Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
In any case, aren't what-ifs "illegal" as far as arguing is concerned?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Iran: Taking an eye for an eye literally
- Thread starter Kinyou
- Start date
- Status
Can't say I disagree with the punishment for one second. Anyone who could do that to someone deserves what's coming to them. I hope she misses with some of those 40 drops and gets it all over his face as well.
You would think so, until you get to the part of the article that says...
Iranian media have reported that Movahedi will be blinded in both eyes but Bahrami, in an interview in 2009, said that the man would be blinded only in one eye because "each man is worth two women" under Iranian law.
Yeah, we're the sociopaths... Your type is seriously fucked in the head, go hug a tree.
Sounds like a shitty variation of "nice guys finish last". Take a stand and hit these assholes where it hurts.
bengraven said:
You would think so, until you get to the part of the article that says...
Iranian media have reported that Movahedi will be blinded in both eyes but Bahrami, in an interview in 2009, said that the man would be blinded only in one eye because "each man is worth two women" under Iranian law.
Wormdundee said:
Yeah, we're the sociopaths... Your type is seriously fucked in the head, go hug a tree.
Korey said:
Sounds like a shitty variation of "nice guys finish last". Take a stand and hit these assholes where it hurts.
scar tissue
Banned
so there should actually be state sanctioned rapists who carry out the punishment?Trickster said:
hahahaohwow.jpg
if someone close to me was raped, i'd have no problem cutting the guy's (or woman's - yes it happens) jugular myself
but that's my personal thirst for revenge, not what the state should do
You know Iran gets a lot of stuff wrong, but as long as they got the right guy this is appealing to my sense of justice. It's cruel, but not so much as splashing acid in a woman's face, 'he started it'.
The other option is to execute the bastard.
'Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' only if every other person decides to attack everyone else's eyes...
The other option is to execute the bastard.
'Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' only if every other person decides to attack everyone else's eyes...
OttomanScribe
Member
Unsurprisingly I agree with the principle behind this.
Of course it is based upon different jurisprudence than Western law, as it has different roots.
In Islamic law (including that of the Shia) the rights of the victim come first and foremost. The perpetrator by committing the crime, squandered the rights they had. Thus the punishment, within bounds, is to be defined by the victim, not by a judge, who is removed from the crime and its consequences.
In this sense this woman was offered a choice of monetary compensation, forgiveness, or punishment in kind. She chose the last. I think that no one but her is in a position to ascertain exactly the impact of the crime. If she feels that punishment in kind is what is called for then that is on her, the man who committed the crime lost his choice over what happened when he committed such a heinous act.
As to 'eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'... well forgive me for thinking the victim of a violent crime is justified in wanting justice. I hate that saying because it is so condoning of oppression. You get beat on? Don't fight back!
Of course it is based upon different jurisprudence than Western law, as it has different roots.
In Islamic law (including that of the Shia) the rights of the victim come first and foremost. The perpetrator by committing the crime, squandered the rights they had. Thus the punishment, within bounds, is to be defined by the victim, not by a judge, who is removed from the crime and its consequences.
In this sense this woman was offered a choice of monetary compensation, forgiveness, or punishment in kind. She chose the last. I think that no one but her is in a position to ascertain exactly the impact of the crime. If she feels that punishment in kind is what is called for then that is on her, the man who committed the crime lost his choice over what happened when he committed such a heinous act.
As to 'eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'... well forgive me for thinking the victim of a violent crime is justified in wanting justice. I hate that saying because it is so condoning of oppression. You get beat on? Don't fight back!
OttomanScribe
Member
I think on the whole people instinctively agree with this kind of justice. It is throughout our culture, think about all the movies where the villain gets his just desserts, not through trial, but through extrajudicial murder or brutal and painful death.
People tend to find the removed nature of modern Roman law as kind of counter intuitive. That is why there is so much appeal for all the people who cry about 'Political Correctness' in relation to short gaol times for things like murder or rape.
Now that doesn't mean that it is automatically an admirable way of doing things, just because we seem inclined towards something, doesn't mean that it is good.
However I think that in this case, there is something to be said for defining the punishment by the feelings of the victim, within bounds of course.
In relation to the question of certain guilt. There is a ridiculously high level of proof required, at least in the traditional law (not so much in Iran, where torture is cool) in order for such punishments to be carried out. This is why some of them were very rarely carried out.
People tend to find the removed nature of modern Roman law as kind of counter intuitive. That is why there is so much appeal for all the people who cry about 'Political Correctness' in relation to short gaol times for things like murder or rape.
Now that doesn't mean that it is automatically an admirable way of doing things, just because we seem inclined towards something, doesn't mean that it is good.
However I think that in this case, there is something to be said for defining the punishment by the feelings of the victim, within bounds of course.
In relation to the question of certain guilt. There is a ridiculously high level of proof required, at least in the traditional law (not so much in Iran, where torture is cool) in order for such punishments to be carried out. This is why some of them were very rarely carried out.
Should kill him instead, what good is a human that would throw acid on someone's face?
People seem to place this minimum innate value on human life, some sort of arrogance that is built into us that makes us need to think that human life is special no matter what. Don't get me wrong, human life is very valuable, but people that rape/murder/disfigure other people have no value. They are a negative to society and letting them live only drags down the overall quality of humankind.
It's like weeds in your garden. If you don't pull the weeds, eventually the whole garden goes to shit.
People seem to place this minimum innate value on human life, some sort of arrogance that is built into us that makes us need to think that human life is special no matter what. Don't get me wrong, human life is very valuable, but people that rape/murder/disfigure other people have no value. They are a negative to society and letting them live only drags down the overall quality of humankind.
It's like weeds in your garden. If you don't pull the weeds, eventually the whole garden goes to shit.
OttomanScribe said:
What you describe is suboptimal atleast for society. The victim of a crime naturally desires retribution first and foremost. The other aims of justice such as rehabilitation and deterrence are ignored. Because a crime affects society as a whole it is not within one person's rights to have total say over the bounds of sentencing.
In this instance there is nothing the Iranian people or this woman gets in return. Sure she may get a bit of revenge but at the end of the day we have two hideously deformed and disabled people instead of one. Two even more ruined families. There are far more stakeholders in the decision.
RustyNails
Member
The enlightenment you are talking about is unreachable to 99.9% of the world's population and is not some comfortable, happy zone free of conflict. I'm a pretty educated liberal, and even I have tough time reconciling what you're saying with the severity of the crime the guy inflicted. Half the world lives in or near poverty, imagine their preoccupation. How far will we go? Do we forgive and rehabilitate warcriminals as well if they show remorse and willingness to change? It's untenable for precisely the same reason states founded upon pure political philosophies are untenable: they're unrealistic. They don't take into consideration the complexity of human nature and everything that comes with it. Asking a lady who got H2SO4 thrown at her face to let her assailant get rehabilitated is absurd. If she wants to forgive the perp, it's her prerogative. But if she wants enactment of justice on him, it's her prerogative as well and either way, she's in no wrong.The_Technomancer said:
scar tissue
Banned
so trueAcheron said:
two blind people instead of one = two people who leech off the state instead of one
he could've been forced to donate a percentage of his income to her for the rest of his life, thus being more productive
destruction accomplishes nothing apart from momentary satisfaction
OttomanScribe
Member
You are making assumptions that I do not make. I think that rehabilitation and deterrence are secondary to the rights of the victim over the one who has harmed them. If they believe that retribution will aid them in this, then that is up to them. The individual should not be held to society in this sense.Acheron said:
The woman gets retribution, which she obviously believed was more important to her than monetary compensation or benefit in the next life. What is the other option? Society will have to deal with a person willing to commit such a heinous crime either way. They will gaol him or he will pay compensation or whatever, this way the woman gets to have some level of feeling of justice. Until one is in her situation, they are unable to say what she should feel.
What people seem to be advocating is that the peace of mind of the victim should be held to the concerns of society in a utilitarian sense, well I say then that they misunderstand utilitarianism.
It's really disturbing to find so many here in favor of this sentence. What this piece of shit did is barbaric, but a civilized society shouldn't stoop down to his level to exact revenge for the victim. Lets try it this way: a father rapes a child, should the rapist's child be raped in return? It is, after all, an eye for an eye, and the offender would be allowed to experience the same horrors he brought to his victims.
Institutionalizing barbaric acts to alleviate the suffering of a victim is abhorrent, no matter how tragic the victim's pain may be.
Institutionalizing barbaric acts to alleviate the suffering of a victim is abhorrent, no matter how tragic the victim's pain may be.
Count Dookkake
Member
Now that's what I call an eye-ah toll-ah!
OttomanScribe
Member
Throwing around words like barbarity that don't mean anything doesn't make a point. Your argument seems to be we shouldn't do it because it is barbaric and abhorrent. Calling it as such does not make it so. The very fact that so many people agree with it shows that it is not automatically abhorrent, and most of them are Westerners, so the barbaric line doesn't work either.mellowbob said:
As to the example of rape that you posit, that is nonsensical, as it implies that the victim in this case is the father of the child raped... rather than the child themselves. Try again. Also more generally I don't think it makes sense. Did you mean to say the father should have his child raped, when he was the rapist. Wtf.
OttomanScribe said:
You fail to understand the point of the exercise. As part of the social contract we both give up our freedom to live without laws and also the freedom to pursue justice ourselves. Justice is social, and as such the outcome that does the most good (or least harm) to the greatest number is the superior one. It is for exactly that reason we pick judges that are unbiased and dispassionate so they can best determine this optimal outcome.
Again nobody really wins with this outcome, except for the victim, and only in a narrow and spiteful sense. The family of the attacker is ruined both emotionally and now will face the cost of caring for him despite having no involvement. Is that just? The Iranian people now have two effective wards of the state, is that ideal? Certainly examples must be made and punishments must be meted out so as to discourage the action and punish unacceptable behaviour. However, this is a stupid sentence and giving every yahoo from the street who had something bad happen to them the right to make sentencing decisions that have large externalities is just nonsensical. Which is why the vast majority of the advanced world doesn't allow it.
OttomanScribe said:
The very act of mutilating another human being is barbaric, are you seriously debating that? People agree with the ruling because they want to see the offender suffer in the worst possible way, not because they feel that the punishment itself isn't henious - that's the whole point of it.
The child-rape example is non-sensical on several grounds, but it's designed to highlight how moronic "eye for an eye" is. Tell us, what should the punishment for a rapist be? Should the child be given the choice to rape him in a similar manner? Or should the victim's parent's get to choose whether he will be raped by a third party (lol)?
OttomanScribe
Member
Again, making assumptions that I am not making. Your focus is on the state and broader society. Mine is not. The primary person damaged by crime is the individual, not society. Looking at crime through the lens of society does not work to address how the individual feels about crime.Acheron said:
In this sense the lack of empathy of a judge is a negative thing, as it is addressing the crime from the perspective of society, when it is the individual who has been harmed, not society (save in a general sense).
Either way the family of the perp will suffer, unless you are advocating no punishment at all? He will be in gaol or whatever, which is the same thing in terms of harm. Society in general is damaged by crime, that is the way things are. Changing the dispenser of punishment to a judge does nothing to change this.
OttomanScribe
Member
What does barbaric mean?mellowbob said:
You are asking me? Death. As the carrying out of a rape as punishment would itself be harmful for the one who has to carry it out.
OttomanScribe said:
You see you are making assumptions, as am I. The only difference is that yours are wrong and based on the simplistic notion that a victim has any sort of claim to action. Which in modern jurisprudence they don't.
