Iranian Court Orders Acid Dropped in the Eyes of Defendant

250px-flag_of_iransvgIranian justice reached a new low this week with a Sharia court ordering that acid be dropped in the eyes of a man who blinded a woman for spurning his marriage proposals. The man only identified as Majid will be blinded under a system of “qisas” or fair retribution in the medieval system.

One of the core requirements of a true system of law is that the state must remain better than the felons that it punishes. These qisas sentences reduce the law to little more than mob justice carrying out the very same acts of immorality as the culprit. This is why the Framers wisely prohibited cruel and unusual punishment — a recognition that law must be consistent, uniform, and regular to maintain the rule of law.

Such novel punishments obviously appeal to people around the world, not just Iranians. It is visceral and satisfying when dealing with horrible people like this defendant. Previously, Iranian Sharia judges ordered a child molester to be tied into a burlap bag and thrown down a cliff with sharp rocks.

For the full story, click here and here and here.

17 thoughts on “Iranian Court Orders Acid Dropped in the Eyes of Defendant”

  1. Tripolo,

    First of all, I find it somber that you clearly have a very loose grasp of your native language, underscoring the connection between ignorance and barbarism. Unfortunately you belong to a massive demographic.

    But no matter how many enlightened, educated, and compassionate arguments you receive from the likes of Mike, you obviously feel that the best way for a society to react to animalistic behavior is with more animalistic behavior, principles and statistics be damned. People like you just don’t get that it beings us all down together. It teaches our children that brutality can be enticed and justified by brutality. The fundamental equation is completely lost on people like you. You just don’t, and likely never will, see the big picture. Even if there was a method of determining the truly innocent from the truly guilty with 100% accuracy, it is completely counter-productive for a society to collectively submit to brutal tactics, no matter how brutal the crime.

    And furthermore, your moronic bias is demonstrated by your equally moronic assumptions that people with compassionate principles are automatically left-wing lunatics who hug trees and have irrational germ phobias. While I’m sure it makes the world an easier place for your limited mental capacity to process, I can assure you it’s far less black and white than that. I hope one day you open your mind and heart a little bit more.


  2. Tripolo,
    you make my point, as you miss it. My point is the trouble with harsh punishment(acid, death penalty, etc.)is that it can’t be even partially undone when mistakes in who’s guilty are made. I’d hate to be executed for a crime I didn’t commit and I expect you would be too. If after we’re wrongfully gone, an apology to our loved ones just won’t make their lives better, nor would tort damages on an emotional level.

    As for our legal system being better than 100 years ago, with all its’ current imperfections I suspect it is. We used to lynch Afro-Americans, Latino’s, Asians, Native Americans and Jews with impunity. Some for offenses like looking at a white woman. People weren’t allowed to vote. Poor people were railroaded by lack of legal counsel. Police regularly beat up people until they confessed, whether they were guilty or not.

    Now as far as the proliferation of crime goes we are distinctly better off than we were 100 years ago. Less murder, less assault, a little less theft and people able to walk most streets without fear. My Grandfather’s and Father’s stories of what living in NYC was like in the early 1900’s, for poor people, would equal any tales of Dodge City, Deadwood and the Earps. The law, while not perfect, has substantially improved in the last 100 years and the historical record shows it. I’d like it to improve further for the sake of my children, grandchildren and those of their generations.

  3. Y’know Mike, you say that you would leave the disposition of the guilty up to the justice system. The justice system use to do the things I am speaking of. And if you ask me, the justice system has not gotten any better, with their new ways of treating people. If things aren’t getting any better, in my opinion, then why would you leave the disposition of the guilty in the hands that can’t figure it out themselves. Your not better off today than you would have been 100 or more years ago.

    Basically, there is no perfect way to punish. Some thing some ways are inhumane. Some think some ways are to light of punishment. It’s not like I’m gonna bust up tomorrow and run for some election where I can implement my intolerable ways of punishment. I just have my opinions. I don’t believe it’s stooping down to the same level to punish harshly. I don’t believe it’s animalistic or inhumane to punish harshly. In my opinion, if you want to act like an animal then you should be treated like an animal.Take em or leave em.

  4. Tripolo,
    you get no apology from me because I didn’t misinterpret where you were coming from. This was only confirmed by your further debate with Mespo. Your revenged based idea of law is an extremely dumb one and I’ll tell you why. It is based on the assumption that legal systems always get the right result and so punishment that can’t be undone is appropriate. The truth is that an unpalatably high percentage of criminal cases convict the innocent. If they’re blinded or executed those wrongly prosecuted can never get relief.
    If you are of the belief that even one innocent person being wrongly executed or maimed is acceptable, in the interest of deterrence, than to my mind you lack any basic sense of morality.

    Another reason I strongly disagree with you is that there is proof that harsh deterrence plays no role in preventing crime. One of the great historical examples is that public hangings for thievery were rife with pickpockets. This is also true today in the statistics of death penalty vs. non-death penalty states.

