Ow! Iran sentences man to have acid dripped into his eyes.

[backscatter712]

I can't say I'm shedding tears for this guy - his crime was that of attacking a woman with acid, maiming her and blinding her permanently. So he got a classic eye-for-an-eye-tooth-for-a-tooth punishment. I can't say this sort of thing will fly in many places elsewhere for the world.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Iran-Acid-To-Be-Dripped-Into-Spurned-Mans-Eyes-For-Disfiguring-Woman/Article/200811415164231?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15164231_Iran%3A_Acid_To_Be_Dripped_Into_Spurned_Mans_Eyes_For_Disfiguring_Woman

Acid will be dripped into the eyes of an Iranian man after he blinded the woman who spurned his marriage proposals, reports claim.

A Sharia court ordered the punishment based on the system of "qisas" or fair retribution, the Etemad-e Melli newspaper said.

The man, identified only as Majid, proposed several times but was spurned by the woman, known as Ameneh, the daily paper reported.

In revenge, he threw acid in her face as she left her work in 2004, it added.

She travelled to Spain for surgery to reconstruct her face but efforts to restore her sight failed.

On returning to Iran, she asked the court for retribution, the newspaper said.

"Ever since I was subject to acid being thrown on my face, I have a constant feeling of being in danger," she said, adding that Majid had also threatened to kill her in the past.

[connecticut yankee]

1. I'm surprised

that Iran would punish a man for doing something bad to a woman.

They consider women the lowest form of life.

[JVS]

16. Seriously, I'm surprised she isn't being given 20 lashes for being close enough to a man to have...

acid thrown on her. She must have been with every living male relative when this crime occurred.

[Bucky]

49. We're talking Iran here, not Saudi Arabia or backwoods Pakistan

They're not enlightened, but the Shariya law there is only harsh, not quite as perverted as you find in less developed Sunni countries.

[treestar]

148. Good point, let's not be guilty of what we accuse the freepers of

Overgeneralizing about Islam. There were times in Iran where things were liberalizing, too.

[Hannah Bell]

51. photos of the oppressed

http://www.letsgoiran.com/women-dress-code/women-dress-photo

[Hannah Bell]

54. more oppression

misery.

[cali]

75. um, so what? I mean what's the point you're trying to make?

That pictures of happy Iranians means that there's no torture or injusice there?

Really? That's your idea of logic?

[Hannah Bell]

116. for starters, you might note there are several women "standing close enough to men to get acid

thrown on them" & no one seems to mind.

for another, sky news = britain's version of fox news.

there's injustice everywhere. but only selected incidents are highlighted in the globo-propaganda mills, & only selected incidents are picked out by those with axes to grind.

a few days ago, it was "raped saudi women get buried in sand & stoned".

[jrockford]

125. Have you ever been there? Or do you get all your information

from sky and fox?

[cali]

140. no, I 've never been there- though I have traveled to Islamic countries

and no, sorry, I don't watch Fox or Sky. I realize that Iran is a beautiful complex country with a young population. I also recognize that Sharia law is rooted in religion, and discriminates against women.

[Hannah Bell]

163. The OP is Sky News.

[Vektor]

87. They are beautiful people.

I looked at all the pictures in the "women's dress code" section, and they looked just lovely. I really liked the style of their clothing, and they looked really sharp.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vektor]

107. Hahah..I get it.

It looks now like their style of dress (in Iran) is a mix of the Muslim tradition of the headscarf and the coat to cover the body, but mixed with great style, and modern patterns and colors, and it looks great on them. Even with some dress restrictions, they manage to have creative style. I like the combination of the patterned headscarves with the jeans and dress boots.

[jrockford]

124. I expect stupid comments like this from GOPers and fundies on freeper....

but I guess, given how things are, I'm not all that surprised.

[TomInTib]

2. Hell, yes.

I have always thought that our violent crime rate would drop if the perp got what he/she meted out.

[cali]

3. yeah, vengeance is the way to go.

it really breaks the cycle of violence. Not.

[TomInTib]

7. Maybe we should just rap them on the knuckles with a ruler....

ask them to pretty-please stop raping women, beating people up, shooting up the local ToySRus.

Maybe warehouse the really bad guys in private warehouses at taxpayer expense. Beg their forgiveness for being so insensitive to their plight.

Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime?

Really, have you?

[varkam]

9. Right. Because that's what they said. eom

[cali]

11. I was a victim advocate for 5 years. That meant that day in and day

out I worked directly with victims of violent crime.

And yes, I've been a victim of violent crime myself.

And yes, I believe in imprisoning people who commit violent crimes and I believe in humane conditions in prison at the taxpayers expense. I even believe in rehabilitation, as much as is possible.

[varkam]

12. You sound like one of those bleeding-heart liberals. What the hell are you doing here?

Oh, wait.

[backscatter712]

15. Yeah. As viscerally satisfying as the eye-for-an-eye stuff may be, I can't support it.

Civilized countries have these things called prisons.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

62. Don't you see how STUPID that false dichotomy makes you sound?

You: "Eye-for-an-eye justice."
Other: "Terrible idea."
You: "Ooooo, you want to coddle criminals! Maybe we should just rap them on the knuckles with a ruler."

Idiotic. Utterly idiotic.

[datasuspect]

72. i like the premise behind escape from new york

put all the violent incorrigibles together in montana or south dakota, seal it, provide them with a lifetime supply of weapons, ammunition, drugs, and booze, and televise it on pay-per-view.

[High Plains]

152. Hey, I'm in South Dakota! Please send that lifetime supply now.

[DonEBrook]

20. Well it will stop -his- cycle of violence. I'm pretty sure his recividism rate will be zero.

Sometimes vengeance equals prevention.

[cali]

25. that's completely ridiculous as well as unsupportable

how do you know that his sentence won't enrage his family who will seek vengeance on her family? Furthermore, it's state sponsored torture. Think about that for just one minute.

[DonEBrook]

34. Well, I know I'm not a big fan of taking pre-emptive action because of what someone MIGHT do.

That's one of the things I hate about GW Bush. He wrought vengeance on the wrong people, that's all. Maybe coddling criminals is de rigeur here at DU? I confess I didn't see that in the rules...the place was recommended by my friend in Texas who said it's an island of sanity on the internet.

[varkam]

38. There is, of course, a difference between coddling and toe-curling torture.

Or maybe I'm just delusional in thinking that there's some sort of middle-ground.

[bobbolink]

112. That's the RW justification for the death penalty.

and, since the US is the only "civilized" nation still putting people to death, we might want to look at our rationales again.

[treestar]

146. Not if he lives through it and they let him out again

He'll feel entitled to vengeance against society.

[minavasht]

55. Unlike

our current way of dealing with crime...

[varkam]

10. There's just this little, itty-bitty thing called the Constitution standing in your way.

Specifically the Eighth Amendment.

[RedCappedBandit]

13. Research does not indicate that punishment works as a deterrent

:shrug:

A violent culture simply encourages more violence.

[TomInTib]

21. I don't have a problem with violence.

Long ago, I realized that humans are naturally violent and that violence isn't going to go hide behind a rock.

Fire with fire.

[cali]

28. So you're a big supporter of bush's torture policy, and heck

with your philosophy you can't possibly have an objection to say, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, or the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

[TomInTib]

32. I have a problem with all of those.

I just take a different view on person-on-person crime. I believe that people are inherently violent and that no amount of rehab or whining is going to change that. That is why I am almost always armed.

[cali]

33. how convenient for you.

that makes absolutely no sense as you stated that you approve of the state torturing if the the torturee committed a violent crime.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

67. "I believe that people are inherently violent...

...and that no amount of rehab or whining is going to change that."

No. Not everybody is like you.

[Trajan]

18. IF committing an immoral act is wrong ....

Then it is always wrong ....

It was WRONG to throw acid in the face of an innocent human ...

It is JUST AS WRONG to drip acid into the face of an guilty human ....

It is the act of causing harm that is wrong, and it is consistently wrong no matter WHO is the cause ....

One might make the argument that someone could morally commit this act IF it was in defense of themselves or another human .... But that is a very narrow position, requiring that no other alternative exist ...

Morality is universal .... There is no 'opt out' for anyone ...

[hlthe2b]

4. Hard to know what to think about this brutality...

It is, after all, the "eye for an eye" (literally) concept that so many Americans want to enact.

For me, it is barbaric, even as he committed such a similarly barbaric and unforgivable act on his victim... I think locking him away for years (perhaps to hard labor) with any earnings going to the victim, seems a little more appropriate, but, that's just me.

[patrice]

6. That's what I think we should do with criminals.

They should work to benefit others.

[pitohui]

14. they should work to help drive down wages? come on

i don't agree w. torture but in my view there is no reason for this person to continue to exist, i don't see a problem with just executing the dude in a humane manner

of course she will never feel safe again, she is BLIND, she can't see what's coming at her, can't work, her life is destroyed, i don't see what putting the guy to work in a prison laundry will do for her, do you? except remind her that he can work and she can't and that one day he'll possibly be free but she'll never re-grow another pair of eyes? as long as he's alive he has hope, which she will never have

plus when i see prisoners doing work that once free men (such as landscaping) did for a reasonable price it has to make me wonder -- should gov'ts really be given a financial incentive to make more prisoners?

[Lyric]

22. What the hell?

It's bad enough that we permit the state-sponsored murder of murderers--now it's suddenly a good idea to kill people who DON'T murder?

What's next for the death penalty, eh? Please, tell us exactly which crimes should be punishable with death. I'm sure everyone here is waiting breathlessly to hear your next bloodthirsty condemnation, oh Judge of the Universe.

:eyes:

[TomInTib]

24. You and I seem to be the only ones here who don't feel sorry for the guy.

Screw him, I say.

[cali]

26. no one here is expressing symptathy for the perp

We're objecting to state sponsored torture and trying to explain that responding to violence with violence exasperates rather than solves the problem.

That should be clear.

[backscatter712]

31. You don't have to feel much sympathy for the perp to disagree with maiming him.

This guy is a scumbag, and in a civilized society, would be spending the rest of his life in prison.

[High Plains]

153. In a civilized society, he would do a couple of decades in prison.

In America, he would do life.

If you look at other countries' sentencing schemes, ours are comparatively way over the top.

[anonymous171]

5. Now they both will be blind. Gandhi was right.

[liberalmuse]

8. Jeez.

This is just the type of stuff I don't like. The headline is horrific, until you read what the crime was. I'm so confused as to what to think about this. I was raised to treat others better than they treat you, but this eye for an eye thing is fucking with my sense of justice vs. my sense of compassion.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. The crime was less horrific than many.

Acid throwing is vile, but not as vile as rape or murder.

What, I suspect, most horrifies most Western liberals about it is actually not the crime but the motivation.

The appropriate sentence would be a significant number of years in prison - probably more than 10 but less than 30.

[LisaL]

30. Not as vile? Are you kidding me?

Do you know what that does to a person?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. Less than killing them.

I'm less sure about the comparison with rape - thankfully, I've never experienced either, so I'm in no position to compare - but even if you measure solely by effect on the victim, acid-throwing is less serious than murder.

[LisaL]

41. At least when someone is dead, they don't suffer anymore.

[varkam]

45. Then again, you're still alive.

I was raped when I was a child. I'm glad that I'm not dead.

[Vektor]

46. Having your face disfigured is one of the greatest horrors ever.

Being murdered would be kinder, being raped would be something that whole world wouldn't have to see when they looked at you and saw your blind, mutilated face.


I don't think you could ever begin to imagine the unspeakable horror of having an acid burned face. Try looking at some of the woman who have been victims of this.

[JVS]

17. They can't do an eye transplant in her favor?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. This is utterly wrong, and should be unambiguously condemned.

The state should never deliberately maim people.

No matter how bad the crime was - acid throwing, rape, murder, whatever - life in prison is an appropriately harsh sentence. In this case, I would think somewhere between 10 and 30 years would be about right.

[Gwendolyn]

27. The dominionists in our country believe...

... we should go back to biblical punishment. Which means, a rapist should be able to pay recompense as opposed to being whipped or stoned. Biblical punishment is meted out based on the idea that females, and male slaves, are property. All the monotheistic, abrahamic religions are routed on that idea. Eye-for-an-eye punishment is based on the idea that people are property. She must come from a wealthy family, and is no longer able to marry well. Prison terms for rapists and abusers of women is better. :)

[cali]

29. So do some DUers- presumably liberals. Read the thread.

[Sanctified]

37. Biblical Eye for an Eye laws were in place to prevent escalating revenge violence.

At that time if a neighbor poked out your eye the tendency was to take out both of his eyes instead of just one, if your neighbor killed your child the tendency was to kill all of his children. Eye for an Eye laws prevented the escalation of violence that is so often seen in many societies.

[applegrove]

36. What is wrong with a stiff prison sentence?

[varkam]

39. It's not bloody enough for some, as it would seem. eom

[bean fidhleir]

78. The main thing wrong with it is that it offends any normal person's sense of justice

Depriving a person of both sight and sightliness is not comparable to stealing from a bank. It's comparable to torture-murder.

I don't blinding this guy is really appropriate, although it's not totally off the wall either. But the best thing with someone so psychopathic is to simply shoot him dead. The world doesn't need him, and for sure doesn't need any offspring he might produce.

I'm a DP opponent for almost every crime, but some, like this one, reveal a level of psychopathy so complete that there is zero hope of socialization. It is much more likely that one day she will have her sight and face restored than that he will ever become a trustworthy member of society.


(edit) It would be more appropriate, if killing him is out of the question, to put him in a special zoo, on public display, like the dangerous non-human he truly is inside. Deprive him of everything human, and let him live out his life among others of his kind.

But that would get the professional bleeding hearts even more upset, I suspect.

[cali]

81. You are not a death penalty opponent.

dp opponenents oppose the dp- they don't eke out exceptions.

And it's nonsense to state that people who commit heinous crimes are somehow inhuman. To the contrary, they're all too human. But some of you just can't deal with that so you attempt to place him outside the human realm.

Furthermore, it's just sad that people don't grasp how responding to crime with cruel treatment, diminishes the entire society. That's not being a bleeding heart.

Put the guy in prison for a good long time.

Oh, and yes I believe people who do such things can, at least sometimes, be rehabilitated.

[bean fidhleir]

89. You are such a committed contrarian that it's almost funny.

[cali]

91. how so? I'm anti-torture and anti-dp.

I don't hold my opinions to be contrarian, at all. That's a misinterpretation on your part. And btw, I've been anti-dp since I was a kid.

[applegrove]

129. I agree that people with a high degree of psychopathy should be somehow monitored

for life be it in prison if they have committed crimes or monitored in the community if they have not been convicted or have served their terms. We can't keep going through what we go through with psychopaths... and not somehow find a better way to deal with them. They should certainly not be allowed in some professions especially politics and any health care or community care professions. With all the study of the brain these days their should be a way to diagnose sociopaths in an exact way and stear them away from creating victims.

[bean fidhleir]

142. "there should be a way to diagnose sociopaths in an exact way"

Unfortunately, I don't think that's ever going to be possible. Quantum uncertainty will get in the way, if nothing else.

The problem is that, like all other disorders, it's a smooth continuum from the acceptable (surgeons need a little bit of it in order not to be disabled by fear when they go to cut someone open) to the inhuman.

We can easily detect someone who's down at the low end of the scale for cognitive ability, but it's harder to detect someone at the high end because their difference doesn't stand out in everyday life. It's the same with psychopaths. The worst ones are down near the bottom - far below cats and dogs, maybe around the fish or reptile level - in their ability to have empathy for other living creatures. But that doesn't necessarily stand out in everyday life. And the ones nearer to normal are even harder to detect.

We've known about the "psychopathic triad" in boys for a long time --bedwetting, fire-starting, and cruelty to non-humans-- but we don't seem to do anything about it. Yet I think that might be the closest we ever get to diagnosing someone before they commit an atrocity against a human.

[applegrove]

156. You hear talk about frontal lobe deficits and MRIs detecting activity in the brain,

how sociopaths solve emotional problems as if they were mathematical ones and on and on. This is the decade of the brain. We should be able to diagnose such people sometime sooner than they get diagnosed now. It is just the way information progresses. We should know more and perhaps do know more. I have hope at least. You gotta have hope.

[TheWraith]

40. Have they considered cornea transplants?

If they're going to sentence him to "an eye for an eye," why not make it useful, and try to help the victim?

[Posteritatis]

43. I shouldn't like this but sorta kinda do (nt)

[MrSlayer]

42. Sounds like he deserves it to me.

You should get what you give.

[Vektor]

44. Hmmmm. Trying really hard to feel bad for him after what he did.

Failing.

Maiming and disfiguring a woman for spurning your marriage proposal? Yeah, I'm just not able to care what happens to his guy.

What does surprise me is that an Iranian court actually sided with the woman and wants to punish her male attacker.

[backscatter712]

47. I'm failing too.

Don't get me wrong. I still think it's wrong to burn his eyes out with acid, but I'm having trouble feeling sorry for this sack of shit.

[cali]

56. You don't have to feel sympathy for the perp to feel horror

that the state is in the business of torture.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

66. Dude, I'd feel sorry for goddamn HITLER if they said they were going to drop acid in his eye.

It's a basic human reaction. People are averse to seeing pain being inflicted on other people.

Well, we're talking about SANE people.

[Vektor]

80. Some of us are more averse to seeing an innocent victim disfigured and burned

than the monster who attacked her punished. You are accusing some here of "not being sane" but your posts down thread are becoming increasingly more aggressive and angry toward other posters over a difference of opinion.


The sane part of ME says that any man who throws acid in a woman's face mutilating, maiming, blinding, and disfiguring her for life is a sub-human sack of offal.

Would I stand by and laugh and offer to pour the acid in his eyes myself? No, of course not, but would I lose much sleep if I were informed that he was punished harshly for what he did, whatever method was used? Probably not so much. While I might agree that the state's chosen punishment is rather unorthodox, if this man had not destroyed his victim's face and life, if he weren't a violent sadist, he wouldn't be in this trouble in the first place.

I feel bad for the woman who was mutilated. Period.

[varkam]

115. You're either with us or with the terrorists. Sound familiar? It's a false dichotomy you'er pushing.

One can simultaneously recognize that the actions of this individual are morally culpable and deserving of punishment and that the actions of the state in response are equally bankrupt. It's not hard.

[Vektor]

117. I do recognize that.

That's what I have said on this thread several times. I am not pushing a false dichotomy. I said to another poster that seeing the perp rot in prison would be fine. I am stating that I do not have any qualms about seeing this violent, cruel man punished, but if he were to be jailed for the rest of his days, that would be appropriate, and would not require torture.

I did say that if he were tortured, while I might not condone the actions of the state, I'd be far less inclined to cry over the perp's suffering than I would over the suffering of his victim, however.

[varkam]

119. Wrong is wrong, in my opinion.

Because the state does it to redress a wrong does not somehow make it right.

[Vektor]

120. That's fine.

And I agree. I can still think it's wrong, even if I have to struggle to actually feel for the perp.

I can recognize the wrongness of the act itself and at the same time, still not really care what happens to the criminal.

Sort of the same way some people are alright with watching someone stomp on a cockroach. Stomping a living thing to death is wrong, we all know that, but many people don't actually care what happens to the cockroach.

[varkam]

122. Except that we're not talking cockroaches. We're talking people.

I believe in universal human rights, I also believe that those rights are inalienable and cannot be bargained away by word for by deed. Again, and I stress, that's not to say that he shouldn't be punished. He should, and severely. Ag Assault is serious business, and in the States he would undoubtedly be given a lengthy prison term (which he rightly deserves).

I guess, though, that is where you and I differ.

[Vektor]

128. Well, to a degree we differ.

In a lot of ways, we're on the same page. I definitely did not mean to make the comparison that the human and the cockroach are on equal footing. I was only using that as an example of how one can recognize the wrongness of a deed, but not feel a whole lot of sympathy for the recipient of the wrong deed if that person is a menace, or a threat.

I could go into a personal rant about how I feel that anyone who attacks and maims women is lower than a cockroach, but that's a whole separate debate... :-)

I think the main difference in our viewpoints is that I would be less inclined to care if a sick, violent person met with a gruesome punishment, because I feel to a degree that you DO forfeit your rights to humane treatment when you have committed a gruesome crime, like throwing acid in a woman's face and literally burning the skin off her bones, blinding her, and disfiguring her horribly. Try as I might, I cannot muster up a huge objection to the thought of giving someone like that an equally horrific sentence.

But, those are my own personal feelings - not necessarily the way I feel the state ought to handle it. I think if we all rack our brains, we can think of an instance where we would not be opposed to horribly, violently killing someone in return for an unspeakable act. A good example, is what person would not be inclined to want to tear limb from limb someone who raped or murdered their child? It would cross the mind of even the most timid person, I suspect.

The difference between "not caring too much" when imagining a violent offender being tortured, and advocating that it actually be DONE by the state is that one is a personal "feeling" (that often can't be helped) and the other is an acknowledgment that it is the preferable and right thing to do, and encouraging it.

I have a fierce sense of justice, but I'm not a vigilante. I have an intense dislike toward violent criminals, but don't necessarily feel that the state should be using whatever creatively grotesque means they can to punish them, simply because there needs to be checks and balances on the state's power.

On the same note, if I found out the perp accidently fell into a vat of acid, I could live with that. Would I go so far as to urge someone to pour it on him? Probably not. So, the nutshell version of it, is if he met with doom by accident, I'd feel he deserved it, but I wouldn't necessarily feel comfortably giving the state the right to do it themselves.

[varkam]

130. A response

I think the main difference in our viewpoints is that I would be less inclined to care if a sick, violent person met with a gruesome punishment, because I feel to a degree that you DO forfeit your rights to humane treatment when you have committed a gruesome crime, like throwing acid in a woman's face and literally burning the skin off her bones, blinding her, and disfiguring her horribly. Try as I might, I cannot muster up a huge objection to the thought of giving someone like that an equally horrific sentence.

For me, it is a question of whether or not one stops being a human being regardless of the things that they have done. Even though I am not a Christian, the phrase "Hate the sin but love the sinner" comes to mind. People do monstrous things, on that I'm sure we both agree. That does not, however, turn them from human beings into monsters. Prisons are filled with people who have done monstrous things, and yet many of them are able to have remorse for their actions, accept their punishment, reform, and reintegrate into society.

All of that is not to say that we should applaud this man's actions. Indeed, they should be roundly reviled and rejected as part of a civilized society and punishment should be swift and harsh. Personally, I cannot understand why people do the things that they do to one another. So don't get me wrong - it isn't that I am without emotion. I have been the victim of violent crime, and someone very close to me was recently raped. I sympathize with the emotions that many have, as I have them myself. Thoughts, even dark as they may be, are just those - thoughts. I try to let them go and to forgive others, because my experience has been that hatred usually ends up injuring the owner as opposed to the subject. I digress.

But, those are my own personal feelings - not necessarily the way I feel the state ought to handle it. I think if we all rack our brains, we can think of an instance where we would not be opposed to horribly, violently killing someone in return for an unspeakable act. A good example, is what person would not be inclined to want to tear limb from limb someone who raped or murdered their child? It would cross the mind of even the most timid person, I suspect.

Personally, I cannot think of such an instance - even with individuals who commit truly depraved and inhumane acts themselves. As I said above, thoughts are a different story. I have thought of murder, of torture, and I'm not particularly proud of it. However, we're all human and I think such reactions are normal, are healthy. The line for me comes, though, when people want to turn those thoughts into acts. I have met people whom many, even here on DU, said that they would like to see ripped limb from limb, drained of their blood, set fire to, et cetera - brutal stuff. I have met killers, I have met child rapists, I have even met the occasional puppy abuser. For the most part, they seem to be people that made a terrible mistake. They seem to regret the things that they have done. Not all of them - mind you. There are some, a couple whom I have also met, that seem to shirk any sense of personal responsibility, of morality, of remorse. Such people frighten me, but thankfully I believe those to be in the minority.

The difference between "not caring too much" when imagining a violent offender being tortured, and advocating that it actually be DONE by the state is that one is a personal "feeling" (that often can't be helped) and the other is an acknowledgment that it is the preferable and right thing to do, and encouraging it.

I agree.

I have a fierce sense of justice, but I'm not a vigilante. I have an intense dislike toward violent criminals, but don't necessarily feel that the state should be using whatever creatively grotesque means they can to punish them, simply because there needs to be checks and balances on the state's power.

I agree, but for different reasons. I agree that there needs to be checks and balances on the state's power, but I arrive at the conclusion via a different path.

On the same note, if I found out the perp accidently fell into a vat of acid, I could live with that. Would I go so far as to urge someone to pour it on him? Probably not. So, the nutshell version of it, is if he met with doom by accident, I'd feel he deserved it, but I wouldn't necessarily feel comfortably giving the state the right to do it themselves.

I don't want anything "bad" to happen to anyone, even people who have done bad things (bad being relative, of course). Would I lay awake at night crying if something did happen to this person? No, though I might feel different were I his mother or brother or friend.

[Vektor]

133. So, we really don't see things too differently...

But I would willingly wager to say that you are likely more evolved than I am in how you deal with your anger toward those who would harm the innocent. I sometimes do wish that bad things would happen to puppy abusers and rapists. I guess that there is a part of me that still has a bit of a "bloodthirsty" streak when it comes to defending the defenseless.

But I do recognize that this is a trait that needs to be kept in check, and it would be wise to try to embrace a more civil approach to things like crime and punishment. I cannot always help the negative feelings I have, but have enough self-control to abstain from actually doing harm to others, or encouraging harm to be done in the name of vengeance.

I haven't yet reached the point where I would be inclined to place myself in the position of the loved ones of the perp, and feel empathy, though I can very successfully do that in the place of the victim's family. You have reached a higher level of temperance than I have in that respect. I don't know if I'll ever get there, but I can say that as an ICU nurse I have had to care for patients who are inmates, shackled to the bed with chains and cuffs, and two armed guards present at every second because the patient/prisoner is a danger to everyone around him. The last such patient I had was in the hospital with a sub-dural hematoma from a scuffle at San Quentin, he's been there for 20 years because he murdered his wife. I was able to just do my job and care for him the same as I would any other patient despite the horror of his crime. I didn't even think about it so much in that context until after I got home. Then, I was less angry with him, and just more detached, and maybe a little baffled as to how someone could do that. But still, while at work, I just focused on doing what I get paid to do - keep people alive.

So, I guess I can have temperance when I need to, but when I hear stories like these acid attacks, it just triggers my reptilian brain and my baser instincts perk up. It's a flaw, I guess. :shrug:

[varkam]

145. I don't think that it's a flaw. I think that it's human.

Or, if it is a flaw, it's a flaw that all of us share. I imagine that your position is somewhat unique as well, in that I imagine you often get to deal with the aftermath of violent crime. I know that working in such jobs can be very difficult - though I'm sure that I don't have to explain that to you. It's not something that I would want to do - I'm in law school, so I'll stick with my arguments and pleadings, not blood and broken bones. I say all that to say this: were I in a position where I had to put the pieces back together, then I imagine I would probably find it a lot harder to sympathize with the people who did those things to others.

I know that my perspective isn't exactly a popular one, at least not here in America. My perspective comes from my own experiences, and because of those it is just easier for me to see both sides. My criminal law casebook is just chock full of people doing terrible things to one another and, truth be told, I'd be lying if I said that it never got to me, if it never made me angry, if it never made me cry. It's not that I'm above it all. I'm not. I have a dark side, for sure. But with things like this, you're taking a snapshot of someone on what is probably one of the worst days of their life. I know several people that many would regard as "scum" or "monsters", and they're really not. That's not to say that they are not culpable, but I think it is important to recognize that people, criminals, are more than a singular action - often performed out of some sense of fear or anger or hurt. Some people lack the insight to see what they did was wrong, and are consequently incapable of any assumption of responsibility or remorse and - as I said - those people scare me more than anything else.

I'm baffled, too, about how people can do these things - though I guess I'm beginning to be less baffled. Recently, someone close to me was a victim of violent crime. I always knew I had a dark side, but I never knew that my dark side had a dark side. Acid drops were tame compared to some of the things that I was thinking, especially since this person is going to escape any sort of criminal prosecution.

I say that to say this - I think that most people like to believe that there is some sort of great divide between us and them. That there is some sort of bright, clear line between people and monsters. I guess I don't think that's true. I think that most of us, given the right situation and circumstances, could do some pretty horrible things. So how can people do these things to other people? Because we're people. That's kind of a scary thought, if you ask me. I guess that's why most people don't believe it.

So no, I don't think it's a flaw - but if it is, you're in good company.

[Vektor]

76. Right, same.

Acid is pretty brutal, but so was what he did. If I found out they poured acid in his eyes, I'd probably be like "Wow how barbaric." But I wouldn't rend my garments over it, not for this man, or any like him.

[cali]

77. aargh. how can people not get it?

State sponsored torture in the name of justice is a fucking obscenity. It's worse, in many ways than the hideous act the man perpetrated.

[Vektor]

79. I think both I and the poster I was talking with agreed -

We know the acid treatment is not exactly the best punishment to use, and it is rather severe.

I do "get it."

But I'd be lying if I said I felt any mercy toward a man who threw acid in a woman's face and disfigured her for life.

The only place I do not agree with you is that I feel it is far worse to disfigure and attack an innocent woman than to issue payback to the sick man that did this her. He was the violent offender who committed the crime in the first place. She is an innocent victim.

That said, I am not out there with my pitchfork and torch screaming "Bring on the acid!" However, if they punish him harshly, I'm just saying that no matter how hard I tried, I could not pretend I would lose a second of sleep if a monster who disfigures women's faces with acid was punished harshly, even if the punishment chosen is shocking. I do agree with you that the state is being barbaric, but I just don't feel as strongly as you do that this evil man deserves any mercy.