And no being in jail for a period of time is not as bad for the perpetrator's family as permanently disfiguring and disabling him. To argue otherwise just points out your ridiculous train of thought.
The cost to society for the course of action taken by this woman is far greater than the cost that would have been imposed if this was done in the Western world. It imposes permanent and irreparable harm on the perpetrator, incites hatred and calls for revenge against the victim, makes the now disabled perpetrator just as useless to society as the victim and has no discernible benefit to deterrence in these crimes of passion. This as opposed to giving him ten to fifteen years in a prison or preferably some form of labour camp.
RustyNails
Member
I think giving the perpetrator a free ticket to rehab center at taxpayer's expense is more barbaric. Heck, why not also finance his cruise trip to the caribbeans because I hear sailing on boats has therapeutic healing on an unstable person's mind?mellowbob said:
OttomanScribe
Member
I am not basing my understandings upon contemporary Western jurisprudence.Acheron said:
Either way the family is deprived of an income, and the state is forced to support the individual, assuming he is given gaol time. What gaol time do you believe is appropriate for such a heinous crime?Acheron said:
How does it incite hatred and calls for revenge against the victim. This is a widely accepted principle, were it not socially acceptable, it wouldn't have been carried out.Acheron said:
Again, the victim is the one who suffers, not society, no one has the right (at least in my thinking) to say 'what would be justice is not going to happen because society more generally might be harmed'. If you were blinded on your wedding day, would you be cool with someone saying such a thing? Bah. That is barbarism (weasel words ftw), making a victim secondary to some sterile idea of a cost benefit analysis to society.
Stephen Colbert
Banned
beast786 said:
I agree. Acid throwing has become a fairly common practice in that part of the world...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_throwing
If the threat of jail doesn't deter people, maybe the threat of having the same thing done to them will.
And if it deters even one person, it will be worth it imo.
OttomanScribe said:
Barbaric/ adj/ 1. Savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal 2. primitive; unsophisticated 3. uncivilized and uncultured
Mutilating anyone qualifies as barbaric, and would qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.
Now, you think that rapists should be killed? That's not what this debate is about. The argument here is that the offender should, at the request of the victim, be subjected to the same acts they were found guilty of committing. In the rapist's case, an eye for an eye requires that the offender be raped if the victim requests it.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
well, maybe he shouldnt have done it then!
RustyNails
Member
Boo hoo hoo. Poor fucked up psychopath. Will anyone think of horrible criminals please? Rights of criminals over rights of victims, that's really a warped way of dealing with justice. The cost to society you're talking about is ridiculous because if the Iranian society wants it, Iranian society is fine with it. 10 years hard labor is a slap on the wrist and he'll probably disfigure the lady once more after he's done "institutionalized". I am not a criminal law expert so I won't pretend to be one. But I'd hazard a guess that the harshness of punishment in any self-respecting society is directly proportional to the severity of the crime. I'd argue that what the person did is worse than murder. He scarred the woman for life, both psychologically as well as physically, with probably no future prospects for a happy married life, children and will never experience the joy of being surrounded with grandchildren. 10 years hard labor is for fraudsters caught embezzling money, not violent psychopaths who throw sulfuric acid at women.Acheron said:
OttomanScribe
Member
I think that there is a false distinction being made here. Ever been to gaol? I have, though only to visit, anyone who thinks that gaol is not cruel, then they haven't had their freedom taken from them through force.mellowbob said:
It seems to me that barbarism is based upon what is and what is not a cultural norm. That is no basis for rejection unless an argument is given for it being thus.
I agree, I am not in general advocating the idea of eye for an eye, anyone who knows me know why I support this punishment.
I was asked what I thought should happen to a rapist, not what I thought eye for an eye dictated for a rapist.
