongs in prison forever, blind or not blind.  I can't say I support the "eye for an eye" punishment, but if there's something pleasant to take away from it, it's that this woman was listened to and her rights are being respected.  (I read that the previous president of Iran actually paid personally for most of her treatment, including sending her to Spain for surgery on what's left of her eyes.) 

And, God help me, I can't really say that that creep getting his eyes burned out with acid is going to keep me up at night.  Maybe it'll make other guys think twice before they burn a woman's face just because she'd like to marry someone worth marrying.

[Myrrh23]

Orual, I hear you. We had another recent news article about guys on motorcycles spraying Afghan schoolgirls with acid from spray bottles. Some of those girls are now disfigured. I don't support "eye for an eye" in a lot of cases, but you have to wonder about someone who is willing to hurt people like that, blind and disfigure them, or ruin their whole lives. This man is not innocent. He deserves forgiveness, but he also deserves to know what it feels like to lose something as precious as your eyesight. Maybe it won't teach the guy anything, as Ukiemeister said, but then perhaps it will. For many people, they don't seem to know the gravity of their actions until they experience it for themselves.
(Sighs) Then again, how are both people growing closer to God if evil is repayed with evil? Even if he were to be put in prison, he'd probably be beaten and tortured. Either way, it's just more suffering.

[GiC]

He deserves forgiveness, but he also deserves to know what it feels like to lose something as precious as your eyesight.

No, he doesn't deserve forgiveness and it's sick and twisted to suggest that he does. But neither should he be tortured, I'm sure loosing 20 years of his life in prison would make him think twice. In fact, it might be a greater punishment than blinding him, but it's cetainly more civil.

[ialmisry]

He deserves forgiveness, but he also deserves to know what it feels like to lose something as precious as your eyesight.

No, he doesn't deserve forgiveness and it's sick and twisted to suggest that he does.

Then just torture him to death.
I'd admit that he would have to ask for it first before that is even an issue.

But neither should he be tortured,

Why not?

I'm sure loosing 20 years of his life in prison would make him think twice.

No, it'd prevent him from doing it again, at least for 20 years.

In fact, it might be a greater punishment than blinding him, but it's cetainly more civil.

Do you know what goes on in Iranian prisions?

[GiC]

He deserves forgiveness, but he also deserves to know what it feels like to lose something as precious as your eyesight.

No, he doesn't deserve forgiveness and it's sick and twisted to suggest that he does.

Then just torture him to death.
I'd admit that he would have to ask for it first before that is even an issue.

But neither should he be tortured,

Why not?

You know, the guy probably deserves to be hung by meat hooks, have bamboo shoots shoved up his finger and toe nails, have thumb screws applied, have his eyes put out with hot irons, be put on the rack for a few days, then drawn and burned alive. However, as justified as this treatment may be on one level, there is a fundamental problem with any state that would allow it...heck, you let a state start doing this next it might be stoning innocent women for something as trivial as adultery...oh wait...

You see, the reason that torture is unacceptable is becuse any state willing to implement lacks the wisdom and dignity to use it responsibly.

Using torture to punish this man isn't an advancement of human rights in Iran; it's simply an attempt at the vindication of the barbaric practices of this medieval and inhuman regime. This woman may get justice, but countless others will needlessly suffer for it, and that is a price too high to pay.

Do you know what goes on in Iranian prisions?

If their prisons are too bad to be able to send people to and expect civil treatment (and I'm sure they are since the same can be said of American prisons, though certainly to a lesser degree than the Iranian ones), that's a problem, but an entirely different one.

[Robert W]

No, a state doesn't have to violate the human rights of one group to uphold those of another. If the current regime cannot both protect their population and prosecute crimes in a sensible way, perhaps another would be more capable...

And it's not a fairytale, several other nations seem to be able to manage to protect the rights of traditionally disadvantaged groups without resorting to torture. I fail to see why this is particularly difficult for Iran.

I cannot say I disagree with you here. You are absolutely right. Iran should abandon punishments that are in fact torture.