That's all.

We're all going to have different opinions here. It's not a matter of "getting it." Its just who were are at DU - a mixed bag with different opinions about different issues.

[backscatter712]

103. That pretty much sums it up.

I don't have much sympathy for a man the splashes acid in womans' eyes, but yeah, dripping acid in his eyes is way over the top. A life sentence in prison's plenty of punishment for this scumbag, and I'm all for that.

[Vektor]

106. I support that.

Imprisoning him for life would teach him a thing or two about violence against woman, but needn't involve torture.

[Hannah Bell]

48. SKY News: Britain's version of FOX.

why do i suspect the story is not exactly as reported here?

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

50. I'm surprised the Hitler wannabes of the world didn't think of this as a form of torture...

...or even genocide. Dumping hundreds of living people into giant acid pits, now THAT would be about as horrible as you could get. Instead we have it as retribution in Iran.

[Gwendolyn]

52. Oh well, such is life. Love a woman too much and there you go....

...

[old mark]

53. I suspect she showed good judgement in not marrying this guy.

Drip away.

mark

[asteroid2003QQ47]

57. Execute the perp but...

blind him first.
He violated both the victim and the human community, bleeding hearts be damned!
--------------------

Mine is a most peaceful disposition. My wishes are a humble cottage with a thatched roof, a good bed, good food, the freshest milk and butter, flowers before my window and a few pine trees before my door. And if God wants to make my happiness complete, he will grant me the joy of seeing some six or seven of my enemies hanging from those trees. Before their death I shall, moved in my heart, forgive them all the wrong they did me in my lifetime. One must, it is true, forgive one's enemies--but not before they have been hanged.
--Heinrich Heine (1797-1856)

[cali]

61. Fine. I'm a bleeding heart because I oppose state sponsored torture.

It does NOT serve justice. It doesn't better the human community; it degrades it. You want to become what you say you deplore,fine.

Punishment should NEVER be torture.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

64. Could we please not make the mistake of labeling torture

as "Islamic"- and you come mighty close to doing that here.

I do find the endorsement of torture found on this thread highly disturbing- and it's not just the two people you single out.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

65. These two were enough to make me lose my cool. I don't really have the stomach to look for more.

But you gotta admit the Iranian rulers have their own inimitable style of perverse "justice." Don't they use cranes to make hanging, a usually quick death, slow?

Think I'll replace "Islamic" with "Iranian."

[PeaceNikki]

69. I agree 100%

This thread is disgusting.

[cali]

58. This thread is just fucking sickening

I can't believe any DUer would find state sponsored torture acceptable.

Torture is wrong. It's not OK because the torturer is repugnant and committed heinous acts. All those saying that in this case it's OK and that punishing criminals by meting out to them what they did to other(s), are just wrong on every level.

What should we do to people that kill and eat their victims? Have a public perp roast?

[asteroid2003QQ47]

59. The State should NOT serve the victim segment of the community!?

"The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot do so well, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities,"
--Abraham Lincoln

What good the State if it fails the victims of violence?

[cali]

60. Did I say that the State shouldn't serve victims?

Of course not. That's what a criminal justice system is for. And the U.S. hardly has lax punishment compared to other western countries (and some eastern ones).

But let's get this clear:

STATE TORTURE IS NEVER JUSTICE. IT'S AN OBSCENITY.

[Zuiderelle]

68. Wow, quoting Abraham Lincoln to defend barbarism. Way to twist his words to suit your purpose.

That quote is about helping people, it's not about avenging them. How is torturing/blinding someone helping the victim? Putting him in jail and protecting the victim from any future assaults would be helping her, and would be more in keeping with that quote of Lincoln's.

What a sick thread this is.

[cali]

70. I find this thread heart wrenching

if people on DU can endorse torture, no wonder we're in such deep shit in this country.

sick, sick people in this thread.

[varkam]

71. So, in your mind...

if the state doesn't perpetrate acts of unspeakable barbarism at the behest of victims, then the state is failing to serve the victim segment of the community?

You should check out the Constitution some time. It's a pretty good read.

[cali]

73. fascinating thread isn't it?

Who could have guessed that even one longtime DUer would enthusiastically back the most heinous state sponsored torture? Disgusting and fucking hypocritical.

What a crew has congregated on this thread.

[varkam]

74. Some people want blood and their pound of flesh.

Anything short of that, and you're coddling criminals and hating victims.

It's long been known to me, by the way, that many people around here support state-sponsored torture so long as it is the right people getting tortured. For instance, in a recent thread, I read that one that abuses puppies should be torn limb from limb in full public view.

[OnyxCollie]

82. Victims of qisas crimes can ask for payment or physical punishment, including death.

The keyword is victim. The victim asked for this punishment. The government is following her direction.

If you don't like it, stare her in the face and tell her that she can't have it.

On edit: This is not unlike abortion. The choice is not yours or mine to make.

[cali]

83. That's not justice.

I feel for her greatly, but it still doesn't make it justice. it's vengeance, and it's state sponsored torture. It's sick.

[OnyxCollie]

84. Then you've got your work cut out for you.

All you have to do is rewrite the Koran and convince Muslims that Muhammad got it wrong in the Sunna. Start crackin'.

[cali]

86. I didn't say I could change it.

I can condemn state sponsored torture wherever it is.

[OnyxCollie]

85. Do you consider abortion to be murder? nt

[cali]

88. that depends

and I'm not speaking legally here, just personally. I consider abortion of most fetuses post-viability to be something very akin to murder. But there are exceptions even there.

[OnyxCollie]

92. Some pro-lifers think life begins at conception

and that the use of "morning after" pills constitutes "murder." Or that doctors that perform abortions are murderers.

Others believe it is a woman's choice, her right to decide. It goes on and on.

But it's not a choice I'm going to make, so I'm not going to take a side.

And deciding the punishment of a qisas crime is not a choice I'm going to make. And neither will you.

[cali]

95. what a spurious comparison.

