Iranian to be blinded with acid for doing same to woman

[Henny]

Iran is a shiite state, not a sunni one. Sharia law is a sunni thing.

The laws practiced in Iran are a Shiite interpretation of Shia Islamic law.

Untrue. Sharia Law is a Muslim thing. There are five schools of thought in Islam, Shia is one of them. Each school has a different scholarly interpretation of Sharia Law, but the foundation is based on Qur'an and Hadith.

The interpretations of Iran and Saudi Arabi are the most extreme, and include all "Hadd" offenses; these are a set of specific crimes that have specific penalties (adultery, theft, drinking, rape, murder). Then, to top it off, they add the "eye for an eye" interpretation which is how this woman won her case.

[Plane]

<<The story goes that when asked about the harshness of his punishments, Draco said the death penalty was appropriate for stealing even so much as a cabbage. If there had been a worse penalty than death, Draco would gladly have applied it to greater crimes.>>

Somehow I get the feeling that stealing a cabbage is on a whole different level of criminality than throwing acid into a girl's face, blinding and disfiguring her.  But I guess for a die-hard cabbage lover . . .

   The value of "an eye for an eye" is that no more than an eye should be taken for an eye, this is not the only way to think of justice.

   Draco was putting the need of his society for good citicens far above the need of citicens for good society, rulebreakers getting gone one way or another smooths the society. What Draco was fighting was a code of vendetta in which most familys were takeing their own justice and didn't have to settle for any halfway measures.

[Xavier_Onassis]

"An eye for an eye" is another example of Biblical crap that continues to infect and fester in our times.

The Bible is chock full of this petty and mean inhumanity. The Koran is no better, just harder to get through.

Iranians do upon occasion, reinterpret the penalties of Sharia law. Saudis don't. I don't think that in Iran thieves have their hands amputated, for example.

[Henny]

Iranians do upon occasion, reinterpret the penalties of Sharia law. Saudis don't. I don't think that in Iran thieves have their hands amputated, for example.

I'm not sure on this point. But I would guess that with 5 official interpretations, there are probably a lot of unofficial interpretations going on behind the scenes as well.

[Michael Tee]

<<"An eye for an eye" is another example of Biblical crap that continues to infect and fester in our times.

<<The Bible is chock full of this petty and mean inhumanity. The Koran is no better, just harder to get through.>>

It's a little more nuanced than that.  "An eye for an eye" might be petty and mean if it's applied literally to cases of accidental injury or bar brawls, but there's nothing "petty" about the injury the girl sustained, and the manner in which it was inflicted was barbaric and outrageous.  It demeans the girl's injury, her dignity and her honour when any retaliation, no matter how harsh, is called "petty and mean."  This was a horrific crime and it deserves an equally horrific response.  15 years in the Iranian equivalent of the Macon County Jail wouldn't begin to do justice.  In Western society, the only appropriate penalty would be death.  In Iranian society, hopefully, it will be what the judges decreed.

[Lanya]

I'm also glad to see that crime against women is being taken seriously.

This man wanted her to be unacceptable to anyone but him.  Now, he will be unacceptable in marriage to anyone. I think that part is very just.

[Plane]

"An eye for an eye" is another example of Biblical crap that continues to infect and fester in our times.

The Bible is chock full of this petty and mean inhumanity. The Koran is no better, just harder to get through.

Iranians do upon occasion, reinterpret the penalties of Sharia law. Saudis don't. I don't think that in Iran thieves have their hands amputated, for example.

I disagree very much.

That punishments should fit the crimes and be no worse than the crimes seems like a good principal .
That this guy isn't guillty isn't even being argued , that his intent was to cause exactly the harm he has caused isn't being argued either .

So with his malice and his action being what they were , and his success at causeing harm being what it is , how is Justice served by anything less ?

In the US we are forbidden to maim even a maimer, so we have to settle for locking someone up for a period of time equivelent to the suffering of the victim. This is better in some respects, but I can imagine this woman and her family being happy in this case that US law isn't being used.