Unfortunately Iran has legislation that makes this punishment completely legal. What I think is a step forward is that Iran implements its own laws to defend a woman. Usually these crimes goes unpunished.

I think there are two different topics discussed here. The human rights of criminals in Iran and the human rights of women in Iran. In one of these topics the human rights are not advancing at all, in the other the human rights ARE advancing.

[ialmisry]

He deserves forgiveness, but he also deserves to know what it feels like to lose something as precious as your eyesight.

No, he doesn't deserve forgiveness and it's sick and twisted to suggest that he does.

Then just torture him to death.
I'd admit that he would have to ask for it first before that is even an issue.

But neither should he be tortured,

Why not?

You know, the guy probably deserves to be hung by meat hooks, have bamboo shoots shoved up his finger and toe nails, have thumb screws applied, have his eyes put out with hot irons, be put on the rack for a few days, then drawn and burned alive. However, as justified as this treatment may be on one level, there is a fundamental problem with any state that would allow it...heck, you let a state start doing this next it might be stoning innocent women for something as trivial as adultery

After you have a wife and kids, get back to me on how "trivial" adultery is.

...oh wait...

Why?  Because it touches your crime of choice?

You see, the reason that torture is unacceptable is becuse any state willing to implement lacks the wisdom and dignity to use it responsibly.

No, because torture serves no purpose.

Using torture to punish this man isn't an advancement of human rights in Iran; it's simply an attempt at the vindication of the barbaric practices of this medieval and inhuman regime. This woman may get justice, but countless others will needlessly suffer for it, and that is a price too high to pay.

That's had to decided.  How many women WON'T have acid thrown in their faces.

I've never understood this phenomena.  Don't these women have fathers and brothers?

Do you know what goes on in Iranian prisions?

If their prisons are too bad to be able to send people to and expect civil treatment (and I'm sure they are since the same can be said of American prisons, though certainly to a lesser degree than the Iranian ones), that's a problem, but an entirely different one.

Having been in America's (actually, the worlds) largest prison (if you don't make a distinction between jail and prison.  The inmates do), Cook County Jail, I can assure you that there is no comparison.  I'll add, those complaining in the American system have legitimate beefs.

[Fr. George]

I've never understood this phenomena.  Don't these women have fathers and brothers?

Don't leave it to the Muslim men of the family; they're likely to kill the guy who threw the acid, burn his house and the houses of his relatives, and practically enslave their sister (despite the fact that she is probably 100% innocent in the matter).

[ialmisry]

I've never understood this phenomena.  Don't these women have fathers and brothers?

Don't leave it to the Muslim men of the family; they're likely to kill the guy who threw the acid, burn his house and the houses of his relatives, and practically enslave their sister (despite the fact that she is probably 100% innocent in the matter).

Not saying they would be better.  But in these incidents (and they are not uncommon) I never hear a peep from what her menfolk are up to.  Since Muslim law depends, nay demands, that a woman needs a man to sue, the silence is deafening.  The difference, for instance, from what would happen if he slept with her rather than disfiguring her is rather bizarre.  I'm not sure I want to understand it.

[Fr. George]

Not saying they would be better.  But in these incidents (and they are not uncommon) I never hear a peep from what her menfolk are up to.  Since Muslim law depends, nay demands, that a woman needs a man to sue, the silence is deafening.  The difference, for instance, from what would happen if he slept with her rather than disfiguring her is rather bizarre.  I'm not sure I want to understand it.

I hadn't thought of it in that way; I don't think I want to understand it either.

[GiC]

After you have a wife and kids, get back to me on how "trivial" adultery is.

Certainly destroying to a relationship, but by no means a crime. Your comment, given the fact that we're discussing it in the context of the Iranian legal system is absolutely despicable; it's nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to justify torture, oppression, and murder.

No, because torture serves no purpose.

Using torture to punish this man isn't an advancement of human rights in Iran; it's simply an attempt at the vindication of the barbaric practices of this medieval and inhuman regime. This woman may get justice, but countless others will needlessly suffer for it, and that is a price too high to pay.

