Author Topic: Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid  (Read 1281 times)

Offline Corrax Talrus

  • Member
  • Posts: 347
  • Karma: +0/-0
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« on: 05/14/11 06:17:56 »


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

Retribution granted to woman who had acid thrown in her face by man she refused to marry

    [li]Saeed Kamali Dehghan[/li][li]guardian.co.uk,   [/li][/list]
    Ameneh Bahrami, who was blinded when a spurned suitor threw acid at her, asked for the same to be inflicted on him. Photograph: Lluis Gene/AFP

    In a literal application of the sharia law of an eye for an eye, Iran is ready for the first time to blind a man with acid, after he was found guilty of doing the same to a woman who refused to marry him.

    Majid Movahedi, 30, is scheduled to be rendered unconscious in Tehran's judiciary hospital at noon on Saturday while Ameneh Bahrami, his victim, drops acid in both his eyes, her lawyer said.

    Bahrami who had asked for an eye for an eye retribution in the court, was disfigured and blinded by Movahedi in 2004 when he threw a jar of acid in her face while she was returning home from work. "He was holding a red container in his hand. He looked into my eyes for a second and threw the contents of the red container into my face," she told the court in 2008.

    According to Iranian media, Bahrami's lawyer, Ali Sarafi, has said: "A very good sentence has been given and an appropriate method has been adopted so that the convict will be blinded by few drops of acids in eyes after he is rendered unconscious."

    In a highly publicised dossier in November 2008, a criminal court in Tehran orderedqisas[/i] (retribution) on Movahedi after he admitted throwing acid at Bahrami, and entitled her to blind him with acid. He was also required to pay compensation to the victim. Bahrami refused to accept the "blood money" and told the court: "Inflict the same life on him that he inflicted on me."

    Iranian officials have endorsed the the sentence in the hope of halting an increase in the rate of acid attacks. But human rights activists have warned against an "inhumane" sentence.

    The British Foreign Office urged Iran to halt the sentence. "The attack on Ameneh Bahrami in 2004 was a horrific crime," a spokesman said. "However, we are deeply concerned by reports that Majid Movahedi's sentence of being blinded by having acid dripped into his eyes may be carried out.

    "The FCO calls on the Iranian authorities to commute this inhumane punishment to an appropriate sentence in line with Iran's international obligations and to cease the practice of corporal punishment for crimes."

    Iranian media have reported that Movahedi will be blinded in both eyes but Bahrami, in an interview in 2009, said that the man would be blinded only in one eye because "each man is worth two women" under Iranian law.

    "The person who did this deserves to go through the same suffering. Only this way will he understand my pain … my intention is to ask for the application of the law not just for revenge but also so that no other woman will have to go through this. It is to set an example," Bahrami was quoted by the Spanish newspaper ABC as saying.

    Bahrami, who has an electronics degree and worked in a medical engineering company before the attack, moved to Spain with the help of the Iranian government where she has undergone a series of unsuccessful operations. She briefly recovered half vision in her right eye in 2007 but an infection blinded her again.

    Bahrami has recently published a book in Germany, Eye for an Eye, based on her personal life and her suffering since she was blinded.

    In recent months, human rights organisations have expressed alarm over the unprecedented increase of capital punishment in Iran, which last year executed more people than any other country apart from China.


Offline Shery deWinter

  • Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc...
  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14,201
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc...
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #1 on: 05/14/11 06:24:24 »
Some people will never be happy.

I think this is the first time I agree with what the Iranian court wants to do.

Offline Ciaran Deadwood

  • Member
  • Posts: 343
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Sith Knight
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #2 on: 05/14/11 13:42:55 »
Wait... I'm sorry... he gets to be unconscious when he receives his punishment? Bull-shit. She didn't get that, he doesn't deserve it. Those pigs need to feel the exact same pain the women feel. That would have been the only fair way of doing this. 

Offline Xander Starkiller

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,022
  • Karma: +0/-0
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #3 on: 05/14/11 16:53:26 »
I really think other countries need to mind their own business when it comes to crime and punishment.

Offline Kari Pujas

  • Member
  • Posts: 695
  • Karma: +0/-0
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #4 on: 05/14/11 19:02:00 »
As a Muslim woman saying this....I whole-heartedly agree with this punishment.  I do not completely agree with some sentiments of sharia, but I am glad they are blinding the man.  Hopefully it will send a statement about the acid attacks, and about attacks on women in general in the muslim world.

Offline Tamora Draclau

  • Member
  • Posts: 310
  • Karma: +0/-0
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #5 on: 05/21/11 05:19:23 »
Proper punishment. I approve.

Offline Alexei Daniels

  • Member
  • Posts: 100
  • Karma: +0/-0
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #6 on: 05/23/11 23:05:55 »
Quote
I agree with this punishment.

People need to back off. It is a fair punishment for a horrendous crime.

Offline Xaedrin Vondiranach

  • Member
  • Posts: 364
  • Karma: +0/-0
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #7 on: 05/24/11 02:15:13 »
Simply because I find it entertaining to play devil's advocate ...

As much as the crime is an outrage, and as furious as we are about it - shouldn't punishment  from a governmental standpoint be offered apart from emotions?  If we react out of anger in our punitive decisions, than we are not offering justice, but revenge.  

Surely this is a horrendous crime, and the fact that it is against a woman causes my masculine sensibilities to desire even more extreme forms of punitive measures (can we say ... snip snip?), but if we respond with an emotional punishment in this case then we open the door to many others.  Do we go back to cutting off the hands of thieves?  Do we whip those convicted of slander and libel in the streets, in order to shame them?  Do we demand a 'pound of flesh for a pound of flesh' in every crime?  Or just the ones that piss us off?

If we ourselves are caught up in a bloodlust when it comes to the responses justice offers, than are we truly any better than those who initiated it?  Doesn't logic state that the chain of violence end when civilized people step in and make a decision for the good of all people?

Offline Shery deWinter

  • Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc...
  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14,201
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc...
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #8 on: 05/24/11 02:29:59 »
Quote
we are not offering justice, but revenge.
No, we are not. Justice is such a subjective term that it makes me laugh whenever people use it outside of your classic Disney movies. Justice is what the morals of society make it. Justice in the US is different than justice in Iran. It has different meanings, requirements, demands and connotations. Revenge would be to kill him. Revenge would be to snip snip, as you say. But to make him go through what he made her go through, with the added luxury of being under drugs while it's happening and probably until the pain goes away too, no less, is not revenge. It's what we all grew up on. Remember kindergarten?  In my kindergarten if a kid teased another kid, the teacher would put the kids around the teaser and have them point and laugh. Two months into every new school year, there would be zero bullying of any kind on the playground.

Quote
Do we go back to cutting off the hands of thieves?
No. Thieves don't steal body parts. I recall reading that prison time was calculated by putting a monetary value to the crime. Frankly, I think frauders, thieves, and that group of people, should be made to work the lowest of the low kinds of public service, while wearing chains, until they mass enough hours to pay their victims back according to minimum wage.

Quote
Do we whip those convicted of slander and libel in the streets, in order to shame them?
Sure, I can roll with that. Can think of quite a few people I wouldn't object to seeing like that.

Quote
Do we demand a 'pound of flesh for a pound of flesh' in every crime? Or just the ones that piss us off?
Eye for an eye, and when body parts are not included, monetary value taken from the life hours of the commiter of the crime.

Offline Xaedrin Vondiranach

  • Member
  • Posts: 364
  • Karma: +0/-0
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #9 on: 05/24/11 03:30:41 »
That's certainly an interesting viewpoint, but what you're talking about Shery is not justice at all - you're talking about retaliation.  

Quote
Retaliation:  To take retributory action by returning some injury or wrong in kind.

