Majid Movahedi is an Iranian and in the available photograph he looks like any other young man. He pursued a woman called Ameneh Bahrami, and in the available photograph she is very pretty, smiling under the black niqab that covers her hair and head. She rejected his advances, whereupon he threw a bucket of sulphuric acid over her. In spite of seventeen operations her face is still appallingly disfigured, unrecognizable, and she remains blinded. Under the operative law of retribution, known as qisas, she has the right to blind him, literally to take “an eye for an eye.” The man’s father, and bodies like Amnesty, have tried to pressure her into showing mercy. She would relent, she says, if she received two million euros to take care of her future needs. In the absence of money, she will have retribution. A doctor is due today to pour sulphuric acid into the man’s eyes. “I wish I could drip it myself,” so Radio Free Europe quotes Ameneh. It is impossible to decide which of these stricken people, the doctor included, deserves the most pity. Imagine a country which likes to boast of its moral and spiritual superiority, its supposedly universal values, but where a horror of this kind passes for justice.
And if not this punishment, what punishment does he deserve?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe may deserve it from the victim, but not from a physician hired and sanctioned by the state.
There is a reason that "street justice" is distinguished from "justice."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Cy: I have thought about this a great deal. Yes he "deserves" the punishment. In this case, my principal consideration would be deterrence. I don't believe in "victim's rights" but in such a case, the victim should be compensated appropriately. Revenge might be an appropriate compensation in these circumstances.
However, in a civilized country, such deterrence and revenge would be unnecessary. Under the present regime, Iran is not civilized.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not a big fan of the Iranian government but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCy, I think he deserves the whole bucket, Nickelodeon game show style, rather than some doctor dripping it on his eyes only.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Cy
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, you are not the only one. I understand the arguments against his type of primitive retributive justice but for some reason it fails to outrage me. I have long felt that convicted murderers should be put to death in the same manner they killed their victims, so that may explain my lack of outrage.
On a not completely unrelated note; I found it interesting how such an unrepentantly brutal regime such as Iran's found it necessary to create such a formal process to carry out the sentence. Is it a gender issue? If the criminal was a woman would they go to these lengths?
In this country we do pretty much the same thing. Its just a matter of degrees. After all, acid in the eyes or acid in the veins, retribution by violence is served faithfully.
It's no surprise that the comments so far agree with the mullas justice! And that, Mr. Price-Jones, is the true and sad outrage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a step toward civilization for the muslims. They could cut his head off. The next evolution will be western justice (which we used to have) and then cultural decline (which we are in now) in which the criminals are not punished at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI too am not outraged and would applaud the adminsitration of this type of justice more often....but I think the whole bocket is in order.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeems like a good idea to me. There are a lot of features of Iranian law that are barbaric and unjust, but I don't think this is one of them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes to the eyes for her eyes. And the reason I would give is not retribution, but the protection of the innocent. A society that blinds those who blind is likely to have far less people criminally blinded in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe perpetrator is getting what he deserves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseApparently, Iran is a country with the ethics of a comments thread....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't say I have a problem with this punishment. Justice, once guilt is demonstrated, must be swift and terrible. To do otherwise not only causes further suffering to the victims, but also fails to serve as a deterrent to further criminal activity.
I hope when this sentence is carried out, it is televised, so that any other "men" (and I use the term loosely) will think twice about permanently maiming a women for the heinous offense of not dating them.
I wonder what would happen to the incidence of violent crime in the US, if we adopted a system similar to this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseImagine a society where the perpetrator could expect to be treated as his potential victims? I would be perfectly happy to have eye for an eye be part of our justice code, along with the following, just because the victim got their revenge does not mean the perpetrator gets off Scott free. They still serve time.
It obviously would not stop all crime, but it would stop some of the most heinous ones out there, where the perpetrator is trying to exact revenge for some minor slight with a massive assault. If that same assault would be reversed upon himself, it would no longer look justifiable in his depraved sick mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, Cy and others, you're not wrong. This is justice; and the arbitrary state penalties against non-crimes or the forcing of victims to forgo just retribution in favor of locking the criminal away with three squares a day at taxpayer expense is the injustice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGive him as good as he gave; and that is not enough
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA full understanding of this medieval horror is obtained through understanding that under Shariah law, she is only entitled to "one eye" - as a woman's eye is worth half that of a man's.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe man knew the nature of his country's law when he did this. And it doesn't take Hercule Poirot to attach a motive to a suspect. A jilted suitor would be the first guy the police would question.
I saw the pictures of this woman, as much as I could bear, and don't have a problem with this. An eye for an eye doesn't make the world blind. I'd say it was an effective deterrent.
Now in instances where Iran has stoned to death 12-year-old girls for being forced into prostitution by their mothers...I'd say Iran has a big friggin' problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am fine with the fact that my state of Massachusetts does not have the death penalty; were there a referendum, I think I would vote to keep it that way. But I am also fine with the fact that Texas does have the death penalty -- the same for the federal government for crimes such as terrorism, including crimes committed within Massachusetts (provided there really is a federal nexus). I wouldn't presume to tell Texas not to have a death penalty, among other reasons because I do not want Texans controlling the criminal justice system within Massachusetts. But also because I think systems based on local control, example and suasion work better than systems based on coercion by national governments (or worse, international bodies). Now Iran is, of course, a barbaric place, with a brutal government empowering much evil. And I would not have "an eye for an eye" where I live. But this rough form of justice may be entirely appropriate to some societies, and is certainly not among the more disgusting aspects of Iranian law and government, not the least because the defendant is actually guilty of a heinous crime, and not merely an outspoken opponent of that regime.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse