Languish.org

Yikes! :pinch:

What say you Languish? Is "An Eye for an Eye" just or is it barbaric.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43029928/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

QuoteBlinded woman gets to put acid in attacker's eyes

Court's sentence stemming from 2004 attack to be carried out in Tehran

msnbc.com
updated 2 hours 12 minutes ago

An Iranian man found guilty of using acid to blind a woman who refused to marry him now will have the same done to him as punishment — and she'll be the one who carries out the sentence, her lawyer says.

The lawyer said that at noon Saturday, Ameneh Bahrami would drop acid in both eyes of Majid Movahedi, 30, after he is rendered unconscious at a judiciary hospital in Tehran, The Guardian newspaper reported, citing Iranian media.

Bahrami was disfigured and blinded in 2004 when Movahedi threw acid in her face as she returned home from work, the Guardian reported. After Movahedi admitted to the attack, Bahrami asked a court to order an eye-for-an-eye retribution, under the Islamic law system of "qisas."

The court did so in November 2008, calling for five drops of sulfuric acid to be placed in each of his eyes.

Iranian officials have endorsed the sentence, hoping to stop an increase in acid attacks, the Guardian said.

The Washington Post reported that human rights groups and the British government had asked Bahrami to pardon Movahedi but that she had refused.

"I have been receiving numerous phone calls from Iranian human rights organizations based abroad," Bahrami told the Post in a phone interview Friday. "They are pressuring me to pardon him. But I won't do that."

Iran's government helped Bahrami, who has an electronics degree and worked in a medical engineering company before the attack, moved to Spain, where she underwent a series of unsuccessful operations.

She briefly recovered half vision in her right eye in 2007 but an infection blinded her again, the Guardian said.

Bahrami, now in her 30s, wrote a book about her ordeal, "Eye for an Eye," which was published in Germany.

Mutiliation as a punishment is imo quite effective (I think Derrida thought so too). It definitely works much better than prison when it comes to general (not to mention, individual) prevention, and in any case, if you think death penalty is appropriate in some cases, then mutilation must be appropriate in others (i.e. you can't support death penalty and be opposed to mutilation - both are on the same scale).

The main problem I have with mutilation and executions (especially public executions) is psychological - not for the criminal, but for the society at large in general (who witnesses the punishment) and the executioner in particular.

In societies which allow these penalties "life is cheap" and it is not a coincidence. It increases the level of acceptability of violence (and as a result, the level of violence), which is not a good outcome.

Plus, giving a blind woman a vat of acid is an accident waiting to happen. ;)

Just how Hammurabi would have wanted it.

Compared to a woman being executed just for talking to a guy who isn't her husband (WHORE!) this is perfectly just.

I don't really have a problem with this specific case, punishment in Sweden is ridiculously tame. My main problem with an eye for an eye is that it sends the message that it's OK to do unto others whatever you like as long as you are prepared to have it done to yourself. Even without considering all the freaks and weirdos who actually enjoy really bizarre shit the exchange rate seems way off considering that one part entered into the deal voluntarily and the other was forced.

Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2011, 02:06:29 AM
Mutiliation as a punishment is imo quite effective (I think Derrida thought so too). It definitely works much better than prison when it comes to general (not to mention, individual) prevention, and in any case, if you think death penalty is appropriate in some cases, then mutilation must be appropriate in others (i.e. you can't support death penalty and be opposed to mutilation - both are on the same scale).

Of course you can.  Mayhem ≠ execution.

Inflicting violence is arguably appropriate--we do that all the time, we just call it "prison" and pretend it's not violence--but permanent disablement (and reducing the offender to a burden upon his family or a ward of the state) is barbaric (and stupid).

And anyone that's worth blinding is very likely to be worth killing, and killing is likely to be more humane.

Finally, and a minor point, there's something frankly goofy about such novelty punishments, which I think would erode respect for the system which metes out punishment.  Just what wacky sentence will Judge Kurash lay down next?   Stay tuned and find out!

You do realize that you pretty much said that being dead is better than being blind, right? I guess millions of blind people disagree.

Can it be both? It's equally just & barbaric.

Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2011, 05:40:12 AM
You do realize that you pretty much said that being dead is better than being blind, right? I guess millions of blind people disagree.

You do realize that all of these arguments by assertion are silly and unconvincing, don't you? 

I can easily see the justification for judicial execution and still not see it for judicial maiming.  So can Ide.  You cannot.  That's on you, not myself or Ide.

Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2011, 05:40:12 AM
You do realize that you pretty much said that being dead is better than being blind, right? I guess millions of blind people disagree.

I wonder if you realize where you went wrong there.  :hmm:

Is it really an eye for an eye?  The woman who will be doing that is blind, I doubt she'll get just the eyes on the first try.

Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2011, 01:21:23 PM
Is it really an eye for an eye?  The woman who will be doing that is blind, I doubt she'll get just the eyes on the first try.

I think that's fair. He didn't get just the eyes on the first try either.

Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 01:29:30 PM
I think that's fair. He didn't get just the eyes on the first try either.

No, no he didn't.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia1.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2F090304-blinded-vmed-830a.grid-4x2.jpg&hash=9818dae6f421baf38408efcbf955ca48900841da)

I'm going to focus my outrage at Iran on all the other things they are doing.

Quote from: Ideologue on May 14, 2011, 04:07:51 AM
permanent disablement (and reducing the offender to a burden upon his family or a ward of the state) is barbaric (and stupid)

Bingo.

Quote from: dps on May 14, 2011, 03:30:54 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on May 14, 2011, 04:07:51 AM
permanent disablement (and reducing the offender to a burden upon his family or a ward of the state) is barbaric (and stupid)

Bingo.

Here I have to disagree though. It's not necessarily worse (the word barbaric is pejorative and meaningless) to disable the individual since a lot of the time it will be an outcome preferable to death, in that the family of the criminal may prefer it.

For the individual themselves, the more humane thing is clearly death, since oblivion is less of a hassle than disability.

Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 03:40:53 PM

Quote from: dps on May 14, 2011, 03:30:54 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on May 14, 2011, 04:07:51 AM
permanent disablement (and reducing the offender to a burden upon his family or a ward of the state) is barbaric (and stupid)

Bingo.

Here I have to disagree though. It's not necessarily worse (the word barbaric is pejorative and meaningless) to disable the individual since a lot of the time it will be an outcome preferable to death, in that the family of the criminal may prefer it.

For the individual themselves, the more humane thing is clearly death, since oblivion is less of a hassle than disability.

I was agreeing more with the part about it being stupid, because blinded they'll become a burden on society.  Not that every blind person is per se a burden on society, but you know if we did this in the West, we'd end up paying for their rehabilitation.

Quote from: dps on May 14, 2011, 03:45:53 PM

Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 03:40:53 PM

Quote from: dps on May 14, 2011, 03:30:54 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on May 14, 2011, 04:07:51 AM
permanent disablement (and reducing the offender to a burden upon his family or a ward of the state) is barbaric (and stupid)

Bingo.

Here I have to disagree though. It's not necessarily worse (the word barbaric is pejorative and meaningless) to disable the individual since a lot of the time it will be an outcome preferable to death, in that the family of the criminal may prefer it.

For the individual themselves, the more humane thing is clearly death, since oblivion is less of a hassle than disability.

I was agreeing more with the part about it being stupid, because blinded they'll become a burden on society.  Not that every blind person is per se a burden on society, but you know if we did this in the West, we'd end up paying for their rehabilitation.

Oh, then I withdraw my objection.

Still, we're paying for the rehabilitation of criminals in the west as well, both through the penal system and through recidivism. So it's not necessarily that far fetched.

The cost of an inmate in a Swedish prison is AFAIK between 2000 - 3000 SEK per day, or ~300-400 USD.

I wonder... what would the upkeep cost be of a three-strikes permanent blinding?  :hmm:

Enough with the Byzanteenifaggism, Slarg.

Of the limited number of things I get upset about I judge this one not high enough up on the list.

Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 03:49:06 PM
The cost of an inmate in a Swedish prison is AFAIK between 2000 - 3000 SEK per day, or ~300-400 USD.

Wtf. Source?

Don't know Slarg's source, but here's one.

http://www.kvv.se/sv/Statistik/Kostnader-lon-och-sysselsattning/ (http://www.kvv.se/sv/Statistik/Kostnader-lon-och-sysselsattning/)

Quote from: citizen k on May 15, 2011, 01:46:09 AM
Don't know Slarg's source, but here's one.

http://www.kvv.se/sv/Statistik/Kostnader-lon-och-sysselsattning/ (http://www.kvv.se/sv/Statistik/Kostnader-lon-och-sysselsattning/)

My source is, as usual, the gathered consciousness of the International Racist Collective, but I guess it never hurts to be able to cite an official source.  :sleep:

A small sum in comparison to what we pay for the upkeep of all those defective children the immigrants keep popping out by keeping up with their ancient customs of fucking their cousins.  :P

Quote from: Cecil on May 15, 2011, 03:11:01 AM
A small sum in comparison to what we pay for the upkeep of all those defective children the immigrants keep popping out by keeping up with their ancient customs of fucking their cousins.  :P

Considering the majority of the expensive inmates are in fact immigrants or the children of immigrants, that's double-whammy right there.  :P

She has nice tits. :perv: