Eye for an Eye: Blinded Acid Victim to have Attacker Blinded

[Mirai Gen]

I'm torn on both sides of the issue but for now I'll just say that the likelihood of this happening in USA is pretty slim.

[Odjn]

I don't think a sane person could justify that man's attack. And likewise, I don't believe a sane system would do that at all, even when the evidence is as damning as this case.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Clearly a relevant issue here is what the purpose of justice is. Is it supposed to be a deterrent? Should it bring some sort of balance, righting wrongs done? Is it meant to "fix" offending individuals, making them nondisruptive members of society? Personally, I have no idea, but it's interesting to me.

Right off the bat, I will say that there is a difference between revenge and justice, for any concept of justice I could find acceptable. Justice, in some way, aims to promote an orderly society; revenge just satisfies the offended person's negative emotions. That seems like too simplistic a response; greater things should be accomplished instead, or at least attempted. Personally, I find it quite disturbing that many people seem unable to distinguish between justice and enforced vengeance.

So, for this case? Well, again, I have no solid answers. The judgement here, it seems, is mainly justifiable as a form of deterrent. It doesn't teach much of a lesson; if this is so barbaric and unthinkable, why exactly is it being officially condoned? So what this shows people is that they shouldn't do bad things to others or it'll get done to them. Okay, though it presents a greater element of minimizing the consequences of stuff like this if you're caught. Like, what if you really wanted to fuck someone over and decided you wouldn't really mind being blind if you could just get them good? Well, then you have your course of action. Certainly an odd example, but I think the point gets through: this promotes less "don't do bad things" and more "don't do things you don't want done to you," which isn't necessarily the exact same thing.

You might think this particularly guy, at least, now knows not to go and blind people. But say he does it again. What are you going to do? He's already been blinded. You either let him off (doubt that) or figure out something else; in other words, this is ad hoc judgement. It means a person can get off much easier or worse than another person that did the same thing, just because of the situation they happened to be in. This is unfair by definition, and blatantly far from ideal.

What really gets me is when people try to mask the expression of their anger as an act of justice. You want to do something "permanent?" Kill him. Hell, it's a great deterrent for everything, too. Same applies if you really believe he's some sort of inhuman barbarian; what's the point in keeping him alive at all, and letting him back into society? There's a much simpler and more logical solution; you just want him to feel agony, and that's all there is to it. This is precisely the barbarism you hate so much.

...okay. So that all came out different from how I thought it would. Here's hoping I don't end up regretting it too much. *post*

[bluestarultor]

I was totally surprised when I read the title and OP, but then I read the article and found out it was Iran, which made it make total sense. Yeah, it seems barbaric to us, but our punishments probably seem absolutely stupid and ineffective to them. And you know what? The guy was probably convicted in front of a tribunal. You know why? Because it's a much more effective way of ensuring the guilty get punished. You know what else? Western militaries use tribunals, too. They also operate under slightly different laws and rules, at least in the US. Why? Because when you're in the military, you're in a brutal environment where a liability to the society is not going to be tolerated.

So yeah, he's going to be blinded. From the standpoint of his society, this isn't all that strange or bad. It probably didn't even make the news over there. If it did, I'm sure it wasn't on the front page. Speaking from the viewpoint of Middle Eastern society, she has every right to ask for this, and it's probably the most power she'll ever wield in her life.

[Grand Master Kickface]

This isn't entirely bad because of how women are considered lower citizens in the Middle East, and having her attacker receive the same punishment that he inflicted on her passively reinforces that women have equal status as men. Even so, I cannot agree with this punishment. Punishment is not supposed to be a means to revenge or meaningless suffering; punishment means that the offender must work to atone for his error. It is the sinner who is supposed to gain something through punishment. Having his eyes blinded teaches him nothing. It might stop him and potential future offenders out of fear, but which is better, a society ruled by fear or a society ruled by wisdom and empathy? The ideal resolution to this situation, I think, is to make the attacker gain an understanding of why what he did was wrong and how he affected the victim, both from the attack and his behavior leading up to the attack. As for the victim, we should strive to advance technologically to make it so she can see again, and not charge her money for the operation. I know it's easy for me to spout sophistry being so far removed from the situation, but regardless I feel that our modern systems of law enforcement are missing the point of punishment entirely.

