I'm with you. She should be able to have the M*fer blinded.

From the CNN story: "Late last year, an Iranian court gave Bahrami what she asked for. It sentenced Movahedi to be blinded with drops of acid in each eye. This month, the courts rejected Movahedi's appeal."

Looks like she's getting her wish. Ameneh Bahrami's attacker is in prison now, though the story doesn't say how long he was expected to remain there, blind or not. It appears that most of the commenters on the CNN site come down on her side. Only two or three suggested that Behrami may eventually regret her decision.

Well I disagree. Punishment blinding is barbaric.

I think our crime would go way down if we did that. How many rapists would like to get raped? I say go for it, good for her. And Norman, was his crime not barbaric? Are his rights-and vision-somehow more important than hers?

But not nearly as barbaric as blinding an innocent person.

"I think our crime would go way down if we did that. How many rapists would like to get raped?" Actually no you'd be wrong. There is evidence that those raped in prison who were not sexual predators before went back later for rape, sex assaults etc. While I agree with the concept that particular choice of crime is a bad example.

As far as the savage acid man. I'd blind him but do it surgically not with acid. Just pop the things out and make him wear them in a glass jar of formaldehyde around his neck. On the other hand making him work the rest of his life to support her financially with no contact would actually benefit her more. The problem with using this form of punishment in the US is that he'd be on the public dole for the rest of his life.

I think our crime would go way down if we did that. How many rapists would like to get raped?

How many were before committing the crime?
Plus they dont really report prison rapes publically very often but I'd be willing to bet most rapists get raped in prison

What would possibly possess somebody to think that it's OK to throw acid on someone who rejects your advances? Society needs to be protected from people like that. I don't know that blinding is the best solution, but it will certainly prevent him from doing it again.

This case illustrates why it is so important to have a working judicial system. People who commit crimes like this should be executed, but our system convicts too many innocent people.

Please note that this is not our system.

The fact that the courts saw fit to let this woman live and to punish the man is a major improvement in that area of the world.

Blinding this guy is striking a blow for women's rights, however barbaric the methodology may seem to us.

Forget about blinding the guy - I say the death penalty for acts of such savagery. He's clearly a useless nutjob anyway - if he's blind he's just going to be an eve bigger drain on the system.

I agree with Norman and Brian. Any effective criminal justice system needs to embody a higher moral authority....You can't have the justice system mirror the behaviors of those it seeks to impose judgment on for immoral acts.

Not true, PJ. A person who does not go to trial for a capital offense and serves a life sentence is millions of dollars less of a drain on the system. At least in the U.S.

For all of you "eye for an eye" folks, that's great! I assume, then, that in your view a woman who makes a false rape allegation should subsequently be publically raped as a punishment -- or at least serve the same time in prison as the falsely accused man would have served if convicted.

What? Your blood lust diminishes if a woman is involved? SEXISTS!

"For all of you "eye for an eye" folks, that's great! I assume, then, that in your view a woman who makes a false rape allegation should subsequently be publically raped as a punishment"

I'd think the "eye for an eye" deal here would be that she would be sentenced to the prison length the accused would have been.

Might cut down on the number of false allegations.

But I think it would also cut down on the number of retractions of false allegations.

Iffy situation either way.

Jay R, have you ever read this blog before?

"'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."-A. Lincoln

I think women in addition to serving prison time for false rape accusations ought to have their neames released to the public as violent sexual offenders

I have mixed feelings on this. Blinding him back feels like justice, but the thought of actually doing it doesn't sit well. Killing him like Pirate Jo suggested makes as much sense to me. Better than using acid would be using his eyes in someone else who needs them, though I don't know if we can do that yet. It would be poetic justice if we could and he was a tissue match to the blinded woman.

One problem with removing body parts and executing people is that for a non-zero percentage of the time, you're punishing an innocent person. Given problems of identity theft and so on, who is going to advocate cutting off Amy's hand for a crime she did not commit?

Another problem is that blinding people, like torture (why did no-one advocate torture, I wonder) brutalises the person doing the punishment. People who don't have to do it glibly say they would be first in line for the opportunity, but in actual fact it seems damned hard to deliberately hurt or kill another person in cold blood. Even in war time, when one young man comes up against an equal young man from the opposing army, face to face, it is traumatising to pull a trigger.

