Very interesting. Apparently, there was an Islamic woman whose face was splashed with acid out of spite by a man whose advances she rejected. She lost her eyesight as a result. A true tragedy, and incredibly horrific (which is obvious if you see the pictures...). Apparently, though, she wants the same punishment inflicted upon her attacker.
Here's the thing: considering that such a thing seems pretty standard, I don't think of the woman less for wanting this form of justice. But, I do think less of the commentors who sympathize a little too much with the literal "eye for an eye" mentality.
"I agree with Hammurabi, once you violate another human being's "human rights" it's as thought you are forfeiting your own. Eye for an eye, I vote yes.
Human Right's Activists should be condemning Movahedi" [The attacker].
Here's the deal: it is possible to criticize both the original perpetrator of the deed, in no unclear manner, as well as being exasperated that someone so victimized would call for vengeance. It does seem like justice, her motives for it (preventing him from doing it again) are decent, and she has very few better options in the legal system she is dealing with. But the fact of it remains: "eye for an eye" leaves too much blood on the hands of the government that assures that it is carried out. Considering that we so often have wrongful convictions ourselves, imagine what would happen if we had punishments more harsh than a jail sentence? We could have new Salem Witch Trials on our hands! But, I'll get back to "eye for eye" in a bit (since every quote brings it up).
"What about her human rights! Her attacker should forever experience what he did to this woman. Good for her for not accepting blood money." [monetary compensation is an alternative for the punishment].
Unfortunately, making the attacker suffer the same fate as the victim will not bring her eyes back. It makes intuitive sense that if he did suffer it, "justice" would be served, karma and all that. But, sadly, her human rights do not become unviolated by violating another's.
"I like the entry that said she should be able to throw it all over him...just like he did to her. None of this ...one drop in each eye. That's far too thoughtful for this lunatic. I think part of the punishment is supposed to unclude suffering!!! Ameneh...start getting that arm in shape for a fastball"
This is exactly what is wrong with the "eye for an eye" mentality: it is heavily motivated by a thirst for retribution. Most punishment is most assuredly not supposed to include "suffering", at least when you are not performing it entirely to satiate your own desire for blood to be shed to right a wrong. Punishment is, ideally, a way to discourage behavior, and change it for the better. In our country, the punishment offered by the justice system also serves the benefit of quarantine: keeping those who have not learned how to behave appropriately in society in isolation, so that they will cause minimal damage for the period of time. We still emphasize the quarantine effect, with behavior alteration only being a possible side effect or even something that is frowned upon if actively pursued. The concern over punishment not being sufficiently negative is somewhat warranted though, since it does make sense that people at large would not be fazed by overly gentle punishments for incredible wrongdoing, and any sense of fairness in society would gradually fade. But, then again, humans sometimes behave counter-intuitively, so it is hard to guarantee that anarchy would ensue with lax punishments for violent crime without actively exploring the matter.
"If only that was true for the U.S. An eye for an eye should be world wide. If you shoot someone you should be shot. If you stab someone you should be stabbed. The human rights people aren't thinking of the victims. When you are in jail you should lose all rights. I hope they do more then a drop in each eye. Should be as much as the victim"
The human rights people can think of the victims and the implications of sloppy treatments of the victimizer simultaneously, ya know. It is a shame, though, that you think that people in jail should lose all of their rights. They lose some, but not everyone in jail is a malicious sociopath who has wantonly destroyed someone's life. Some are wrongfully convicted for such crimes, some have destroyed lives out of desperation (think: survival and recklessness), some out of negligence, some out of what we call "insanity". And some in jail are just petty thieves or drug users. Besides, do you really want the government being able to say that someone is allowed to chop your arm off because your chainsaw went haywire? We have provisions against "cruel and unusual punishments" for a reason.
"If those human rights activists are so opposed to Bahrami's attacker suffering her same fate then they should be willing to take his place and suffer the punishment for him."
And lookee here: this is what happens when you elevate punishment up to the point where it is something metaphysical. It doesn't make any sense for someone to take someone else's punishment. It serves no purpose. It's not as if we are trying to appease a hungry god, angered by the deed that we feel the need to punish. Or......nah....couldn't be....
"Maybe if we had an eye for an eye in this country we would have less crime against women and children. Movahedi is getting what he deserves. What a terrible crime, what a terrible man. He should also be locked up for the rest of his life as a blind man."
Maybe if we were better at enforcing and giving decent sentences to those who commit crimes against women and children we would have less crime against them. But, sadly, our legal system is a little inefficient at doing so, for whatever reason. Yes, it is a terrible crime. But, to be frank, it isn't a hell of a lot worse than everything else that happens to women in that part of the world.
"I think that if criminals were faced with suffering the same fate as their victims, more people would think twice about committing heinous crimes. Of course blinding someone with acid is cruel and unusual. Bahrami knows first hand how true this is. Why should Movahedi be protected from feeling the same pain he inflicted on her?"
And that's the crux of all of this: the belief that "eye for an eye" not only appeases our natural desire to attain justice but that it deters crime as well. On its face, it makes sense. I personally wouldn't want to do something violent if I could suffer the same fate myself. But, crimes of passion seldom give time to worry about consequences. And sociopaths could give a damn, really. So, like I said before: humans sometimes behave counter-intuitively.
I can understand why they would support the blinded woman's position, in light of outrage from human's rights activists. Considering her options, and considering how fair it seems, it is understandable, and even begrudgingly commendable. But, longing to have the same vicious policy for our own? It leaves me a little disturbed....