[Tev]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

So yeah, he's going to be blinded. From the standpoint of his society, this isn't all that strange or bad. It probably didn't even make the news over there. If it did, I'm sure it wasn't on the front page. Speaking from the viewpoint of Middle Eastern society, she has every right to ask for this, and it's probably the most power she'll ever wield in her life.

Actually, I'd be surprised if it didn't make the papers over there for just this reason. Women in developing countries seem to really get the crap end of the stick most of the time. It'd almost be a "novel" idea that a guy get punished for something he did to a woman.

And what is it with that culture and acid? Is it like an everyday thing to just toss acid on a woman that scorns you or something? I've heard of stories like this involving mother's who are pissed at girls who either don't marry or don't satisfy their husbands. Really, this shit needs to stop.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Grand Master Kickface

This isn't entirely bad because of how women are considered lower citizens in the Middle East, and having her attacker receive the same punishment that he inflicted on her passively reinforces that women have equal status as men. Even so, I cannot agree with this punishment. Punishment is not supposed to be a means to revenge or meaningless suffering; punishment means that the offender must work to atone for his error. It is the sinner who is supposed to gain something through punishment. Having his eyes blinded teaches him nothing. It might stop him and potential future offenders out of fear, but which is better, a society ruled by fear or a society ruled by wisdom and empathy? The ideal resolution to this situation, I think, is to make the attacker gain an understanding of why what he did was wrong and how he affected the victim, both from the attack and his behavior leading up to the attack. As for the victim, we should strive to advance technologically to make it so she can see again, and not charge her money for the operation. I know it's easy for me to spout sophistry being so far removed from the situation, but regardless I feel that our modern systems of law enforcement are missing the point of punishment entirely.

Have you ever even heard of the Middle East? I might like to point out that the entire region is currently in the shitter because we removed a guy who was so horrible that he kept the region stable. Everyone is now trying to fill the power vacuum and the idea that democracy is getting a foothold in there is ludicrous. These are societies based entirely on the weak fearing the strong.

Originally Posted by Tev

Actually, I'd be surprised if it didn't make the papers over there for just this reason. Women in developing countries seem to really get the crap end of the stick most of the time. It'd almost be a "novel" idea that a guy get punished for something he did to a woman.

And what is it with that culture and acid? Is it like an everyday thing to just toss acid on a woman that scorns you or something? I've heard of stories like this involving mother's who are pissed at girls who either don't marry or don't satisfy their husbands. Really, this shit needs to stop.

In Africa, it's fire. Also, if a woman survives it, Africa doesn't even provide a means for her to get on with life and she's just going to suffer until she ends up dead. And it's totally legal. We Westerners live in down fluff societies compared to a lot of the rest of the world.

[Tev]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

In Africa, it's fire. Also, if a woman survives it, Africa doesn't even provide a means for her to get on with life and she's just going to suffer until she ends up dead. And it's totally legal. We Westerners live in down fluff societies compared to a lot of the rest of the world.

We've been there and done fire. We used to burn people at the stake because they may or may not have danced naked in the woods at night, or made our crops grow funny, or made our cow give bad milk, or....becuase we didn't think they were quite Christian enough.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Tev

We've been there and done fire. We used to burn people at the stake because they may or may not have danced naked in the woods at night, or made our crops grow funny, or made our cow give bad milk, or....becuase we didn't think they were quite Christian enough.

Yeah, but we're past that now and are currently arguing whether lethal injections are cruel and unusual punishment on the off-chance that the paralysis prevents the people being executed from complaining about the effects of the poisons on their bodies.

[Tev]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Yeah, but we're past that now and are currently arguing whether lethal injections are cruel and unusual punishment on the off-chance that the paralysis prevents the people being executed from complaining about the effects of the poisons on their bodies.

Which in some ways really makes the barbaric roots in me yearn for a simpler time when you just cut a guys head off and everyone went home. At the same time the moral side says that's not the right answer either.