You're not talking about a system of justice in causing him to go through the pain he forced on another - even if his pain is less - you're still dealing with retaliation.  Justice, as you pointed out, is what the morals of society make it.  The requirements for justice are maintaining the moral and ethical high ground whilst providing consequences for actions that both deter future illegal activities and compensate for past actions.  The concept of 'eye for an eye' does not maintain the moral or ethical high ground in this sense, due to the fact that the retributory action is something deemed (by the society) as immoral and unethical.  The government is, in a sense, responding to a moral lapse by enacting a moral lapse.  
Certainly this punishment 'fits the crime,' and certainly it will be a deterrent for future errors of judgement, but to call it 'Justice' is a joke, because no party here still holds the moral high-ground.  It may sound juvenile, but "two wrongs do not make a right."  Nothing that can be done will ever make up for what this man did - even if he was entirely awake and she got to hold his head under in a bucket of acid - his atrocious action will not be rectified, nor undone.  But if a government moves outside of the ethical high ground (as Iran has done countless times), then a system of justice can no longer exist.  Justice no longer serves the people, but instead holds them in line through a system of fear of reprisal.
In order for justice to be served, one must have the right to dispense justice.  And in order to have the right to dispense justice, one must prove and maintain the moral and ethical high ground.  Otherwise, they are simply a schoolyard bully who happened to bully someone who deserved it.

Offline Shery deWinter

  • Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc...
  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14,201
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc...
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #10 on: 05/24/11 03:52:52 »
Quote
Retaliation:  To take retribution action by returning some injury or wrong in kind.
Then what do you call jail time? Fines? Are those not returning wrong? Financial injury? Taking years of people's lives away for criminal offenses? There is no difference between retaliation as per the definition you put up, and justice.

You claim the following (I took the liberty of breaking it into points):
Quote
The requirements for justice are
(1) maintaining the moral and ethical high ground whilst
(2) providing consequences for actions that both deter {future illegal activities and compensate for past actions}.

Point 1 on its own is nearly laughable when viewing in the case of man tosses acid into the face of the woman who refuses to marry him. What defines a moral higher ground here? She said "do not want" and he took her face and her eye. Should she just punch him in the face and call it a day? Should she just turn the other cheek? Should she say "I forgive you, Iran, let this man go free!"? Truly, I cannot for the life of me imagine something that would take a higher moral ground in this specific case. Then again, I'm not a great person. Just a good one. Well, maybe I'm just okay (captain Mal quote ftw)

Point 2 demands that the "punishment of justice", if I may call it that, would
(1) deter the person from doing it again and I assume others as well and-
(2) Compensate for past actions.
How much knowledge do you have of beating husbands, mysogenic shmucks and the like? I'm quoting statistics from memory here, but the vast majority of violent people who do jail time do not, in fact, repent their ways and never do it again. They just get smarter at finding sub women who'll let them treat them like crap. To wreck the face of a living creature just because you were denied a wedding ring, that's not even something you can accuse on temporary insanity, as many claim in American courts to excuse their behavior. He did not go to the shop, buy acid, went back to her, and sprayed her, all on a whim. This was planned. This was his revenge, his way of making sure that no one else would want to touch what he viewed as his own property.
How are you going to compensate the woman for that? Is he going to buy her a new eye? Will the government of Iran buy her a new eye? Will she get free plastic surgery to reconstruct her face, meaning, get drugged and suffer at least a few sessions under the scalpel?

To sum my rants up to this point, I believe the two requirements you put up for "Justice", which I think sadly, are shared by many, become entirely irrelevant in cases such as this. It's not petty theft, it's not even murder; it's on purpose placing a person in a situation in which they would want to kill themselves. How can anyone find a way to perform "justice" in this case, frankly, is beyond me.


Quote
Justice no longer serves the people, but instead holds them in line through a system of fear of reprisal.
And what do you call the current system in the modern Western world of justice? Why do you think the current crime rates are low? (yes, they are fucking low, especially when compared to places like, say, Nigeria). When you need food, do you refrain from stealing it because of your so called moral high ground, or because you don't want to risk the jail time? When you set your facebook settings on privacy, is it because you fear your info will wound up in the wrong hands, or because you're so awesome that you're doing facebook a favor by being on its system? (lame example, I know).

There is nothing wrong with ruling through fear. That is how the world is set today.

Quote
In order for justice to be served, one must have the right to dispense justice.  And in order to have the right to dispense justice, one must prove and maintain the moral and ethical high ground.  Otherwise, they are simply a schoolyard bully who happened to bully someone who deserved it.
I see wut u did dar.

Three years ago, a guy on the street tried to rape me. In response, I broke half his face with my ellebow. Did I bully the the person who happened to deserve it?
Is self defense bullying? What if it comes later? What if you are not in a position to defend yourself and the defense arrives much, much later?

And here I'll stop because there are a million more paragraphs being created in my head but I fear they will divert the subject to another topic.