    Harsh deterrence only is justified if you believe in revenge-based justice. If that is what you believe, I again abhor your sense of morality, because you obviously are more into macho posturing than real justice. As for me there is also a sense of macho within me and in my heart of hearts I could possibly seek personal and violent retribution if someone I loved were hurt, without a qualm. However, recent and past history has revealed far too many instances where this type of retribution is taken, only to find that the target was innocent. My personal ethics and morality are such that despite the the extent of my grief at harm to someone I love, with the acknowledgment of the violent emotions within me, I would leave the disposition of the guilty up to the justice system. That is what the basis of civilization is all about. I prefer it to your caveman mentality.

  5. triprolo:

    “Your like all the others. That’s why we have babies growing up that can’t take reality. Cause your afraid to let them swing on the monkey bars because your afraid they’ll break an arm. That’s why there is so much sickness because all you freaks want to de-germ your children instead of letting them get sick and build their immune system up.”


    I have long thought the decline of the West was directly caused by denying children the basic rights to play on monkey bars and make mud pies. I suggest another nom de plume for you: non sequitur. While I agree that most everyone has some opinions, I also believe the unlettered ones don’t get to escape rational criticism.

  6. I appreciate that compliment mespo!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don’t see your ways working. If they are we wouldn’t be where we are at today. Your like all the others. That’s why we have babies growing up that can’t take reality. Cause your afraid to let them swing on the monkey bars because your afraid they’ll break an arm. That’s why there is so much sickness because all you freaks want to de-germ your children instead of letting them get sick and build their immune system up. You idea of love is to let people do what please them and God forbid if we become our brother’s keeper. That will do away with the freedom our country has given us. Like I said, everyone’s got there own opinion, yours my friend stinks to high heaven!

    Btw, I love good company. At least I’m the only one showing my face around here!!!!!!

  7. tripolo:

    “But I believe once you act like an animal, you must be treated like one. we need to quit being humanistic to those who want to act otherwise.”


    I suggest we boil them in oil too to prove our complete detachment from animalistic tendencies. With your 12th Century notion of crime and punishment you’d have been a hit at the auto de fe. I suggest you start your own mega-Church. You’d make a fine fundamentalist, or even a Grand Inquisitor. By the way, that “make an example of ’em” approach was the Nazi way too. My you are in fine company. There really is not much else to say to a guy whose knuckles still drag the ground.

  8. I don’t guess I get an apology from Mike. That’s fine. My whole thought is that you make an example out of those that done wrong, then maybe everyone else will chill out. You can already see that the prison ideas don’t work. Their way overcrowded cause all they know is in there and when they get out, they do what they can to get back in.

    I know this for a fact. I got several friends who do it! You got your ideas, I got mine. And mine may be a little more harsh. But I believe once you act like an animal, you must be treated like one. we need to quit being humanistic to those who want to act otherwise.

    I personally am sick of those people (Jill and Mike) who want to treat those who act inhumane like they deserve good things upon them. Let’s give them cable in prison. And educate them so when they get out, they’ll go back to what they know, not what they learned. Go hug a tree while your at it!

  9. Bob,
    I was there for their 1971 concert. The hash was great, but the stadium was surrounded by the Shah’s secret police with AK47’s drawn. A bit of a bummer altogether.

  10. Mike…

    The Written Law does, in Exodus 21:24 demand an “eye for an eye”
    (Exodus 21:24). However, the Oral Law explains that the verse must be understood as requiring monetary compensation: the value of an eye is what must be paid.

    Note that the Written Law does NOT imply “lex talionis” – gouging out the perpetrator’s eye as retaliatory punishment.

    What I was saying was that I was glad to see a man in Iran punished for a crime against a woman. It seems that the woman is always getting punished for outrageous things such as wanting to divorce her husband.

    I’m not thoughtless nor am I bloodhirsty, so please stop with the needless name calling

  11. Sally and Tripolo’s comments show a total insensitivity to what a legal system’s appropriate punishments should be. By acting savagely from a legal perspective, a culture lowers itself to the level of the criminal requiring punishment. Their comments only reveal their own bloodthirstiness and thoughtlessness.

    Don’t give me the “eye for an eye” argument because it would only establish your lack of knowledge of biblical context and Jewish Law. This bastard deserves severe punishment, but one done in a civilized context.

  12. Sally,

    I share your outrage at the incredible cruelty inflicted on this woman. I don’t favor the punishment for reasons which I’ll try to explain.

    First, if we want a less violent society we need to be one. Violent punishment feeds the acceptability of violence in a society. Secondly restorative justice would be much more helpful to the victim. If this man were on a prison work release schedule for at least 10 years he could make income which could be given to the woman to support herself, and if possible, get an education and help in rebuilding her life. After prison, he should still give a large percentage of his income for the rest of his life to the woman he so brutally harmed.

    Fianlly several studies have shown that the best way to stop male violence against women is not to necessarily impose the harshest penalties. It is to make certain that punishment is both certain and swift. So those would be the tactics I would support.


  13. Maybe they ought to try stuff like that here in America. Might keep the convict rate low!!!

Comments are closed.