Not many executioners can be quite open about their jobs. How would it seem if your child is in school and has to draw a picture of Daddy at work? It has impacts on all aspects of your life.

Criminal justice involves punishment (which helps for deterrence), safety (keeping dangerous people locked up), rehabilitation (people can change) and restoration. The British ethos - and I suspect from this blog, the US as well - focusses heavily on just one aspect: punishment. But punishment does nothing at all for the restoration of the victim. The posts above sound more like a lynch mob than anything else. That's not justice - it's blood lust.

"The posts above sound more like a lynch mob than anything else. That's not justice - it's blood lust."

Well said...

Norman and Bradley13, I second the motion. Vengeance gets a little harder to contemplate when one has to actually consider pulling the trigger, throwing a switch, or pouring drops of acid into someone's eyes. I'm pretty sure I couldn't do it.

I can't begin to comprehend Ameneh Bahrami's anger. I wonder, though, if she were presented the opportunity to blind her assailant herself, would she be able to do it? As Norman suggests, doing so won't restore her sight, it will only destroy his.

Eye for an eye justice leaves everyone blind - literally in this case.

OTOH, It is at least justice for the woman who was attacked. That seems to be a rare occurrence in that part of the world.

There is a part of me that thinks this is a just and fitting thing, but it's the barbaric part. That part of the world doesn't need more barbarism even if it is fair or just.

Amy says:

"Rape for false rape accusation isn't an eye for an eye. Time in prison would be, because that's how the accused would have been victimized. Don't be so emotional that you lose grasp of logic. Doesn't serve your cause."

An innocent man convicted of rape and sentenced to prison will quite likely be raped in prison ... and raped, and raped, and raped. (You remember The Shawshank Redemption, right? I also assume you are aware of the actual, horrifying, prison-rape statistics.) So, I cannot accept the assertion that my emotion has overcome my reason, or that I have failed to make an apt "eye for an eye" comparison between being raped and being falsely accused and convicted of rape. To deny that this is an apt comparison, then one must assume that a female false-rape accuser is as likely as the falsely-accused man to be the victim of repeated rape while incarcerated. That is (fortunately for the relatively few female inmates) not a valid assumption. (Of course, if it were a valid assumption, then a single rape as punishment for false accusation would actually be much less harsh, now, wouldn't it?)

As for you, ahw: "Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding." -- Bible, 'Proverbs' 17:28.
Maybe you should take a big spoonful of your own so liberally-dispensed medicine, eh?

While there is a probability for rape in prison...and a very significant one to put it in the lightest possible way, especially for convicted sex offenders...the use of rape to punish the false accusation of rape is just to..."Ironic" for our justice system to swallow.

I DO like the idea of putting said false accusers on a sex offender registry though, that is an excellent one. There are a lot smaller crimes that land people on those lists for life or nearly so.

I'd agree wholeheartedly with Miss Alkon with loooooooong prison terms for false allegations.

My one problem with it...and gods how I hate that this is a problem...is that a goodly number of times the only reason the falsity is uncovered is that the accuser feels guilty and retracts their statements. If they have the probability of a long prison term, how many retractions will we have?

Like it or not, minimalist criminal penalties are the only feasible option.

HOWEVER, robus CIVIL penalties are a fine option.

For example: All public sources which made or published accusatory statements should be required to use a minimum of the exact same amount of airtime or space to publicize the exonneration of the accused.

Nonjudicial punishment/ostracism should be compensated with suitable fees, i.e. the expulsion of the Duke University lacrosse players by the university should be compensated by a return of all student fees, full scholarship to university of choice for the falsely accused, public apology and identical to previous suggestion, identical coverage exonnerating the accused. And that is before any justifiable civil suit by the accused.

False accusations are destructive, and those who make false accustions are given a free pass, I won't bother going into the question as to why it is that the members of the fairer sex which make those accusations, feel it is acceptable. Nor will I make argument as to why feminists, who should be be outraged at false allegations due to the detrimental harm it can do against real cases...stay silent.

I will say though, that I could NEVER be an unbiased juror on a rape case. In my 9 years of service I have seen NINE cases of accusations of rape against male soldiers which were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been false. Not one of the females in question stepped forward of their own accord.

Makes me wonder how many are falsely imprisoned. I could not vote guilty on a he said she said he did she did, having seen that sort of crap over the last 9 years.

