What is justice?

[Little Raven]

4 years ago, Ameneh Bahrami was a beautiful young woman living in Tehran. Then, she had the misfortune of attracting the attention of Majid Movahedi, an electronics student with a monstrous inability to accept rejection. For the next two years, he doggedly pursued her as she spurned advance after advance. Then he snapped, and one afternoon in 2005, while she was waiting for a bus, he threw a container of acid all over her face, disfiguring and blinding her. A few weeks later, he turned himself in and confessed. He has been in jail ever since.

Victims of this sort of thing in Iran usually collect 'blood money' from the defendant, who also gets a hefty jail sentence. But Ameneh doesn't want that. She wants an eye for an eye...literally. She wants Majid to feel the same pain she did. She wants acid throw in his face. After some delay, the government agreed, sentencing Majid to having his eyes put out with acid drops. Last week, Majid's last appeal was denied. The sentence could be carried out at any time.

Many human rights groups claim that this is wrong. That no matter what Majid's actions were, no government can morally mutilate a person. Other people feel that this is the best way to put an end to acid attacks on women in Iran. Personally, I'm conflicted. On the one hang, Majid is obviously a waste of a human being and deserves everything that's coming to him. On the other hand, I admit to being squeamish about any government doing this sort of thing. My gut says that giving the victim a say in what happens to the perpetrator is just, while my exposure to the US legal system says it's inappropriate.

What do you think?

 

[Oruc]

That is justice

 

[Shekwan]

It's justice, but not the type a government should be able to dole out. Its hypocritical isn't it?

 

[Little Raven]

Its hypocritical isn't it?

An eye for an eye is hypocritical? How?

 

[Mad Man]

I think thread like this was made a while back.

 

[Shekwan]

Well the government has decided that acid disfigurement is unlawful and immoral, yet uses the same technique to punish people.

 

[Little Raven]

Err...by that reasoning, ANY punishment is immoral. I mean, if I lock you in my basement for 2 years, I'm going to be prosecuted...but the government locks people up all the time.

The difference, of course, is whether or not a person is guilty. Which in this instance he pretty clearly is.

 

[Little Raven]

However, Mad Man appears to be right. Teach me to do a forum search before opening a new topic. Apologies.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yeah, criminal justice systems depend on the idea that the government can do things, morally, that individuals can't do to each other. It's why they can levy fines against people who steal, without being hypocrites. It's why they can lock up kidnappers, without being hypocrites. The Iranian government wouldn't be hypcrites to carry out this sentence, whether it is just or unjust.

(It's also, in my view, why they can execute people without being hypocrites. That has no bearing on whether they should, of course.)

 

[illram]

I don't view the government's role in criminal justice as representing the victim or seeking vengeance for them.

There is justice in the legal sense and there is justice in the moral sense. In the legal sense, vengeance or eye for an eye has no place in my opinion.

 

[Shekwan]

Err...by that reasoning, ANY punishment is immoral. I mean, if I lock you in my basement for 2 years, I'm going to be prosecuted...but the government locks people up all the time.

The difference, of course, is whether or not a person is guilty. Which in this instance he pretty clearly is.

Well obviously there has to be an exception made for imprisonment and compensation, but I find stuff like corporal punishment and the death sentence are immoral because of that reasoning.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Where do you draw the line, then?

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Well... the first thing we ought to understand is that Justice can be collective and then it can be individualized.. The problem is the latter form can often be just vengence or anger under the name of justice and it might not actually be justice is the collective sense. I could say me telling a person because they insulted my honor is just, but society itself wouldn't agree with me.

Criminal justice can, does, and should, incorporate vengance and "reasonable" justice expectations. Child Molestation, in the States, is a good example of this. It doesn't whether the crime is "objectively adequate." Most people just want to see the guy burn and are satisfied that the justice system carries it out.

Seriously... I think Justice depends on the justice system we're talking about, and on the culture we're dealing with. The American model, for example, incorporates Bethan concepts to determine what amount of punishment is adequate to punish the criminal enough that he won't do it again (this is very prevalent in some states, like CA); but it also allows mob justice for crimes that society as a whole will not tolerate. It is not perfect, but it's a balance between individual demands for justice and realistic pragmatism. Of course, sometimes it creates ******ed results; like a guy getting released on parole for accidental discharge of a pistol killing a 14 year old Black girl in Los Angelos, very minor punishments for cirmes people feel ought to have been more, and then a child molester getting the book thrown at him. It applying equally to everybody is something I don't need to bother mentioning, and is often the theme that's invoked by people when discussing the subject. Iranian law, I don't think, incorporates all those themes.

 

[Little Raven]

Having read the responses in the original thread, I think I'm leaning towards supporting the Iranian government in this instance.

Why? Deterrence. Vengeance may be a poor argument for this sort of justice, but deterrence is an excellent one. There currently exists a culture in many parts of the Middle East that supports treating women as second-class citizens. If this mindset it to be broken, then governments need to make it abundantly clear that this sort of thing will not be tolerated. Frankly, it's hard to imagine a better statement to that effect than blinding Majid Movahedi and then throwing him out on the street. Sure, it won't help Ameneh, but it's what she wants and nothing can give her back all that she lost. And it just might make the next guy think twice before trying the whole "let's throw acid in the face of the woman who shunned me" act.

 

[GoodGame]

This form of justice would fit under 'cruel and unusual' punishment in the USA, methinks, but even justice is relative to the society. I'd be curious to what type of laws the Iranian gov't really has. Is it "an eye for an eye....unless blood money will do?". And who sets the amount of money given in blood money? A very vagues sense of penalities in a legal system doesn't much make for a model of justice, to my mind.

 

[Lillefix]

I have to smile when I see that Iran does this, because the guy really deserves it. But I'm happy it's just the nonwesternern barbarians who do this sort of thing and not us. I wouldn't approve of it being done in Europe.

And yes I actually enjoy it up here in my ivory tower. Don't you?

 

[Shekwan]

Where do you draw the line, then?

At imprisonment. If the person has shown an inability to live in society then he should be imprisoned. But he still deserves to be respected as a human, I would consider that right universal - inflicting pain and killing people violates that.

 

[Mise]

Why? Deterrence.

He turned himself in -- the only thing this will deter is other people from fessing up. He should be treated with greater leniency than someone who didn't plead guilt, at the very least.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

That's cruel and unusual punishment. I'm sure anyone would agree with castrating rapists, but that kind of punishment doesn't belong in a proper system of laws. I've been convinced that retributive justice doesn't really do much for society.

 

[Little Raven]

He turned himself in -- the only thing this will deter is other people from fessing up. He should be treated with greater leniency than someone who didn't plead guilt, at the very least.

Now this is a valid point. However, shouldn't Ameneh's views count for something, here? I mean, she's the one who's going to have to live with the results of the crime for the rest of her life. Shouldn't she get a say in the punishment?