http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... court.html

"Authorities postpone decision to allow woman to inject acid into her attackers eye
She is still determined to exact revenge for bus stop attack despite death threats
His family beg for forgiveness ahead of sentence
In an 11th hour decision Iran has postponed blinding a convicted man who threw acid in the face of a woman because she would not marry him.
A court sentenced Majid Mohavedi to be blinded in both eyes for throwing acid into the face of 32-year-old Ameneh Bahramiy."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1MKSLsrCo

I suppose it's pretty clear. Do you, or do you not, think the sentence of blinding is ethical?

No it's not ethical to blind someone as punishment for blinding oneself, however one might relish the thought and I can understand why the woman wants to do it.
The perpetrator of the acid attack's own family would suffer too and they are not the guilty ones.
If the victims of other crimes were allowed to exact an eye for an eye punishment, such as a pedophile having his own child molested, it would be a corrupting influence on the whole of society.

How about the death sentence, retribution and a cost saving to the State?

Christine: "The perpetrator of the acid attack's own family would suffer too and they are not the guilty ones.
If the victims of other crimes were allowed to exact an eye for an eye punishment, such as a pedophile having his own child molested, it would be a corrupting influence on the whole of society"

Of course, any punishment would cause the attackers family to suffer so perhaps the best course of action is to just forget about it and tell the woman to suck it up.

Since the court, ever compassionate, did say the attacker couled be anesthesized while he was bing blinded so he wouldn't feel the acid eating into his face like the woman did.

I don't know how you could equate punishing a criminal's children with punishing a criminal. No one has suggested blinding the attackers mother or father. A pedophile getting raped would be closer to the point.

I really don't know. How I feel is that he should be blinded. A part of me thinks he shouldn't be. Maybe we could compromise with an execution. If this were an isolated event I could just assume it's a raving madman. Unfortunately, blinding and mutilating women is, in some cultures, appropriate punishment for rejection. IMHO, not being a liberal, I think this has to be stopped.

Greater minds than mine have advocated compassion including dare I say it, Jesus Christ, but that's becoming forgotten now as many adopt their own DIY philosophy which often seems based on self interest. They might say that if it feels good it must be good right?
By the way raping a pedophile would not be the same as abusing a child because there is no innocence to be destroyed and that is the really tragic thing about pedophilia.
Sounds like you guys are salivating at the thought of this blinding retribution and that's a real worry.
You might also support our governments saving money by introducing gladiator fights for serious offenders where they could fight until one died. It would be sure to draw people way from the reality crap they watch on TV, and bring in big dollars.

And you didn't deal with your concern about the effect any punishment would have on the perpertrator's family. Unfortunately, dare I say, Jesus wasn't particularly ethical. You also didn't deal with the ethical shortcomings of your suggestion that punishing the child is an appropriate punishment for the father.

I always considered the families of young men going to prison. I was quite aware that the odds were that a few years before the parents had held an infant for whom they had high hopes. It's a tragedy. I was also aware that in many cases, and for a variety of reasons, the family but the young man where he was. I wonder how often, if at all, this young man heard his father and his uncles ranting about women who reject men? I wonder how often he heard them cheer a man who sliced off a woman's nose or threw acid in her face. But, I certainly wouldn't want a punishment that would inconvenience or upset the assailant's family.

Your fantasies about gladiators were perhaps fueled by reality television. Unfortunately, I can't say because I've not had a television for over 15 years so I'll yield to your expertise on reality television, a lovely oxymoron.


So, what would you do? I'm assuming you don't wish the young woman to have her choice of blinding the man so what would you do?

Theories of justice seem really difficult and beyond my ken, but I might first run the question by Wendy McElroy if I were trying to get a handle on it.
http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/enews/enews.php

I really don't know. Let's say you're a pleasant looking young woman, going to college, you can see, you can smile at small children without them screaming. Then, because a man wants you and you reject him, you lose all that. You'll be a burden on your family for the rest of your life. Add to this the fact that this is not a rare occurrence. It isn't some nut that goes berserk but is an honorable tradition of a most honorable culture. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

So, we have justice for the woman to consider as well as an example for men who are inclined to repeat this act.

So, what to do? I'm not sure but I know that what's best for the man's welfare and future would not enter into my decision. I don't care if he sits on the sidewalk in a puddle of piss and begs for the rest of his life. I would feel sympathy for the man's family and would wish sincerely that they hadn't raised a man to believe this was a rational and honorable response. It seems in comments from his families it's his mother speaking. I wonder if that's because his father and uncles respect what he did. But, no, the welfare of the perpertrator and his family would not be a major consideration.

So, for justice, as much as it exsits, for the woman and as an example for men in the society, what? A really harsh lecture? A caning? A year in jail? Or, should he be blinded? Should the woman be allowed to pour a bucket of acid over his head so he will not only be blind but will be hideously disfigured? That would be the most balanced. Anything less will, in my opinion, support those who will do this in the future.