*Tags X!*

Offline Xaedrin Vondiranach

  • Member
  • Posts: 364
  • Karma: +0/-0
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #11 on: 05/24/11 04:37:06 »
Shery, don't hate!  We're all friends here!

Okay, where to begin ...  I'm going to try to organize this somewhat, because these posts are just getting longer and longer and my brain is soon going to explode.  And then we'd have to explode your brain for justice to be served, and no one wants that!
   1)     Jail time / Fines = Retaliation
   2)     Moral / Ethical purity = A Joke
   3)     Traditional justice does not deter crimes
   4)   There is no compensation for a crime of this magnitude
   5)   Moral / ethical purity + deterrence + compensation = Irrelevant
   6)   I'm on Facebook because I'm awesome, and they are lucky to have me
   7)   Ruling through fear is both necessary and exciting
   8)   Shery = Iranian government
I think that about sums it up as far as my plans go!
1)   Jail time / Fines = RetaliationFirst off, I must heartily disagree.  You missed the last two words of the definition:  in kind.  The fact is that in a case like this, jail time and fines are not even close to in kind.  Not to say that is what needs to be done, but the fact is that Jail Times / Fines in America are established precedents, where people understand that is the outcome if they infringe on the law.  It is not a whimsical system that says, "Well, today we're going to offer this punishment.  It's new, and will probably make you wish you'd never done this."  An established justice system does not base itself on retaliation, but on consequences.  When my son acts up and disobeys what I tell him to do, I do not retaliate.  Instead, he receives consequences that he is aware of ahead of time.  If I retaliate against my son, then I am an abuser.  Now, granted, I am not a government - I am a father.  That point we will come to when we get to number 8.
2)   Moral / Ethical Purity = A JokeMoral and ethical high ground must be maintained - and in response to your question, "What is the moral high ground here?"  my answer would be, anything that is morally acceptable within society.  Your argument against the moral high ground is a fallacy - you have stated that since he lost the moral high ground, the government does not have any.  That not only makes no logical sense, but it gives way to the acceptance of the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and more.  A government must maintain morality, or else the step to mass-murderer is a small one.  The moral high ground does not change based on the actions of others, it remains the same - otherwise morality would have ceased to exist long ago.  The fact is, we believe certain things are morally unacceptable.  There are those who believe it is morally unacceptable to throw acid in the faces of others.  But at what point to we begin to say that it is morally acceptable to throw acid in some people's faces.  Maybe if they really deserve it?  And keep in mind, we're not talking about your example of self-defense (which we will also come to later).  We are talking about a government decreed consequence for an action.
3)   Traditional Justice Does Not Deter CrimesWell, by all means then.  Let us adopt new, terrible punishments.  We will quickly rid the world of immorality by responding to immorality with beatings, drive-by's, family killings, honor killings, and the like.  That's worked before, hasn't it?  You are right.  In a vast majority of cases, the traditional consequences are not stopping crimes from occurring.  But short of going Hussein on the people, and gassing their villages, what will?  Perhaps punishments should be harsher, but they should be established and they should be moral.  Sending a person to jail, when they knew that was a consequence, is a moral punishment.  Fines are moral punishments.  Responding within a system that is structured to avoid atrocities against the people that it controls is moral.  Going outside that system and making decisions that are unappealable and unprecedented is not moral.  The fact is, that everyone applauds this punishment because it appeases their anger.  But the next time Iran hangs a young lady because she was raped by her uncle, they will demand that Iran put a true system of Justice in place.  One that is established, and that offers punishment from a moral high ground with a system that has the right to dispense it through their desire to protect the people.  That has to start now, not next week after we've offered a punishment outside the norms for this man.  What right do we have to demand that they change their justice policies, when we say "other countries need to stay out of it" and "he deserves it."  Who decides who deserves this?  The fact is, that traditional justice must be maintained even in the face of those who refuse to bend to its laws and consequences.  Because if it doesn't, then there is too much room for those in power to step in and do whatever they feel like doing.  That is a bad situation.  Remember, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
