Punishment
January 29, 2009
One of my favorite blogs, Everday Sociology, has a recent post about eye-for-an-eye punishment, and society’s acceptance or non-acceptance of punishments and methods of deterrence. Read the whole thing here.
The example in the article is about an Iranian woman who was blinded and severely scarred after a man intentionally poured sulfuric acid on her. She requested that he be sentenced to the same punishment, and the courts agreed. He’s been sentenced for five drops of sulfuric acid in the eyes (I wonder if the more strategic execution of the punishment will spare him much of the scarring that she’s had to endure?).
Like author Bradley Wright points out, in a case like this it’s easy to side with the woman and with this line of reasoning, but questions still remain regarding the roles and rights of the courts and government and laws, those of individual citizens, and the rights of criminals who, after all, are also fellow citizens even if sometimes the resemblance is hard to find.
I was searching my brain while I was reading the article and for a good deal afterward, trying to figure out where I stood on this, and I can’t decide. I am opposed to the death penalty. Not because I don’t believe that certain criminals deserve to die, because there are plenty that I feel deserve to die, and some I feel deserve to die a terrible and painful death. But I don’t feel that our lawmakers and judges and court systems have the right to make and carry out such a decision.
This eye-for-an-eye type of punishment, especially in these kinds of circumstances, does seem appealing to me. Like my boyfriend said, they’re not taking a life. Not completely, anyway. And if I saw my kid whack the dog upside the head, you’d probably see me whack him upside the head to remind him what it feels like. But do men who rape women deserve to be sodomized (aside from what they might get in prison anyway)? Does a woman who castrates her husband deserve to have her genitals mutilated? Another part of me still feels that regardless of the crime committed, it’s our job in judging them to show the restraint and rational mercy that the criminal failed to show (take note: you don’t need to be religious or have Jesus in your heart to believe that sort of thing). How can I argue that our legal system can allow this type of punishment but not the death penalty? (Some might argue that being burnt all over your body or being castrated is worse than simple death.) And if someone who supported this punishment also supported the death penalty, would they support the execution being in the same manner as the crime? Like hacking someone to death with an axe?
On the other hand, where would my logic end? While I do feel that some criminals receive unreasonably harsh sentences for things like drug possession and theft, I’ve never found myself arguing that our courts don’t have the right to lock people up in jails and prisons.
Anyway, I have yet to come to any conclusions or figure out where I stand on this issue. Thoughts?
UPDATE 2/21/09: I wrote this post a while ago but since CNN and other main news sites put the story back on top I’ve been getting a lot more hits (Thanks! And thanks for the comments!). So I’ve decided to put up a poll. Vote!
Entry Filed under: beliefs, politics, reality, sociology. Tags: beliefs, sociology, Everyday Sociology, Everyday Sociology Blog, Bradley Wright, death penalty, capital punishment, Iran, eye for an eye, legal system, punishment, sulfuric acid, Ameneh Bahrami, Majid Movahedi, criminals, crime, prison, judgment, mercy, deterrence, general deterrence.
8 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1. Ashley Eberbach | January 30, 2009 at 7:13 AM
I really like this post. I am not sure how I feel either. The death penalty is an odd topic. But as far as the Iranian woman’s case…In Yah Face crazy dude who started it
2. rocketqueen | February 5, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Thank you for providing such an interesting topic to think about. I have given this a lot of thought and have tried to decide where I stand on the issue. After much internal banter, I’ve decided that I am against this punishment.
I agree with your statement, “it’s our job in judging them to show the restraint and rational mercy that the criminal failed to show.” To not do so would be stooping to their level and is not a measure of advanced civilization. Eye for an eye revenge is on the low level of urban gangs and unorganized mobsters.
The other reason that I disagree with this form of punishment is because I don’t think it would ultimately work. It’s too vague and indefinate. For example, what if someone killed your child? Would it be enough punishment for that person to die a similar death as your child? For me it wouldn’t. My child would, under this rationalle, be vindicated. But I would not. So, under this rationalle, I should be allowed to kill the murderer’s child. This, of course, is not reasonable.
3. don | February 8, 2009 at 7:01 PM
While the raging revengeful beast in me in all in favor of eye-for-an-eye punishments, I think that legally allowing such punishments will inevitably get out of hand. I think that putting the acid-flinger in prison for life with no parole is enough.
I’m also one of the few “liberals” I know who is 100% in favor of the death penalty in principle, and I can understand why this stand may seem completely at odds with the position I take in the first paragraph. My death penalty support is with the stipulation that it should only be applied in cases of overwhelming physical and/or photographic/visual evidence, and I’m also in favor of all death penalty sentences being put on hold pending review of the trials and evidence. It’s a fact that death penalty convictions have been found to have been made based on faulty evidence and/or prosecutorial or law enforcement mistakes. However, when it comes to murderers like John Wayne Gacy, under whose home the bodies of some of his young victims were found, I think it’s a gross affront to society at large and to the victims in particular to allow the criminal to live at taxpayer expense for the rest of his life.
4. Pat | February 19, 2009 at 3:25 PM
My heart goes out to Ameneh and her family for going through such an ordeal.
I agree with the punishment hat she is asking the guilty to take. It’s not an eye for an eye, it’s all about accountability. It’s about letting others know what consequences their actions will have. I admire her for not taking the money, even as she is going through financial hardship. She is blinded for the rest of her life, she will probably never marry, have any kids or family of her own, work anywhere, or be able to have a half normal life.
