Cruel and Usual
By Amit Singh | Sunday, February 22nd, 2009 | Policy
In Iran November 2004, Ameneh Bahrami’s life changed forever when her aggressive marriage suitor Majid Mohavedi blinded her with sulphuric acid to the face as revenge for her refusal to marry him. Mohavedi confessed 2 weeks later expecting to pay “blood money” for his crime but instead Bahrami remained defiant of him. She has requested to follow Islamic Law and also blind Mohavedi with 5 drops of acid in each eye and late last year an Iranian court agreed with that sentence. Mohavedi’s appeal was rejected this month and his punishment is expected in the coming weeks.
Although I feel no sympathy for Mohavedi and his sentence seems barbarically fair, I wonder if Americans would consider the blinding as cruel and unusual. Is the purpose of a sentence to punish the offender or deter others in the future of the same crime? Likely both.
The Eighth Amendment phrase “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” seems to have been intentionally ambiguous. All punishment is cruel by nature but most of us believe the Eighth Amendment dictates the punishment should fit the crime (i.e. no death penalty for not paying a parking ticket). But what is “unusual”? Outside of lethal injection we do not normally provide sentences that perform physical harm. In the Mohavedi case, the crime was crude and quick so it may be understandable the Iranian govt was willing to agree with Bahrami’s request. But what if Mohavedi had tortured Bahrami in more complex ways (i.e. waterboarding)? Or maimed her friends and family as well. What is the extent of an eye for an eye? As frustrating as individual cases may be, I am still glad Americans do not subscribe to the Hammurabi code.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
I'm left handed but right brained.
Comments
4 Responses to "Cruel and Usual"
Thank you for this post. I find this issue to be interesting and compelling, and worthy of discussion. On the one hand as an American I am guided by the Bill of Rights’ prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments – which I believe this would clearly fall into. Moreover, as a Christian, I am distressed by punishment as revenge.
However, at least for me, I do not believe that this issue can be sufficiently guided by either standard. The reality is that attacks upon women in the Muslim world by men with acid, fire or other methods with the intent of permanently maiming female victims has become distrubingly common. Without getting into a discussion of the cultural underpinnings that may underlay such attacks, the reality is that they do happen.
It is because of this last point, and Ms. Bahrami’s perspective on the punishment, that I feel compelled to support her choice in this matter. If we can take her words as a personal truth, she is not pursuing this punishment out of revenge or anger – but, rather because she believes that by punishing the attacker in such a manner it will discourage other men who might be similarly inclined. If even one woman is spared the immediate and continuing pain, loss of vision, and disfigurement Ms. Bahrami endured and endures, then perhaps at this moment in time and in that particular place on the globe, this punishment is indeed appropriate.
violence against women is not unique to the Middle East. a childhood friend of mine was burned to death by her boyfriend in Indianapolis almost 2 years ago (http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?S=6520396) and if you review domestic violence statistics they are strongly skewed against women. I’m sure we could reduce these crimes if we threatened to pour acid in the eyes of the perpetrators but is that what we would want here? I know you’re not advocating that but it is hard for me to believe Bahrami has no taste for revenge. and I don’t blame her
After reading the link Amit supplied I find myself questioning the Eighth Ammendment. What a horrible crime.
An excerpt from Wikipedia in re the ammendment says “… prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments.”.
Note the word “federal” in the above … states rights as usual, be damned.
indeed. I definitely had some thoughts of torturing that bastard but our society is better off not having vigilante justice.
but I may have missed your other point, I do not believe the 8th Amendment prevents individual States from having different types of punishment.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.