That's had to decided.  How many women WON'T have acid thrown in their faces.

I thought it served no purpose?

Having been in America's (actually, the worlds) largest prison (if you don't make a distinction between jail and prison.  The inmates do), Cook County Jail, I can assure you that there is no comparison.  I'll add, those complaining in the American system have legitimate beefs.

They are very different; at least the difference between jail and maximum security prison, between jail and a minimum security prison, probably not so much. American jails, while suffering from problems (mostly related to overcrowding) arn't all that bad. Maximum Security Prisons, on the other hand, those are a different story. But still, I doubt they even compare to Iranian prisons.

[GiC]

I cannot say I disagree with you here. You are absolutely right. Iran should abandon punishments that are in fact torture.

Unfortunately Iran has legislation that makes this punishment completely legal. What I think is a step forward is that Iran implements its own laws to defend a woman. Usually these crimes goes unpunished.

Yes, they do have such legislation; but seeing how we live in a global community, the rest of us have to take responsibility for this legislation. And informing the people who are oblivious to the crimes against humanity that take place under this regime is the first step to getting it changed.

I think there are two different topics discussed here. The human rights of criminals in Iran and the human rights of women in Iran. In one of these topics the human rights are not advancing at all, in the other the human rights ARE advancing.

Considering the inequality in the Iranian justice system and how women are made into criminals for actions that are not crimes at all...I would say that the two topics are VERY related.

[Robert W]

Yes the topics are related. And the international community should pressure Iran on ALL human rights issues.

While Iran persists in using barbaric methods of punishment (no positive change here) it also defends the rights of a woman which is and actual positive change. Surely anyone cannot fail to see this?

[ialmisry]

After you have a wife and kids, get back to me on how "trivial" adultery is.

Certainly destroying to a relationship, but by no means a crime.

I'd go into this, but it's not necessary, at least in Illinois.  "Open and notorious" adulery is a crime and in the criminal code, something the courts have reiterated as the General Assembly has (it hasn't been procecuted on its own for a while, always in conjunction with something else. And there is always something else.

Your comment, given the fact that we're discussing it in the context of the Iranian legal system is absolutely despicable;

LOL. The comment "abosolutely despicable" is reserved for those who have morality.

it's nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to justify torture, oppression, and murder.

No, it's pointing out the inadequacies of your amoral world view.

No, because torture serves no purpose.

Using torture to punish this man isn't an advancement of human rights in Iran; it's simply an attempt at the vindication of the barbaric practices of this medieval and inhuman regime. This woman may get justice, but countless others will needlessly suffer for it, and that is a price too high to pay.

That's had to decided.  How many women WON'T have acid thrown in their faces.

I thought it served no purpose?

Purpose could be served by a simple execution.  Torture is unnecessary.

[ialmisry]

I cannot say I disagree with you here. You are absolutely right. Iran should abandon punishments that are in fact torture.

Unfortunately Iran has legislation that makes this punishment completely legal. What I think is a step forward is that Iran implements its own laws to defend a woman. Usually these crimes goes unpunished.

Yes, they do have such legislation; but seeing how we live in a global community, the rest of us have to take responsibility for this legislation. And informing the people who are oblivious to the crimes against humanity that take place under this regime is the first step to getting it changed.

Interesting. I saw the same justification for Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salmon Rushdie, who is not Iranian, not in Iran nor publishing in Iran (obviously).

I think there are two different topics discussed here. The human rights of criminals in Iran and the human rights of women in Iran. In one of these topics the human rights are not advancing at all, in the other the human rights ARE advancing.

Considering the inequality in the Iranian justice system and how women are made into criminals for actions that are not crimes at all...I would say that the two topics are VERY related.

Ah, proof that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Simkins]

...yes, the laws of Robespierre, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were SOOOO much better.

Robespierre and Stalin? Stalin was Thermidor. One of victims of so loathed by you Stalin' repressions was Yurovsky.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Iranian to be blinded with acid for doing same to woman