Actually I don't watch gladiator movies or reality television myself, but luckily I'm educated enough to know that throwing people to the lions and gladiator fights was popular entertainment in Roman times. If a driver dies in a Grand Prix race, count how many times they repeat the footage on the evening news. Oh that's right you don't have a TV. Well I'm telling you human nature hasn't changed however much we like to pretend.
Obviously the men in those societies must stop doing this and condoning it to.
My solution would be to make prisoners do hard or repetitive work for their food, after many years perhaps they could be allowed to study part of the time. No TV no sport for them. Given the numbers that are incarcerated this could give us a competitive advantage against countries like China.
No I don't want to see pretty young women disfigured, or less pretty ones or old people or children of either sex disfigured, but how many have ended up like that from the US bombings in Iraq? Does anyone know?

[quote="Tom Palven"
Theories of justice seem really difficult and beyond my ken, but I might first run the question by Wendy McElroy if I were trying to get a handle on it.
http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/enews/enews.php[/quote]

Wendy McElroy ends her article, "Libertarianism and Torture" by saying, "Ultimately, however, I oppose torture not because I am libertarian, but because I am a human being. Torture destroys everyone and everything decent it touches, including the torturer’s humanity."
Tipping a bucket of acid over someone's head is torture I think and it's a terrible, terrible thing to do.

Wendy McElroy ends her article, "Libertarianism and Torture" by saying, "Ultimately, however, I oppose torture not because I am libertarian, but because I am a human being. Torture destroys everyone and everything decent it touches, including the torturer’s humanity."
Tipping a bucket of acid over someone's head is torture I think and it's a terrible, terrible thing to do.[/quote]

For the victim of the ciime to want an eye for an eye is understandable, but torture also detroying the humanity of the torturer is a good point, and I'd go with Ms McElroy's opinion until I heard something really convincing elsewhere. She is certainly not a knee-jerk liberal, and has been a dedicated clear thinker who really thinks these kinds of questions through.

"Two Muslim mothers in India were arrested and accused of killing their daughters for dishonoring their families for running off with Hindu men, authorities said."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2 ... who_m.html

I suppose one could argue that these mothers were kind to their daughters at least in comparison to the man who threw acid in the woman's face.

Okay, Christine. You don't want to blind the man. What do you think should be done.

Education and cultural change is needed to stop these honour killings. There is not this radical reaction to inter-faith marriage among educated Muslims in Australia.
Considering the vast amounts of blood shed in countries where honour killings and acid throwing occur, punishing individuals by shedding more blood could be like water off a duck's back.

There are so many cruel and horrible crimes Patrick, but it seems that you are picking the ones that upset you personally the most as deserving the most severe punishment.

No, I'm not picking crimes that upset me the most. I am picking crimes that have a cultural support system to perpetuate the crimes. A culture says the proper course for a husband to take if his wife takes a lover is to kill her youngest child. I'm assuming the rationale, if any is needed, is that it might not be his child. The man will go to prison but the people in the community respect him for having done the right thing.

I'm not sure if blinding the man would be water off a ducks back? What if just ten percent of the nitwits believed that they would be blinded for their crime. As it stands now they're proud of what they do so catching them isn't hard.

I don't understand why you feel compelled to make up imaginary explanations for why I say and think as I do. I think I give you plenty of information to work with but if you need more just ask. Please don't say what you think such as "it seems that you are picking the ones that upset you personally the most as deserving the most severe punishment" when there is no evidence beyond your imagination that that is the case.

Actually, I think a case in the U.S. where a child was kidnapped, held in an underground room for 18 years, raped repeated, and father, I think, three children with the rapist is worse but that's a one off incident. It's not a culturally approved horrific crime.

But, we're back to, while we're waiting for the education to work, what do you think should be done to men who douse women with acid for refusing their advances? I understand blinding is out. Okay. So, what would you suggest? I might settle for life in prison in a totally dark room.

I know a twenty eight year old Iranian woman who has recently come to live in Australia. Her father has a construction business in the city of Isfahan and she was employed as a building supervisor.
Their lives changed for the worse when she and her older brother upset the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Her brother was gaoled. He was released bleeding from the orifices in his head and he died a few days later. She was gaoled for thirty days and during that time was only given two potatoes and a slice of bread to eat. The ceiling on the room was so low it was not possible to stand up and there were no toilet facilities or tissues.
Yes I think a stay in an Iranian gaol would be adequate punishment for the perpetrator of the acid attack.

Howdy, new girl here. First post, woo!

First, do apologise if this is considered a necro. Couldn’t find a mention of it in the FAQ’s so if someone could tell me if after X amount of time I shouldn’t be posting in a thread that’d be great.

Anyways, for me, crime and punishment is a fairly simple thing. A criminal, having been found guilty by a court, should face either a jail sentence or execution. Which one applies depends on how serious the crime was. I think this crime is more than enough to justify execution. Don’t see the point in torture/revenge. It won’t lead to anything good here.