Whether "I" should be more outraged at that, or feminists, I do not know.

Don't ask what the penalties were for the accusers, it will just make you all ill.

I should say "Stepped forward TO RECANT of their own accord"

"higher moral authority"

What would that be, exactly? Since it seems most here want god out of government, then the higher moral authority you're turning to is some human's opinions. Pretty shaky ground for moral authority.

"I wonder, though, if she were presented the opportunity to blind her assailant herself, would she be able to do it?"

I bet she could.

"That is (fortunately for the relatively few female inmates) not a valid assumption."

You got stats to back that? Guard rape seems to be quite common when reported by former female inmates. I'm sure they don't have the same risk of being raped by fellow inmates as men do. Not that I feel bad for the men, esp the sex offenders. A little jail justice is just poetic there.

Is it me or do I smell hypocrisy?!

For all you AMY readers who have read her many articles/posts against Islam and her fears of encroaching cultural conflicts between west and Middle East - why would you support this action of "eye for an eye". "Eye for an Eye" mentality is on course with Sharia law and backwards Islam/Desert tribe thinking.

We in the west should want to follow the concepts of Justice and a Fair Go.

Before people start jumping on Me as a lily livered, pinko liberal. I support capital punishment. I was even following my emotions when I thought about what should be done to the arsonists in Australia that caused those deadly bushfire. I thought the bullet to the back of the brain was a good idea. But once I let my emotions calm down I thought what should be done. Until I know the details MURDER should not be on the table yet.

Capital punishment in my view should not be used for revenge - it should be used to remove the immorally incourgable and those who proven to be so detrimental to society that removing them permanently from this world is the only option.
The child molester who offends and re-offends and re-re-offends, the mass murdered who thinks murder is a solution for his drug business problems, the soldier who was taught and shown loyalty to his fellow brethren then betrays his loyalty to his country and brothers and causes them great harm and even death.

But to blind this selfish Iranian man because we want revenge is wrong. Toss him in prison for years. Drug and analyze him for years to find out wtf is wrong with him? Or even fine him for the rest of his life but to blind him - NOT unless we want that next stop to be "Ya" I think stoning a married man or woman is a darn good idea!

John - apparently, people have taken my post for face value. I posted an update above late this afternoon to clarify:

UPDATE: Just so people understand, I don't seriously think we should blind people as a form of justice. (For example, who would do the blinding?) It was my gut reaction to barbarism.

It's such an uncivilized thing to suggest, I figured people would get where I was coming from.

If anyone wants to search my blog, you'll see that I'm not for capital punishment -- let alone blinding people with acid. As you note, I'm somebody who is wholly against the barbarism of Sharia law. Also, I don't think you fight barbarism with barbarism.

I apologize to you then Amy. I will admit I did not see the addition till I had finished writing piece.

Got to be careful with Sarcasm as some people seem to be blind to it. I wonder if it is genetic? Hmm

Haven't read the comments yet, but props to Amy for the update. People should be permitted to blow off steam, especially in distant rhetorical realms like this one.

Eye for an eye was an improvement of the justice theretofore. It demanded proportionate response. You couldn't kill a guy for stealing your lunch.

But our understanding of justice has improved a lot in the centuries since Hammurabi, and we shouldn't pretend it hasn't. Our modern understanding of these things is what Bush was talking about a few years ago: These treasures belong to the species, they're not little trinkets to toss at the cultures we like like tips to busboy.

And we certainly can't condemn other cultures to primitive conduct just because it would be emotionally gratifying for us, and a measure of progress for them.

The mantra of the century: "Modernity can take no prisoners...."

It's also worth mentioning that juries are often reluctant to convict when the penalty is seen as excessive, so mandatory harsh punishments can be counter productive. I don't know whether Islam uses juries or not. They may have a tribunal of clerics or something, which would be in keeping with harsh punishments.

None of us are REALLY arguing for that here. Over there, I think it probably is an improvement. And it does momentarily satisfy something in our inner soul, to imagine the perp getting his comeupance.

All that said, go her, and I still think she could do it herself no problem. Can you imagine losing your sight for life? I'd be passed pissed.

"And it does momentarily satisfy something in our inner soul, to imagine the perp getting his comeupance."

Go back and read Crid's comment at 11:37.