An eye for an eye --> whole world (literally) blind.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

"All animals are created equal."

"Some animals are more equal than others."

Does that work?

Well... it depends on which side the "more equal" falls. I would hazard a guess that, economically, equality amongst the Iranian populace is greater than amongst, say, the US populace. I would also hazard that criminalisation of minorities, specifically blacks, and their spectacularly over-representation incarceration outweighs any Iranian targetting. Likewise, I would say that the laws regarding drug addiction in Iran and the USA are... comparable, with the Iranian approach, arguably, being more enlightened.

So what works as an appraisal most often depends on what baggage is carried in. And I consistently get that taste of "us good, them bad" affecting a dispassionate analysis.

[River]

So are you suggesting that the US would be better off dropping acid in people's eyes?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

So are you suggesting that the US would be better off dropping acid in people's eyes?

No. I would say the US would be better off not dropping bombs on people. It would be a start. Then, maybe, we could work through the whole gamut of "cruel and unusual punishments" enacted by the US, or by others on behalf of the US. And once that is done, we could address cruel and unusual punishments, as perpetrated by foreign nations, such as Iran, with some kind of moral authority. Because, frankly, the USA and her apologists have zero moral authority.

[River]

But first, perhaps we should get back to the topic of this thread: is justice served by removing a man's eye via sulfuric acid?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

But first, perhaps we should get back to the topic of this thread: is justice served by removing a man's eye via sulfuric acid?

Well, does the method of removal matter? And to ask whether justice is served requires appraisal of what constitutes justice. And those that make that appraisal have to be screened for their prejudices. It may be convenient to separate the act from those who condemn it, but those who condemn should, in reality, be open to question why they condemn, and why they may condemn such specifically, whilst condoning such other.

I believe this example has been presented specifically because it is happening in Iran, and under Sharia law. Islam generally, and Iran specifically, is the foe "de jour", and for this reason, each and every event that can cast this culture in as negative an aspect as possible is trumpeted with vigour.

I think it is disingenuous.

[Holbytla]

It is so easy to sit back in the lap of a society that ensures me the ability to speak my mind, even if that means condemning the power that provides such security, as opposed to actually condemning that society to the point of leaving it and going where the grass is purportedly greener.

Oh wait, it is better to use that protection to condemn the society into understanding their faults as opposed to actually experiencing the totalitarianistic society that would not allow a person to even speak against it.

Umm no.

I hold little faith in anyone that passes judgment from the safety of a society that one condemns and who is far removed far from a society that doesn't have to tolerate the archaic dictates of.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

It is so easy to sit back in the lap of a society that ensures me the ability to speak my mind, even if that means condemning the power that provides such security, as opposed to actually condemning that society to the point of leaving it and going where the grass is purportedly greener.

Oh wait, it is better to use that protection to condemn the society into understanding their faults as opposed to actually experiencing the totalitarianistic society that would not allow a person to even speak against it.

Umm no.

I hold little faith in anyone that passes judgment from the safety of a society that one condemns and who is far removed far from a society that doesn't have to tolerate the archaic dictates of.

I think this is waffle. Should I be condemned?

[River]

The method matters because the people handing down the punishment decided that the method matters. The victim lost her eyes to sulfuric acid and so it was decided that the perpetrator should lose one of his by the same means (2 female eyes = 1 male eye as they calculate it, I guess), potentially at the victim's own hand. Now, is justice served? Or are you going to conveniently not answer that question again?

[Holbytla]

Societies are getting dragged into this heinous crime, and that may or may not be fair. I have no idea if it is fair or not and I see things rather more bluntly.

This deranged person committed a crime that is beyond reprehensible, and then had the audacity to want to want to mete out his own punishment to make himself feel better for what he did.

The dude is crazy in more ways than one. If you want to blame society go ahead. I have no idea what portion society played in this act, but I will be damned if if I were to ever voluntarily let that guy out someone's sight ever again.

Put him in an asylum or jail, I don't really think it matters. Get him out of all societies now and forever. Without any warped compensation for what he did.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

The method matters because the people handing down the punishment decided that the method matters. The victim lost her eyes to sulfuric acid and so it was decided that the perpetrator should lose one of his by the same means (2 female eyes = 1 male eye as they calculate it, I guess), potentially at the victim's own hand. Now, is justice served? Or are you going to conveniently not answer that question again?

Firstly, simply because those deciding the punishment believe the method matters does not mean the method matters to me. Saying that, a partial blinding under medical conditions in which the recipient feels no pain is a most civilised enactment of a barbarous process. A veritable paradox, in fact. As for 2 female equalling 1 male... I think that is your projection. Perhaps you would be more satisfied with both eyes being burned out?
Is justice served? To me, no. I do not believe corporal punishment is justice. However, I maintain that the notoriety engendered by the presentation of this case is symptomatic of a deliberately distorted analysis. It is propaganda. The West generally, and the USA specifically, is guilty of crimes against the person that far outweigh this particular case, but are conveniently excused by such terms as the "War on Terror". I will comfortably state that those innocent civilians in the backwaters of Pakistan fried by drone fired missiles are greater victims than this half-blinded individual. The difference is that the former is excused as policy, and the latter is condemned as politics.

[River]

I actually expressed my thoughts on the matter a page or two ago. I won't reiterate my feelings, other than to say I know first hand what a sulfuric acid burn feels like and I would not wish it on anyone. If you can't be arsed to read a thread before jumping in that's not my problem.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I actually expressed my thoughts on the matter a page or two ago. I won't reiterate my feelings. If you can't be arsed to read a thread before jumping in that's not my problem.

I read the thread. My response was to your specific question, as in what I thought. I reckon I answered your question. I can be that "arsed".

[yovargas]

But first, perhaps we should get back to the topic of this thread: is justice served by removing a man's eye via sulfuric acid?

Well, does the method of removal matter? And to ask whether justice is served requires appraisal of what constitutes justice. And those that make that appraisal have to be screened for their prejudices. It may be convenient to separate the act from those who condemn it, but those who condemn should, in reality, be open to question why they condemn, and why they may condemn such specifically, whilst condoning such other.

I believe this example has been presented specifically because it is happening in Iran, and under Sharia law. Islam generally, and Iran specifically, is the foe "de jour", and for this reason, each and every event that can cast this culture in as negative an aspect as possible is trumpeted with vigour.

I think it is disingenuous.

I am fairly certain that if the US justice system were the one thinking about dropping acid into a prisoner's eyes, it would be getting protested with far more force, anger, and passion than this case is. Which in my eyes more or less disproves your position.

Your insistence on dragging your anti-West whatevers into every discussion is exceedingly tiresome.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

But first, perhaps we should get back to the topic of this thread: is justice served by removing a man's eye via sulfuric acid?

Well, does the method of removal matter? And to ask whether justice is served requires appraisal of what constitutes justice. And those that make that appraisal have to be screened for their prejudices. It may be convenient to separate the act from those who condemn it, but those who condemn should, in reality, be open to question why they condemn, and why they may condemn such specifically, whilst condoning such other.

I believe this example has been presented specifically because it is happening in Iran, and under Sharia law. Islam generally, and Iran specifically, is the foe "de jour", and for this reason, each and every event that can cast this culture in as negative an aspect as possible is trumpeted with vigour.

I think it is disingenuous.

I am fairly certain that if the US justice system were the one thinking about dropping acid into a prisoner's eyes, it would be getting protested with far more force, anger, and passion than this case is. Which in my eyes more or less disproves your position.

Your insistence on dragging your anti-West whatevers into every discussion is exceedingly tiresome.

And yet I specifically called this act barbarous!

What I am unwilling to do, unlike, it seems, others, is to distance one barbarous act, by an "enemy", from the barbarous acts of "us". What I find chilling is the ability of "us" to tacictly condone acts of barbarism by "us" whilst condemning acts of barbarism by "them".

I do think that injecting prisoners with acid is barbarous. I do think drone attacks on "supposed" enemies is barbarous. I do think that targeted assainations of unconvicted suspects is barbarous.

And I do think that the emphasis placed on actions by foreign enemies is rank propaganda, especially when slaughters by named allies are ignored, and consequently given tacit approval. Even worse, there are criminal nations (UN defined) that, because of policy, are routinely given overt approval.

What is so contentious about that?

[Túrin Turambar]

What is so contentious abouit that?

Because this thread is not about American foriegn policy, and American foriegn policy does not need to feature in every thread.

We have had a good half-dozen threads here discussing the American legal system, and some discussing the legal systems of other countries. Someone responding to every one with a post syaing "this may be bad, but what Iran does is worse" would meet the same response that you have here.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

What is so contentious abouit that?

Because this thread is not about American foriegn policy, and American foriegn policy does not need to feature in every thread.

We have had a good half-dozen threads here discussing the American legal system, and some discussing the legal systems of other countries. Someone responding to every one with a post syaing "this may be bad, but what Iran does is worse" would meet the same response that you have here.

Except I am not saying "American Foreign Policy". I am saying "American Domestic Policy" (lethal injection, skewed demographic incarceration, etc). How is the observation that US capital punishment incorporates the injection of "acid" indicative of US foreign policy?

[Túrin Turambar]

What is so contentious abouit that?

Because this thread is not about American foriegn policy, and American foriegn policy does not need to feature in every thread.

We have had a good half-dozen threads here discussing the American legal system, and some discussing the legal systems of other countries. Someone responding to every one with a post syaing "this may be bad, but what Iran does is worse" would meet the same response that you have here.

Except I am not saying "American Foreign Policy". I am saying "American Domestic Policy" (lethal injection, skewed demographic incarceration, etc). How is the observation that US capital punishment incorporates the injection of "acid" indicative of US foreign policy?

My point still stands. Someone who constantly started talking about Iran in every thread on capital punishment in the U.S., or in a discussion on minority incarceration rates, would get the same response you have. It's not because we all love the American criminal justice system, but because we don't want to have to talk about it every time a thread on a criminal justice anywhere in the world comes up.

Besides, my comment was specifically in response to your bringing up of the 'War on Terror', which is foriegn policy.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Because this thread is not about American foriegn policy, and American foriegn policy does not need to feature in every thread.

We have had a good half-dozen threads here discussing the American legal system, and some discussing the legal systems of other countries. Someone responding to every one with a post syaing "this may be bad, but what Iran does is worse" would meet the same response that you have here.

Except I am not saying "American Foreign Policy". I am saying "American Domestic Policy" (lethal injection, skewed demographic incarceration, etc). How is the observation that US capital punishment incorporates the injection of "acid" indicative of US foreign policy?

My point still stands. Someone who constantly started talking about Iran in every thread on capital punishment in the U.S., or in a discussion on minority incarceration rates, would get the same response you have. It's not because we all love the American criminal justice system, but because we don't want to have to talk about it every time a thread on a criminal justice anywhere in the world comes up.

Besides, my comment was specifically in response to your bringing up of the 'War on Terror', which is foriegn policy.

How can your point "still stand" when you specifically identified American Foreign Policy, when in fact I was identifying US Domestic policy? And although it may be convenient to isolate events with a sanitary ringfence, the acts of one country cannot be kept separate from comparison with the acts of another country. It may well be inconvenient for those who desire to portray X country as barbarous when country Y is shown to behave just as barbarously, whether domestically or not, but that is simply the way things are. It is disingenuous to try to prise apart one act by a country from another, simply to gain moral authority. Iran is a punchbag. These stories are fuel for anti-Iranian propaganda. Without context, they achieve their prejudicial purpose. You don't like context. That is your wont. I prefer a more holistic view, and I think such a view shows the West, generally, and the US specifically, as at the least.... lacking.

[Túrin Turambar]

But this thread is not about Iran's barbarism or otherwise, but the moral questions raised by a literal case of 'eye for an eye' punishment. We can discuss them irrelevant of what we think of the Iranian regime.

I know you enjoy discussing American foriegn and domestic policy, but I don't see a need to force them into every single discussion. There are things I enjoy discussing as well, but the other posters here would quickly find me tiresome if I talked about them and nothing else in every single thread that I posted in.

[nerdanel]

Ghân: good of you to join us, mate. Speaking as thread-starter:

I didn't start this thread to self-righteously condemn the "Iranian criminal justice system." Indeed, as I stated, I was oddly gratified that they responded so vigorously in this instance to gendered violence, though I (and every other participant in this thread, you included) have agreed that their precise selection of response was problematic. And in fairness, it merits noting that the system itself did not want to impose such an extreme punishment, though its laws provided for it. The system itself preferred fine + imprisonment, but the sentence here was altered specifically at the victim's insistence.

So the purpose of this thread was not to disparage the Iranian justice system. There could reasonably be such a thread - e.g., discussing the imposition of capital punishment for consensual sexual activity, as someone highlighted - but this isn't really that thread. The point of this thread is how states (whether Islamic, Western, whatever) should respond to extreme criminal acts, particularly those short of murder such as maiming/blinding. Acid attacks have occurred in the West and have been committed by people of various nationalities/ethnicities (i.e., this is not only an "Arab problem," and I did not portray it as such), so the question is ripe. You are welcome to discuss how Western justice systems choose to respond to maiming, and you're free to draw analogies to murder/capital punishment. But speaking of racial disparities in sentencing goes rather far afield (though you're welcome to start a thread on racism in the US justice system, of course, or add it to our thread on US capital punishment), and speaking about US drone attacks in the "War on Terror" would dilute this topic to the point of meaninglessness. Again, take it to another thread.