4)   There Is No Compensation for a Crime of This MagnitudeYou are correct.  In fact, I believe I said that.  But this does not translate into, "So do something that we have already called morally unacceptable."  If there truly is no compensation, and this crime is that severe, then that compensation is his life.  Either in the form of the death penalty (which is a difficult call here, and one I will talk about after my manifesto is completed because I know you'll bring it up), or in the form of life imprisonment.  Both of these are established consequences within the law, and both of them have legal precedents.
5)   Moral / Ethical Purity + Deterrence + Compensation = IrrelevantReally?  Do I even need to address this claim?  When a government sees their responsibility to act morally and responsibly as irrelevant, I can guarantee  you that said government is going to commit horrible atrocities.  Consider the ramifications of that argument for a moment.  In the wake of a terrible event, the government no longer has the responsibility to act in a morally and ethically responsible way?  That is the definition of retaliation, and the difference between retaliation and justice.  If the government is not seeking to act in a morally responsibly way, to deter crime, and to compensate for crime, then they are not offering justice.  They are simply getting even.  The government holds too many lives in their hands to simply lay these things aside, and even if it means that someone doesn't get all of the punishment they deserve, the results are still that a government does not cross that line into a blood-thirsty dictatorship and their people and the people of others are safe.
6)   I'm On Facebook Because I'm Awesome, and They Are Lucky to Have MeTrue story.
7)   Ruling Through Fear is Both Necessary and ExcitingOkay, so you didn't actually say exciting, but still.  It made it sound like a brochure, and that made me smile.  Smiling is good.  We should all smile more.  Wait, where was I?  Oh yeah, ruling through fear.  We're talking about two different things.  I'm not talking about the fear of established consequences, I'm talking about the fear of "You better do what I say, because I can do whatever the cheeseballs I want to do."  I'm talking about the fact that in some places in the world, women simply have to be silent about having been raped by family members or community members, because if they speak up the government will punish them.  That's living in fear of the government.  I have very little fear of my government.  Why?  Because I am a law-abiding citizen, that's why.  I have no concern that they are going to come for me in the middle of the night simply because they can, or because I did something to piss them off.  Because there are established laws and precedents, and because I believe that our justice system as a whole seeks the moral and ethical high ground - even if they don't always achieve it.  In places where the government abandons the moral responsibility it holds, however, that translates into fear of the government for an entirely different reason.  It translates into fear because the government has absolute power and can do whatever it wants, whether it is inside of a structured and established system or not.  That is not justice, that is a monarchy.  And we all know how that worked out, Henry the VIII!
8)   Shery = Iranian GovernmentCome on, Shery, you must recognize the difference between a citizen of a government defending his or her self in the event of a violent crime and a government enacting immoral punishments after the fact.  If a man tried to rape my wife or daughter and I was nearby, I would kill him.  Plain and simple.  But I am not the government.  I have a responsibility as a citizen and a human being to protect myself and those around me.  The government, however, is not a human being.  It is a system of leadership that should exist for the good of all of mankind.  Were you a bully for protecting yourself?  No.  Would the government be a bully for going after that man and prosecuting him, within the full extent of the law?  No.  However, a government that has no concern for moral and ethical responsibility punishes that attempted-rapist the same way it punishes the woman who was raped.  Is that a bully?  Yes.  Did the attempted rapist deserve to be bullied?  Yes.  Did the woman who was raped?  Absolutely not.  An established legal system, with established precedents, consequences, and limits is essential to the pursuit of justice.  Otherwise the government is simply a schoolyard bully.  Don't you see that?