[OnyxCollie]

96. How so?

The woman could have just as easily said that the perpetrator must pay her and then you would have had nothing to get all concerned about. 'Course you'd probably get upset that someone could "get away" with blinding a woman with acid and only have to pay a fine.

[cali]

97. I don't believe victims should be able to dictate

the sentence of a criminal who perpetrated a crime against them. But yes, of course, I'd find it less deplorable if she had chosen money, and I don't think that's appropriate either. The system itself is heinous.

[OnyxCollie]

99. Human rights are tricky.

Look at the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm

Or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm

Do you believe everything listed is a "human right?" Does the United States agree that everything is a human right?

Throw cultural relativism into the mix and things get even more difficult.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

151. Mother Wants Maximum Penalty

How deplorable that "Tina Meier, the mother of Megan Meier, the *13 yr. old* girl who committed suicide, said she would ask that Ms. Drew be held to the maximum penalty of three years in prison and a $300,000 fine."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/us/29internet.html

What a vengeance obsessed disgusting person that mother must be in attempting to dictate the sentence of a criminal, it's just fucking sickening and heart wrenching!

[varkam]

155. Fail. eom

[asteroid2003QQ47]

157. Summary please? n/t

[varkam]

158. Sure thing. The analogy you're attempting to draw is faulty for a number of reasons.

First, the victim doesn't dictate the sentence in this country (as I'm sure that you're aware from your sure of the word "attempting"). The victim can say whatever they want to say, but in the end it won't really matter. If what the victim wants is not consistent with notions of justice (or the offender's constitutional rights), then it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. For example, if the mother wanted acid dripped into the eyes of Drew, undoubtedly that punishment would be rejected for a number of reasons - not to mention violation of the Eighth.

Also, the maximum sentence is three years in prison and a fine. That's pretty far removed from having acid dripped in your eyes, isn't it?

And there's also differences in the crime. In the MySpace case, we have a death of a teenage girl. In this situation, we have the blinding and disfigurement of an adult woman. Now I'm not saying that one is so obviously much better than the other, but merely to point out that, again, there are significant differences.

And finally, even if victims could dictate sentences to criminals in this country, what Meier is asking for isn't state-sponsored torture.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

161. From your prospective (budding corporate lawyer?) I concede you are right...

on all counts but one and it's a very important one indeed.

Not my target audience, you can easily be forgiven as did not anticipate a literalist response (if you're considering the criminal defense field you might want to reconsider) generated by the (faulty) assumption that I was seriously attempting to draw an analogy.
In any event, since my target audience apparently has gone AWOL I thank you for your sincere, thoughtful reply.
-------------------------------------

There is no such thing as justice - in or out of court.
--Clarence Darrow

[varkam]

162. Budding public defender, actually.

Who was your target audience? If it was the person that you were responding to, they seem to have taken your intentions to be similar(though I assume they weren't your target audience, either).

If you were not intending to draw an analogy (or perhaps the key word is "seriously") then perhaps in the future you should choose your words a bit more carefully (as, from my perspective - in the field of law - words are the tools of the trade).

I should hope that you were not attempting to "seriously" draw an analogy, as if that were the case then I would "seriously" be doubting your reasoning abilities at this moment.

Good thing you weren't trying to do that "seriously", then.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

164. Darn you to heck varkam!

Threads this long get problematic for me as I live in the sticks and run an old Power Book on dial-up. Combined, that spells s l o w at the best of times. I was rather hoping you might not notice 'prospective.
When I realized my error it was too late to edit so I'll just have to throw myself to the mercy of the court.
Naming one's target at DU invites acid dripped into my eyes or, even worse, my post would get deleted.
I'm glad you're not taking the corporate route in law school, those that do are Satan's little helpers.

[cali]

160. yes, because everyone knows that 3 years in prison=acid in the eyes

beyond that, it's not fucking up to mom in that case. Victim's rights are not, rightfully, the last word on sentencing under our judicial system.

Pathetically lame post. embarassingly bad. Zero, and I mean zero evidence of critical thinking skills. Hell, no evidence of any coginitive ability.

[varkam]

102. That's a faulty analogy, though.

It is undeniable that the individual in question is a person - a human being - even in spite of the things that he has done. Trying to draw an analogy to a fetus is faulty because the personhood debate is, in fact, very much controversial.

Moreover, the choice that faces pregnant women differs considerably from the choice that faced this woman. In the former, the choice is largely borne out of necessity whereas in the former it is borne out of a desire for retribution of a wrong-doer.

[jmowreader]

90. Given the choice, I would have rather been murdered than blinded

There is nothing that I do that could be done without sight. I cannot imagine the thought of losing that.

Now this poor woman is walking around Iran without sight.

I think they should skip the sharia "eye for an eye" thing and behead him.

[varkam]

100. Blind people might disagree with you, there. eom

[jmowreader]

121. I was referring to myself

It is possible to have a fine, fulfilling life if you're blind.

I do not believe it would be possible for ME to have a fine, fulfilling life if I were to wake up some morning and not be able to see.

[varkam]

123. The funny thing about hypotheticals is...

you never know how you would react until you're actually in that situation.

[Evoman]

93. That's fucking sick.

Who the hell are you people who think the state should have the power to torture and kill you...have you all gone collectively insane?

I would call it psychopathic to throw acid into a womans face in a fit of rage, but doing it in a coldly, detached fashion by the state is worse. This isn't about being a "bleeding heart"....it's about not being a vengeance-filled, torture-sponsoring douchebag.

Man, I gotta take a fucking break from DU....this thread has upset me in a big way.

[cali]

94. thank you, and let me say

that no thread on DU has ever troubled me more. I'm just in a state of disbelief that so many here sanction state sponsored torture.

Disgusting.

[varkam]

101. Seconded. Apparently conservatives aren't the only ones who get hard-ons when it comes to torture.

Who'da thunk it?

[Incitatus]

131. A government having the power to do that to someone bothers me, however,

if a family member did that to the attacker instead and I was on their jury, I don't think I could find them guilty.

[Owl]

98. It works for me.

[cali]

105. so American torture is absolutely no problem for you, right?

If it is, you're a prize hypocrite.

