Woman blinded by acid wants same fate for attacker
 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...ml#cnnSTCVideo

By Reza Sayah
CNN

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Ameneh Bahrami is certain that one day she'll meet someone, fall in love and get married. But when her wedding day comes, her husband won't see her eyes, and she won't see her husband. Bahrami is blind, the victim of an acid attack by a spurned suitor.

Read the rest...http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...tml#cnnSTCText

I saw that... That was EFFed up what happened. And the her choice of what she wants done to him is like WOW! :eek:

Eye for an Eye....

...makes the whole world blind.

Ummm...

Anyway, if they're going to take his eyes, they should just remove them under general anesthesia rather than putting acid into them.

Seems fair to me, he more than deserves it. I cannot imagine going through life blind.:(

At any rate this is pretty interesting news coming from Iran. What makes human rights people think they're actually going to make a difference in Iran's court proceedings?

I read about this story months ago...it's been going on for a while, so I'm surprised people are just hearing about this. Acid attacks and honor killings are terrible, and though I don't generally think an "eye for an eye" policy is great, I do wonder if in this case it would act as a deterrant to the many men who think it's OK to do these things to the "inferior" women in their society.

I agree. And not doing this is what makes the U.S. justice system so fked up. It seems to me that our justice system is geared to protect the criminal rather than the victim.

You're right.

When I found out that criminals could sue people for getting injured in their homes while committing crimes, I was completely outdone. I think for the most part our justice system could use some work.

As for putting his eyes out, I see no reason for them to be humane about it. They should do the same thing to him that he did to her.

I feel so bad for this poor woman.

You're right - until the "criminal" is, y'know, convicted.

Seriously - people have rights, no matter what they've done. This is not a bad thing. I challenge you to find a better system than ours, anywhere - from Britain to Jordan to Narnia, I'm almost 100% sure you can't find one.

Absolutely - and while we're at it we should get rid of that pesky "innocent until proven guilty" stuff too.

I'm not sure if I heard the video correctly, but didn't they go ahead and agree with her and say he's going to pay in the same manner?

Yeah, I've heard of this before. A friend of mine is a law student, and she and I got into a debate about other countries legal systems. I'm no law student, but she was saying the same thing you are about other countries. My argument is how is our legal system any better when clearly you have to have money in order to get off, when you've done the crime? Like OJs first crime with his wife, we all know he killed her. To think differently shows complete stupidity. If that were me or anyone else on this board, that trial would have been over in two minutes and we would still be in prison. How is that justice? In other countries can the criminal actually sue? Like deepimpact said. That's stupid. Rights? Why? So Ted Bundy should have rights after he killed all of those women. Just lock em' up and throw away the key. So what makes our justice system any better than theirs?
Yeah, I agree. We also need to get rid of the pleading insanity rule too. It's dumb. Charles Manson is a good example of that. He lucked up and escaped the death penalty too. And that reminds me, death row is unecessary too. Get rid of it. If you know they've done the crime, kill em' right away. What's the point of a death row? Doesn't make sense to me. Sorry guys, our justice system sucks and frankly I think it's just as bad as other countries. Here it's all about money. How is that any better? It's still an unfair system that can be made fair.

Zeph -- are you unhappy with the law or just the results?

Good question. I've never thought about it that way. I would have to say both. When I speak of both, OJ's case would be an example of the results, death row would be an example of the law. There are other examples, those are just two.