The setting is Iran, and it concerns a young woman who had spurned the approaches of a man. His response was to throw acid in her face which has left her disfigured and blind. You can read about it here.
Under the Sharia code of qias or equivalence the victim can ask that the guilty party be punished in a like manner. The court accepted her plea and the man has been sentenced to be blinded by acid, though I don't believe that the punishment has yet been carried out.
This seems barbaric, but then so was the attack, and it is far too common in the middle east and asia. The acid is usually battery acid, and thus very easy to get hold of, and it is not the sort of attack you can carry out without premeditation.
These are the kinds of injury that commonly occur. The photograph is of a different woman, injured by her husband after they were divorced.
Other recent attacks have been on schoolgirls in Afghanistan, whose only crime is that they want to go to school.
In the West we would argue that violence is an inappropriate response to violence, or that such punishment reduces the state to the level of the criminal. But should we be liberal and intellectual about such crimes? These men are absolute bastards. Is there an argument for an eye for an eye?
26 comments:
you know, it renders me speechless and leaves me with a white hot anger.....if i was that woman's mother i would find that man...and...well. no details here. x j
My instinct is to accept the biblical wisdom of an eye for an eye, however, my liberal self wins with the argument that education is better.
The illiterate bastard might accept the punishment as justifiable within the constraints of his understanding; the educated bastard will be punished by guilt, one hopes, for the rest of his life.
janelle - I share that anger and it leaves me torn down the middle. One half says the anger is right on and it's about time society gave such wrongdoers a taste of their own medicine. The other half, the liberal intellectual one, says hang on, anger has no place here, blahdee blah. I think we have all been massively socialised over the last 100 years or so (no, I know we're not that old!) and this socialisation has caused us to intellectualise crime and punishement - perhaps too much.
dot - some of the same sentiments apply I think. And what about the educated bastard who experiences little or no guilt? And quite a few of those these days ... But thanks for your input. It is difficult.
I've read about this and it's utterly shocking.
I'm with Janelle on this one.
Utterly shocking. Like Janelle, as a mother (or daughter) with all the attendant emotions rampaging, I'd be chucking acid in the bugger's face - no doubt about it.
But as a rational human being reading about the case, everything in me says NO - that's not the way to go.
Contrary? Moi?
dumdad - I have to say my first instinct when I read this was 'right on'
karen - I know exactly what you mean with 'that's not the way to go', but have we got it wrong somewhere along the line? I mean, everyone except the scum behave in a civilised way. Has it got to the stage that they count on it??
Totally shocking! An eye for an eye seems fitting in this case to me.
I'm torn down the middle too. It's easy to be a liberal intellectual until something unspeakably despicable happens to one of your own. Janelle said it all ' white hot anger'. I wouldn't be talking the talk then!
I'm always amazed when you hear of people 'forgiving' someone for killing their daughter (or whoever). I just cannot fathom where they find that.
akelamalu - I think that the sentiment of most comments accords with your own.
lane - you touched a nerve there. Before I was a father I could read about crimes against children without being overly upset. After the birth of my daughters the same type of stories would have my eyes pricking with tears. I could never forgive someone who hurt them.
Tough call this one. I'm not a proponent of an eye for an eye, it makes the victim as bad as the perpetrator but some severe level of criminal justice needs to be mooted. And surprisingly, revenge is not sweet. I'd make him work for her or do her bidding for the rest of his natural life. Make him look at what he's done every single day and feel humiliated at her feet. Ruin his life the way he's ruined hers but by making him live with the result of his bastardly conduct.
the only way you can be rational and balanced is when you're distanced from it and its never happened to you. i can assure you that if it happened to any member of your family, i very much doubt anyone would be thinking rationally liberally or fairly....x
I agree with many that my initial instinct is YES, it's fair. And believe me, living in South Africa, where there are many who would destroy my family without compuction, well, yes, if I think about that it's almost enough to make me go pre-emptive, and postal.
BUT that same sharia law allows for a woman who has been raped (against her will, remember) to be buried in earth up to her neck and stoned to death by a crowd of men. This happened to a 13 year old girl here in Africa just the other day. And like all laws, the potential for them to be misused by those in power, for political point-scoring or financial gain, is high.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't think sharia is it.
baino - I like the restorative (there is some such term, not sure I got it right) element of the justice you propose. At least the criminal has to do some actual "paying back" rather than just marking time in prison.
janelle - there is this thing I've come across, "logical consequences", where you suffer directly the consequence of your action. e.g. if you ignore the Wet Paint sign and sit on a bench, then you get paint stripes on your clothese. This contrasts with "contrived consequences" where the outcome bears no real relationship to the thing you did, such as sit in a locked room.
jeannie - I realise that my post implied I favoured Sharia, but apart from this one case, I absolutely don't! I know the case you refer to and I was completely horrified by it. I also don't agree witht the definition of certain crimes, such as adultery. So, no, completely agree with you there.
needed to be posted thanks - too often we forget the atrocities in this world , and to pray for their victms-- Loving your glowers on the side bar, +May I link to your blog?/Sandy
Isn't it hard to know what is absolute right and wrong?
Especially when here in the UK much time is devoted to how the victims of crime are less well treated than their persecutors.
Ultimately where I stand is that we should respect the laws of other countries and not pass judgement based on our values which are probably inappropriate in different societies. So that means I accept the punishment in that country, but would not in this one.
It's the same logic that draws me to the conclusion that we are wrong to try and impose democracy in places where it is patently not suited.
i beati - hi there, don't think we've met before, welcome. Certainly link to the site, most kind. And thank you for your comments - like nota bene said after you, we tend to forget the victims.
nota bene - you raise an interesting point which resonates with absolutism vs relativism. Respecting the laws of others is a good place to start, but it is still difficult. For example, the 'laws' of apartheid in the 70s, or stoning (so horrible) for loving the wrong person ...
Ernest! I know you don't support sharia - I'm terribly sorry if I implied you did! I always read and comment so early in the morning I might come across wrong... My thoughts were just that while my instinct is to agree with the eye for an eye in that particular case, I don't want to accept the blanket of sharia law...
Nota Bene, interesting comment, and ten years ago I probably would have agreed. However, I seem to be getting far less tolerant as I grow older and have children. I'm starting to lean towards absolutes now - that just because you cast something in the light of "our culture" and "how we've always done it" does NOT make it right. Think of the hideous practice of female circumcision...
Where I fall down is in how to follow through on my my convictions, and eradicate some of the horribly unjust things that occur every day...
Sigh. Perhaps Mr God should have a go, Ernest??
jeannie, absolutely nothing to apologise for!
I read this post a couple of days ago and have been thinking about it before I left a comment.
I don't agree with an eye for an eye justice, but then your post made me think again.
Finally, I realised that here is a place where an eye for an eye punishment exists, but it didn't prevent the crime in the first place. We need to get to the root of why these things happen.
(Similar, in a minor way, to what happens in a classroom, we can punish bad behaviour, but I'd rather find the reason for it and prevent it)
working mum - you make an important point "here is a place where an eye for an eye punishment exists, but it didn't prevent the crime in the first place". A possible conclusion, then, is that the punishment has no effect on the incidence of the crime.
This point has also been made with respect to pickpockets of old - who would "work" the crowds attending public executions. It didn't seem to put them off.
However, as with a lot of such anecdotal evidence, there is the problem of the control group. What would the incidence of acid throwing be in an Islamic country (a) with and (b) without such sanction?
The fact that you find acid throwing as things stand tells you nothing about what the incidence would be, there, in the absence of such sanction.
Alas, the truth is that, this case aside, women don't seem to pack much clout in those parts, and can seen as easy targets.
I think you are very brave (and I mean that) to be in a classroom. You say "we can punish bad behaviour, but ... I'd rather prevent it". Can you really punish bad behaviour? Can you really prevent it when you have no sanctions? These are real questions, and - if you would consider it - I'd be interested to read a post where you address these issues based on your own experience in the classroom.
i think working mum has it spot on. i'd comment further but am a one fingered typer at present.
Oh dear, av, nothing too serious I hope? Just a friendly peck?
Just popped back to ready your response to my comment and yet again, you make me think. I will ponder and consider a post on the issue of punishment and prevention in the classroom. (It may be a while before I get round to publishing it)
Ernest,
There is nothing scarier than fundamentalist islam, where men take all kinds of liberty to abuse, exploit, bring down women. It is almost as if the whole religion is based on degrading of women.
I have read a case in Saudi Arabia where the court rejected the plea of a mother who wanted to see her 8 year old girl divorce from her 58 year old husband, handpicked by the girls father himself. Isn't that sick? This is allowed by law in that country. I was so enraged, still fuming about it.
An eye for an eye is not necessarily the best way to prevent crime. Violence on women is a daily occurence in countries ruled by Sharia. Fact.
I agree with you Gaye, at least about sharia not being the answer. Crime and punishment is complex, but the pendulum has swung in favour of the wrongdoers I think.
In Iran you can't expect any better. If it were a woman who did the act on a man, she would have been stoned to death by now, Sharia punishment would have been swift. Because it is a woman who is the victim, Sharia will hesitate if do anything at all. Seriously... Women has no place where fundamentalist Islam reigns. I had a post on mine about the Saudi case, where I basically say, I will not follow a religion written, interpreted, implemented by men in favour of men.
G
PS: Ernest, how come when I am commenting I can't put an open ID like wordpress. I am not using my blogspot account anymore which is the google thingo. In the God Diaries I can do it but here nope.
Post a Comment