Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Iran to blind criminal with acid in 'eye for an eye' justice

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by ogden, May 14, 2011.

  1. Found this article in the Guardian this morning. I don't think it has hit the local papers yet.

    I've cut'n'pasted what I think are the key bits below:
    I think its horrific, and I'd rather not see state institutions dole out corporal or capital punishments, but I'm in two minds as to whether it constitutes justice. It certainly forms an interesting counterpoint to the US's extra-judicial murder of bin Laden in regards to the application of due legal processes.

    What do you mob think?

    (In a somewhat ironic parallel, Kubrick's Clockwork Orange is 40 years old this year, and is about to have a restored version shown at Cannes. I seem to remember some similar themes of retribution and punishment being explored.)

  2. I think that because it was premeditated, it's definitely justified.
    I absolutley support "an eye for an eye" in instances of deliberate, premeditated malicious acts.
    I'm actually dissapointed that this bastard gets to be "rendered unconcious" when his victim wasn't given the privlege.
    I know that comes across as a little barbaric, but I see it as a necessary evil.
  3. I'm with Finn, forget political correctness, blind the f*cker.
    I can somewhat understand a moments insanity but to premeditate is inexcusable in my book.
  4. Sounds good to me.
  5. Just Do It.
  6. I'm not condoning vigilantism as such, but I'm much more comfortable with the idea of someone personally enacting extra-legal revenge of this nature than it being enacted by the state in accordance with its laws. For me its an issue of responsibility. A personal act of vengeance is something someone can be held accountable for. Violence by the state seems to absolve people of responsibility, and I find this aspect distasteful. This bloke's obviously a cunt, and in that respect, deserves what's coming to him, but I'd fear to live in a society that condones legally maiming people under any pretext.

    Just as a hypothetical, imagine that this bloke hadn't confessed (or that the confession had been beaten out of him), and it turned out later that someone else was responsible, despite his being convinced on the evidence. Rare it might be, but sooner or later, it'd happen. The courts simply aren't infallible. At least a wrongfully imprisoned person can be set free, but you can't replace an eye, a hand or a life. The risk may be small, but its too great, especially when responsibility is diffused to the body politic as a whole.

    As just as this punishment seems in this instance, I just can't bring myself to support it.
  7. you guys are missing the whole point of the article.
    the victim was a woman living in Iran, a muslim country.
    and she's getting justice for a crime committed against her. that never happens there. women get doused in petrol and lit on fire all the time in Iran, whole wards in hospitals specifically for torched women. the acid trick was unique but the concept is nothing new.
    this is possibly the first time in Iran that a court has ordered a punishment for a crime against a female.
    very brave girl for doing this, but she'd be dead by now, or soon enough. theres no way she"ll live to get justice. her own family would even kill her for the shame of this.
  8. Monkeyman. To be honest, my first reaction was "Awesome, about bloody time".

    My inlaws are Arabic and although they're not nutjobs like that, in my eyes, some of the "older" male cousins are f'kin nutjobs to be sure and if they had their way, all women would be chained to the kitchen sink pumping out babies saying yes sir, no sir.
    It's great news in my opinion. I didn't miss the point at all.

    I totally condone vigilantism. But I also agree that it should never be enacted by the State.
  9. yeah it is awesome, i am in awe of it's awesomeness, but what would be even more awesome is she's successful and more women follow in her footsteps.
    the media release is to get worldwide attention in a vain attempt to somehow protect her, by drawing attention to her plight.
    reality is sadly, she's ****ed.
    the ultimate awesomeness would be just nuke that ****ing country allready. that ****hole is an abomination of humanity and should be wiped from existance.
  10. I don't know about nuking the place, but it definitely needs some work.
    By that I don't mean "they need to be more like us". I mean "You can't be treating people like that".
  11. The real reason that they do this in Iran is they're not allowed to drink and they have to get blind somehow.
  12. Except that vigilantism, by definition, cannot be enacted by the state. It only exists, as exceptional instances, where the state as a monopoly on violence.

    Either way, I have to disagree with you. Life in a world without state control of violence is likely to be the "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" world of Hobbesean nightmare.

    Boom, boom... (Oh, the rightness in the wrong! :) )
  13. Apart from (not so) benign racism, what are you basing this diatribe on?

    Also that stuff about women set on fire is in INDIA, not Iran.

    Get it right.
  14. Its justice to the one that was attacked and suffered. The victim was asked by the courts what she thought was just and in this case it was an eye for an eye.

    With regards to America, America practically attacked an ally. Their actions caused either directly or indirectly the deaths of 80 people if not more. Its easy for America to act all high and mighty when their citizens arent being bombed because of what they have done.
  15. i am right, common practice in Iran. unfortunately it's mostly self inflicted, because the woman can no longer take the emotianal and pshysical abuse dealt out to her in an Islamic society
    i'm not racist but do despise Islam and sharia law.

  16. What was it that Aristotle said about entertaining thoughts :wink:

    I see your point and I acknowledge that it's not the world I want my kids to grow up in. I just see it as a necessary evil at times.
    Maybe I just have zero tolerance for malicious people, and the same amount of faith in the Judicial System.
  17. In 2010, 249 women were killed in Bangladesh, many by being set on fire. Seems to be happening all over the shop. Even in Perth.
  18. it's a rising trend in the arab world, but to be fair is usually self inflicted out of desperation, or being driven to it, or an escape from a life of misery and degradation.
    practice is known as self-immolation.
  19. There's a big difference between someone setting themselves on fire as protest, and someone having it done to them as revenge. But its still an interesting phenomenon you've mentioned. Yet, just because it's occurring in the Arab world doesn't mean Islam's the cause, or even relevant. It's about colonialism and its aftermath. Here's a good article by Tariq Ali on the Arab Spring, with which the self-immolation protests are linked.
  20. I don't know what I'm more astonished by, your racism, or my gratitude for correct punctuation.