So, the guy gets 5, 10, 15 years in prison, and he gets out. He will have the rest of his life to live happily ever after, while Ameneh is asking someone to hold her hand to cross the street.
What’s the message that we are trying to give to others?
5. OpusS | February 19, 2009 at 5:14 PM
The punishment is just. Same principle as murderer gets death penalty. What is humanity? Why is killing of another human being is allowed in wars? She has shown her compassion; she is not even asking for the man to be disfigured like she is. More of this type of enforcement is necessary, especially in the Middle East, where such brutal attacks on women are common recurrences.
6. Blink | February 20, 2009 at 5:51 AM
Everything in a decision is relative, so in this case, the eye for an eye punishment is relative to what? This is relative to a culture whereby for whatever reason it has become a not so uncommon occurance for a girl or woman to be disfigured by acid, at the mercy of an unsatisfied male. This is the deliberate premeditated behavior of an adolescent child with access to dangerous devices, yet it is by an adult male who seemingly believes it is within his rights, as the spurned unhappy male, to do as he wishes with the woman at the center of his longing. Thus, it appears to be rooted in an idealogy that does not value women as people with rights, but as objects without self determination. Under this social condition, a woman would be in the position to not only consider her own vicitimization, but also to consider the entire idealogy that woman are objects, and objects can be purchased. Thus, it is said that most of these cases are resolved with “blood money” rather than punishment; this would only be possible in a culture that did not recognize a woman as more than a thing one buys. In a tantrum an adolescent might smash something of value at home, and get in trouble for it, be scolded, and be forced to work and pay for the damage. Yet in this case, she is a woman, a human being, a person, she goes through pain, she has life consequences, her career, her education, her income, her marriage, all will be affected by this action, and she has feelings of emotions, depression, sadness, anger, anguish, and she has surgeries, all to repair the damage. All of this cannot be purchased and replaced. Her life has been irreperably alterated. Relative to such a social ideology, that a woman’s pain can be purchased, it is admirable that she is not accepting blood money, ie a purchase price, and she is demanding punishment. It is also apparent that simple imprisonment will not be enough to gain the kind of publicity that social change will require. She wants to do this as a deterent, to protect future women from future attacks. In other words, she feels it is a social obligation to change day to day business in Iran, the treatment of woman as objects, and the countless crimes that go unpunished and the common perception that a hideous cruel crime upon a woman can end in a mere financial exchange. She is not only ready to say that she is not to be objectified and treated as though she is purchaseable, but she is saying it doesn’t end there, she is strong enough inside emotionally, intellectually, to make a punishment sting, to make it stand out and rise to the top of world news, so that no male of her culture will ever again believe that women have no options. She is a leader, not a follower, she is making a path for others, she is a part of a movement for women to be seen as much more complex complete humans who should not only be respected as a human, but should also be respected as a bad enemy to make, one who can make painful but necessary decisions to halt these crimes. Many others would not be able to make this decision, but she is not only able to do it, she has the forsight to see it is for her culture, that change must take place, and the blinding of this man, while fair to him, might not be fair to society, except in this case the culture of the society she is in needs this type of shock therapy to pull it out of its delusions about womens value in society. I suspect it is a very hard decision for her, and yet it is probably going to be one that will make men in the culture think seriously about assuming women’s pain can be purchased. More women will follow her lead, and will refuse the sale of their pain, they will refuse victimization and will insist upon justice through maximum allowable penalties. Leaders make painful difficult decisions and not everyone will be happy with it. The perpetrator, gthe culture, the men of society, and even women of the culture will critic the severe punishment, the blinding of this man, regardless of how just the punishment is, and that resistence is because such a punishment represents change, and change is painful for the entire society initially. But it is time for change there and in much of the Islamic world, where women are sometimes treated as less valuable than animals. This mentality of women, the idea that women are only valued as livestock, that their misfortunes can be purchased, this must stop. They have to raise themselves to a level of human rights that is just. It takes a brave person to change a culture. Change happens when the natural leaders within a society, the everyday person, makes a highly public and profoundly moving decision which is based in moral and ethical grounds but does not match the existing cultural norm or beliefs. This is a moving decision, very courageous, very culturally shifting in the emphasis from money to justice, from money to deterrence, from money for an individual to protection of the many who have already or might in the future suffer the same, from victim to empowered, from weakness to strength, from vulnerable to battle tested, from passive to assertive, from docile and trained, to untrained and dangerous under the right circumstances. Her actions will potentially reverberate throughout the Islamic world, that women are catching on to the idea that they don’t have to live this way forever, and the days of dominating them with merciless cruelty and unconscionable attacks and disfigurement, those days are ending.
There is no need to blink on this one, your path is clear and your vision is focused and admirable. You have proven that one does not only see with their eyes. Yet know in the end, the decision is yours and only yours.
Sincerely,
BlinkityBlinkThink
7. laperru | March 6, 2009 at 6:46 PM
I think the punishment is very fair.
That guy ruined that womans life, and it wasnt by accident. He planned it.
So, dont do to other what you dont like others do to you.
8. Recent creepy/amusing/intriguing searches « Seriously? | April 23, 2009 at 9:11 AM
[...] write about, so far among my most visited posts are ones that deal with popularity and mean girls, punishment, and fashion. (Every day there are several if not dozens of searches for “mean girls” [...]