RustyNails said:
I'm not so certain the Iranian public is behind the sentence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...throw-acid-eyes-Iran-court.html#ixzz1MJ0ZcAMt
Regardless, you haven't even attempted to tackle whether this "justice" system is sound from a utilitarian perspective. You see I don't really care about this woman's problems and on balance no one does. What's more important in the grand scheme of things is a functioning and efficient society where laws are enforced and backed by a sentencing system that punishes as harshly as it needs to deter and correct, while allowing rehabilitation to occur so that we can reintegrate perpetrators as productive and useful members of society (assuming that unlike psychopaths, pedophiles etc. they can be). That is a far greater boon to us then petty revenge for every victim of any crime no matter how heinous or how minimal.
I strongly suspect your response would be "well what if your kid/you got acid splashed in your face and your life was fucked by it". Which isn't really an argument but an appeal to emotion. But I can say I'd want revenge, I'd probably take it and pay the consequences. However, society should not codify counterproductive policies just to satisfy my or anyone else's desire for revenge.
I think that there is a false distinction being made here. Ever been to gaol? I have, though only to visit, anyone who thinks that gaol is not cruel, then they haven't had their freedom taken from them through force. there are so many problems with this statement, Im not sure where to start.
You allow the term cruel to shift in meaning from one context to another. Its cruel to tease my dog with treats, but that doesnt make me barbaric, even though barabaric acts are cruel by definition. Similarly, some elements of the penitentiary system may be cruel, but that cruelty is usually not the result of barbarism. Mutilation, however, is savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal. Hence, mutilation is barbaric.
I agree, I am not in general advocating the idea of eye for an eye, anyone who knows me know why I support this punishment. Im confused by this...
One, youve stated that: I think that rehabilitation and deterrence are secondary to the rights of the victim over the one who has harmed them. If they believe that retribution will aid them in this, then that is up to them. So you believe that victims should have a right to retribution in the legal system. Moreover, you believe that Thus the punishment, within bounds, is to be defined by the victim, not by a judge, who is removed from the crime and its consequences. In this sense this woman was offered a choice of monetary compensation, forgiveness, or punishment in kind. She chose the last. I think that no one but her is in a position to ascertain exactly the impact of the crime. If she feels that punishment in kind is what is called for then that is on her, the man who committed the crime lost his choice over what happened when he committed such a heinous act. So, you believe the following: the victim should have a right to retribution; such retribution, within bounds, should be defined by the victim at their discretion; and those bounds are limited by the nature of the crime itself, i.e. punishments in kind. Thats pretty much the definition of an eye for an eye. You were asked what should happen to the rapist because you supported that principle throughout this thread and defended this ruling.
You allow the term cruel to shift in meaning from one context to another. Its cruel to tease my dog with treats, but that doesnt make me barbaric, even though barabaric acts are cruel by definition. Similarly, some elements of the penitentiary system may be cruel, but that cruelty is usually not the result of barbarism. Mutilation, however, is savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal. Hence, mutilation is barbaric.
I agree, I am not in general advocating the idea of eye for an eye, anyone who knows me know why I support this punishment.
Im confused by this...One, youve stated that: I think that rehabilitation and deterrence are secondary to the rights of the victim over the one who has harmed them. If they believe that retribution will aid them in this, then that is up to them. So you believe that victims should have a right to retribution in the legal system. Moreover, you believe that Thus the punishment, within bounds, is to be defined by the victim, not by a judge, who is removed from the crime and its consequences. In this sense this woman was offered a choice of monetary compensation, forgiveness, or punishment in kind. She chose the last. I think that no one but her is in a position to ascertain exactly the impact of the crime. If she feels that punishment in kind is what is called for then that is on her, the man who committed the crime lost his choice over what happened when he committed such a heinous act. So, you believe the following: the victim should have a right to retribution; such retribution, within bounds, should be defined by the victim at their discretion; and those bounds are limited by the nature of the crime itself, i.e. punishments in kind. Thats pretty much the definition of an eye for an eye. You were asked what should happen to the rapist because you supported that principle throughout this thread and defended this ruling.