Now, on a side note, I brought up the death penalty.  Do I believe in the death penalty?  I'm not going to answer  Why?  Because eight cans of worms is enough for one day, and we don't need any more points to argue about!

Offline Shery deWinter

  • Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc...
  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14,201
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc...
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #12 on: 05/24/11 05:26:23 »
DA IRANIAN GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO SCRIBBLE THEE DO DA DEATH!

*coughs*

Okay, let's give it a try. I had to promise the shmuck who wrote above me that this won't turn into a 10 page post, otherwise he won't read it I feel so unloved! *sniffles*


1)   Jail time / Fines = Retaliation
Actually, I believe the current jail system relies more on retaliation than on consequences. Both are valid points; you now what the consequences of stealing a car is. However, given the wide ranges for punishments deemed as suitable. For example, killing a dude can get you anywhere from 3 years to 25 years depending on how good your lawyer is at phrasing the death for you, at least here in Israel, and that range makes a huge difference. When the judge decides on 5 years, the families of the deceased scream for the full 25 years. Just saying in advance what the consenquences might be, do not automatically clear them from becoming or evolving from simple retaliation.

2)   Moral / Ethical Purity = A Joke
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Let me rephrase it; the acid sprayer in question took such a low moral ground, that other than acid spraying his puppy, I can't imagine anything that could be done to him that would lower the moral ground bar any further. Therefore, regardless of what he gets, it's an automatic higher moral ground in my opinion. Moral high grounds do change, not just between societies, but inside societies as well. Stealing a loaf of bread has a different moral ground based on whether you did it because you couldn't be arsed to use the ATM, or because you honestly couldn't afford it and had a whole family to feed. Both actions are the same. The moral of both actions, are not. What I think you missed on the subject or morality is that it has indeed ceased to exist long ago. Morals are subjective and ever changing. Compare the morals of today to the morals of the 50's. Two entirely different worlds in the culture you and I share! Is it morally acceptable to throw acid in some people's faces? That, again, would depend on whether it is to return the action to someone who commited it first, or whether it was done just because some judge didn't get laid by his 7th wife the night before. On governments I will reply later.

3)   Traditional Justice Does Not Deter CrimesWhat will end it? Two things that must work hand in hand:
  • Severely punishing those who commit such horrible crimes which are crimes against humanity (yes, spraying a chick with acid is a crime against humanity)
  • Education, education, education.
Twenty years ago, a man could not rape his wife according to the law. It took many fights and re-educations to get people to understand that just because she said "I do" on their wedding day does not mean he legally owns her vagina and asshole. Some people, even in the US, still do not understand that when a woman says no, she does in fact, mean no, and not "no means yes, yes means anal". But is that the end of it? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's just an example of morals changing with time. You say this and that is moral punishment, I ask, wtf is moral punishment? Kids are allowed to hit each other back, adults are not, and those two statements co-exist at the same time in the same cultures. As for the hypocrisy of the US government, let's not open that debate right now, because then I will have to write 10 pages!

4)   There Is No Compensation for a Crime of This MagnitudeWe're going to have to look up with Iranian law claims on spraying acid on a woman that said no. I'm not positive that the crime is actually life sentence or death punishment. Death penalty is for later. You said I'm correct. Any other argument is automatically invalid
5)   Moral / Ethical Purity + Deterrence + Compensation = IrrelevantThe government's responsibility is never irrelevant. And I'm not going to write again on why the moral aspect of it is irrelevant though- wrote that enough times above. I'm also going to add here something I was going to write below; the government's job is not only to protect the people, but to also protect the people from themselves. It deals with international as well as national affairs, and it does that for a damn good reason too. There are sufficient lines that can be crossed by the government without a single drop of blood; the bottom line is, how well does the government protect its people, inside as well as out. Iran and the US both stink at doing that, though each for different reasons.

6)   I'm On Facebook Because I'm Awesome, and They Are Lucky to Have MeFalse. I'm not on your facebook. That makes you unawesome by default (Shery deWinter)

Claim denied until further notice!

7)   Ruling Through Fear is Both Necessary and ExcitingOh my, fear is both necessary and exciting to you? *gets the chains and whips* QUIVER IN PH33R! (see? I smiled! look!)

As for the rest of what you wrote, oye, you naive you. You have every reason to fear your government. You have every reason to know that if you cannot afford an expensive lawyer, you're going to get fucked ten times over if you ever get to a high court. The US is not a government that seeks a higher moral ground; it is a government of pure hypcrisy, of lies and deceit, of treating others like garbage when they comit the same atrocities themselves, and that is mostly run by money sharks, aka, the Jews


8)   Shery = Iranian GovernmentWrote above the government defending its people above. Governments are bullies. If I'm the Iranian government, there shall be no more hijabs, no more female circumcision, and the guy is going to get his face sprayed with acid without the benefits of sleeping while its happening






Offline Xaedrin Vondiranach

  • Member
  • Posts: 364
  • Karma: +0/-0
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #13 on: 05/24/11 06:07:30 »
Okay, not going to lie to you - I pretty much read, "Blah, blah, blah, Xaedrin is not awesome, blah, blah, blah."