[Owl]

108. Sorry, zero equivalence. Try again.

[cali]

110. you bet your ass there's equivalence. Either torture is abhorrent

or it's not. you can't like a little bit of torture here and there. And state sponsored torture of any fucking kind is just horrifying. Inflicting grivous bodily harm on someone in the name of the state is not OK, because the likes of you think in narrow terms of vengeance.

Disgusting. Like so many posts in this thread. And not terribly swift either.

[Owl]

113. Sorry again, claiming equivalence doesn't make it so.

I've no remorse for this clown, and just punishment is just that.

It's not to say I'm comfortable with it.

[jrockford]

127. are you as outspoken about Israel's 50+ years of human rights terror? nt

[cali]

141. I'm pretty outspoken about Israel's oppression of the Palestinians

though that is not the subject of this post. I'm also pretty outspoken against torture perpetrated by the U.S.

but continue with your evasions and bullshit.

[GoesTo11]

109. The recipient of the punishment doesn't think it's excessive.

The guy obviously thinks that it's acceptable to blind someone with acid, so in his own opinion, this isn't too cruel a punishment. In fact, he thought it was so minor that it was an acceptable punishment for merely declining his proposal, so he must not feel he's receiving that big of a punishment either.

[cali]

111. That has nothing to do with whether state sponsored torture is

acceptable. It is not.

[varkam]

114. "There's only two perfect people in this world: you and me. I'm starting to have dobuts aobut you."

I say that to say this - I assume that you must have never made a mistake or acted out of anger. In which case, congratulations! You're a mensch.

More likely, this person didn't think it was acceptable but followed through regardless. It's ridiculous to state that perpetrators of crimes obviously think that their actions are morally acceptable because they did them - it's a circular argument. Furthermore, were it true, I assume that people wouldn't hide from the cops or try to cover up evidence of the crime, I mean, being that they think such things are acceptable.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SmileyRose]

126. IMHO our way is equally brutal.

This guy is a candidate for being locked in a 10x10 cell for the next 40 years in a maximum security. Probably sharing the cell with 5 other people who are equally insane.

In Sharia law the guy loses his sight as "justice" - the woman supposedly feels she got her retribution - and supposedly everyone goes on their merry way. (sarcasm obviously)

I don't know that there is a not brutal way to deal with the few humans on this earth hell bent on destroying people around them. There's what might be considered less brutal ways but still brutal from what I've seen.

[GoesTo11]

132. I don't care how brutal they have to be to stop this atrocity.

This isn't just a guy losing control. This is about men thinking they have the power and right to do this. A few years in jail for assault aren't going to convince them otherwise. If not acid, then death.

Watch Kristoff's story on it.

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2008/11/29/opinion/1194834033797/acid-attack.html

[asteroid2003QQ47]

137. Ponder this from my Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets.

"Some scholars find it baffling that man seems unable to found an ethic or a philosophy on perceptions of reality, but instead must cling to crude myths--even to the point of filling his own life and the lives of others with unnecessary horrors. Among the worst of these is the real violence with which man attacks the questioners or doubters of his myths; as if to kill his own reasonable doubts before they rise up to the surface of his mind and become fully conscious."

and this, as it relates to the mindset of the class of criminal this perp is a member of--

"Violence is extremely common in the family; wife battering and incest provide two instances of this principle. If spousal abuse were included in the FBI's figures on assault, its incidence would increase by over 20 times.
Patriarchy lies at the core of wife beating."
Erich Goode, Ph.D, in DEVIANT BEHAVIOR
Prentice Hall, Inc. ISBN 0-13-531294-9

Imagine what this woman's life would have been like had she accepted the perp's proposal of marriage.

[Pushed To The Left]

134. The reason I oppose "eye-for-an eye" type justice is the possibility of a wrongful conviction

Whether it's capital punishment or acid to the eyes, it's permanent. If somebody is wrongly convicted and sentenced to life in prison, the mistake can be corrected if he or she is found to be innocent. With anything permanent like death or maiming, there would be no going back. That being said,if this man is truly guilty of blinding this woman with acid, then I have zero sympathy for him. I just don't trust the justice system enough to give any government that power.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

135. 'Pollyanna for Perpetual Prison Building' here and...

I believe in imprisoning people who commit violent crimes and I believe in humane conditions in prison at the taxpayers expense even if it means locking EVERYBODY up.

Snail mail me at:

Pollyanna, the All Knowing Goddess
1 Happy Street
Lalaland, USA

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

136. Well, if you like that much the way they do things in Iran or Saudi Arabia, GO LIVE THERE

and leave us Pollyannas alone.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

138. No faux Commie, this Gatherer-Hunter Commie was here first and

won't be going away, live with it!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

139. But you're unhappy. You live among criminal coddlers. Hell, we even frown upon acid-dropping!

I'm interested in your well-being. I think you'll be happier amongst like-minded people.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

143. The 'acid-dropping' comment was...

a bit of hyperbole that perhaps had more than the desired effect, get over it.

As you say, I "live among criminal coddlers," coddlers who strive to imprison even more people in the nation that "imprisons more people than any other nation in the world."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/us/29prison.html?_r=2
Said coddlers dedicate themselves to expansion of the industrial prison complex, that ever more criminals may be incarcerated. In that sense, 'coddlers' do impinge on my happiness,
you make a valid point.

[TWiley]

144. Thank God for Religion! The world would be worse off without it.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

150. I think it safe to say that Harvey Milk, in his wisdom, would disagree. ;-)

More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion.
--Harvey Milk

[TWiley]

154. well, I was attempting to be a smart-ass. I was just not good at it.

I believe our thoughts about religion are not that far apart at all.

[treestar]

147. Nothing on snopes yet

I'll wait for that before starting on the condemnations and joining in the chorus demanding an attack on that country.

[cali]

159. except that not one single person on this thread

has called for any such thing. duh. try fucking reading instead of making shit up. it's a putrid little habit. And sorry, dear, there's a shitload of documentation about such sentences being carried out under Sharia law in different countries.

[slackmaster]

149. Yes, there really are backward, barbaric cultures in this world

And good people and bad people everywhere.