PflargBlarg
Member
Vilam said:
Believe what you want if it makes you feel better about your desire to see mutilation as some perverted form of justice. Sociopathy is defined as the disregard for, and violation of, rights that all people have, i.e. human rights. I personally do not think that throwing legal power behind torture, mutilation, etc. in any circumstance is going to help move us forward.
Interesting that I'm 'fucked in the head' for NOT advocating torture. Weird how that works. Does that make you a humanist?
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
It's quite a fitting punishment in the poetic justice way, but I honestly think it's barbaric.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
When it comes to justice Iran is the real life version of NeoGAF.
scar tissue
Banned
someone tell me: why is it 'eye for an eye' when a thief gets his hand chopped off? he should have something of equal value stolen from him, lol
also, what about attempted murder? do you attempt to murder the perpetrator?
so much is wrong with this kind of "justice"
and what about insane/retarded people?
do we just kill/maim/torture them anyway?
i'm certainly no treehugger and i'm in favor of only very lightly if at all punishing people who take personal revenge, but the state must never, ever take part in such things
justice from the state is not about retaliation and revenge but about deterrence, atonement and protection of society
also, what about attempted murder? do you attempt to murder the perpetrator?
so much is wrong with this kind of "justice"
and what about insane/retarded people?
do we just kill/maim/torture them anyway?
i'm certainly no treehugger and i'm in favor of only very lightly if at all punishing people who take personal revenge, but the state must never, ever take part in such things
justice from the state is not about retaliation and revenge but about deterrence, atonement and protection of society
Revenge is not justice.
A victim will always be a victim. There is no court in the world who could change that.
Of course, I don't blame a victim for being hateful and wanting revenge.
In some cases I might even applaud a victim for taking the law into his own hands.
But I strongly believe that the victim's wishes for revenge shouldn't be a factor at all in a court's decision.
You can't say that mutilating someone is a crime, and then allow the victim to do it.
A victim will always be a victim. There is no court in the world who could change that.
Of course, I don't blame a victim for being hateful and wanting revenge.
In some cases I might even applaud a victim for taking the law into his own hands.
But I strongly believe that the victim's wishes for revenge shouldn't be a factor at all in a court's decision.
You can't say that mutilating someone is a crime, and then allow the victim to do it.
345triangle
Member
i can sortof, kindof see why people would appreciate the poetic justice behind this, even if i would call them pretty objectively fucked up, but arguing it's a good idea as a deterrence on logical grounds? yeah, that death penalty sure does a good job of keeping the homicide rate down, doesn't it?
scar tissue
Banned
nice to see someone sane in this thread for a change. i agree on all points, well said.Pezking said:
theignoramus
Member
you're begging the question. further to the point, this wasnt a crime of passion, the attacker calculated the manner of his "retribution."Acheron said:
ElectricBlue187
Member
Something kind of appealing about this but yeah totally wrong and backwards justice system
It is barbaric and horrible, but screw it - don't be a barbarian and throw acid in someone's face and then beg for mercy when it's done back to you.
The asshole is even getting the luxury of having it dripped directly into his eyes under anesthesia in a controlled environment instead of getting it splashed in the face in public at a damn bus stop and feeling the searing burn for who knows how long.
He wouldn't even have been in this predicament had he used his brain.
The asshole is even getting the luxury of having it dripped directly into his eyes under anesthesia in a controlled environment instead of getting it splashed in the face in public at a damn bus stop and feeling the searing burn for who knows how long.
He wouldn't even have been in this predicament had he used his brain.
A Link to the Past
Banned
It's interesting to see a story like this that isn't about misogyny, but as far as I am concerned, if it's okay for this, it would be okay for a woman to be punished in this way - which I guarantee you a bunch of GAFers, especially those who are in favour of this, would pounce on Iran for being backwards.
Do you honestly think that you would abhor this act nearly as much if the genders were reversed?
Skilotonn said:
Do you honestly think that you would abhor this act nearly as much if the genders were reversed?
- Status