I'm not going to address any of the other points I made, because I don't feel you validly shook any of the argument I laid out.  Your argument springs from, "He's a pig, he deserves it, and governments suck anyway."  
The fact that we live in an imperfect world does not give permission to act imperfectly.  I believe that we aught always to strive to do what is right, and I believe that is an even higher imperative for governments to do so, since they control the lives of thousands / millions / billions of people.
As for point six, I am awesome, and Facebook is lucky to have me.  Here is my list of points / counterpoints:
Counterpoint:   My friends list is irrelevant due to how awesome I am.
Points:      I once traveled back in time and rode a dinosaur.         I once drew a picture of an apple and got a gold star.         I once saw a cow get struck by lighting, and subsequently watched the farmer light it on fire.         I once accurately predicted that the rapture would not occur on May 21, 2011, making me a better prophet than Harold Camping.         I have never hit a woman (but I sure came close once in 5th grade!)         I once got punched in the face by a guy, and then laughed and said, "You hit like a girl" in response.         My controversial posts make people laugh.
I think that my point has been proven.
Also, all of these are true except possibly the first one (regarding the dinosaur.  This may have happened, but the whole space-time continuum thing is tricky.  Did it happen?  Or will it happen?  It's confusing, you know?  Because since I went back in time, it technically happened a long time ago.  But since it hasn't happened yet in my life, that makes the whole question a difficult one to answer, you know?).
Double also, no fetuses were harmed in the making of this post.
« Last Edit: 05/24/11 06:13:49 by Xaedrin Vondiranach »

Offline Kari Pujas

  • Member
  • Posts: 695
  • Karma: +0/-0
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #14 on: 05/24/11 07:53:39 »
I would venture to say that because we live in an imperfect world, our actions are bound to be imperfect, by their very nature.  That being said...
1)  I think part of a government should be to deter further crime, not just punish the crimes that have happened.   A) Yes, chop off the hands of thieves, to deter others from stealing.   B) Yes, flog petty criminals in the street.   C) Yes, burn a man's eye with acid for doing the same to a woman.2) Punishment, in itself, is a form of retribution, i.e. a Government taking retribution on someone from breaking one of it's rules.  When you say retribution and consequences, essentially, when dealing with crime, they mean the same.  The government never gave me a cookie for NOT killing people.3) The question of moral and ethical purity is a moot point, such moralities and purities are dictated by individual societies, or even individual families within those societies.  To speak my point, Americans would be appalled at the idea of, when a girl is old enough for her clitoris to actually show, taking a razor to the thing and slicing it off, passing off such behavior as unethical.  My family did not share this viewpoint, and while the American in me thinks this is a bullshit practice (I'm sure I'd enjoy sex more), the Saudi in me does not, ultimately, care about a piece of skin I cannot remember ever having.
We are impure beings, and our best attempts at perfect justice is laughable.  But for throwing acid in a woman's face? I'd think it fair to do the same to him.

Offline Dominic Corven.u

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Karma: +0/-0
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #15 on: 08/10/11 00:57:50 »
I agree with Kari on this.

Furthermore, strap his ass to a chair fully awake, and let this woman pour acid in his eyes so he can properly feel the pain he put her through. Screw that "sedate, then punish." She didn't have that right, and neither should he.

Offline Shery deWinter

  • Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc...
  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14,201
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc...
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #16 on: 08/10/11 01:11:44 »
The woman changed her mind.

They were just about to administer the punishment when the woman told them to stop and that she forgave him.

He, in return, proposed again.

She said no.

(Don't have a link, it was in the papery newspaper)

Offline Dominic Corven.u

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Karma: +0/-0
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #17 on: 08/10/11 01:14:40 »
Wow. It takes a lot for a person to forgive another for their crimes, especially when it involves having acid thrown into your face.

Offline Shery deWinter

  • Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc...
  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14,201
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc...
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #18 on: 08/10/11 02:05:34 »
I don't think she's forgiven him.

I think she's playing him

Offline Dominic Corven.u

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Karma: +0/-0
Iran to Blind Criminal With Acid
« Reply #19 on: 08/10/11 02:07:55 »
Then why didn't she "accidentally" dump the acid on his face when he proposed to her again?