Pakistani Judge Orders Blinding by Acid

[LeadMagnet]

Article

MULTAN, Pakistan -- A judge has ruled that a Pakistani man convicted of attacking his 17-year-old fiancee with acid be blinded with acid himself, police said Friday.

Mohammed Sajid, 19, poured acid on the face of his fiancee Rabia Bibi on June 24 in Bahawalpur, a city in the eastern Pakistani province of Punjab. His two brothers were also convicted of taking part.

The woman lost both eyes and her face was burned in the attack, which police said followed a minor dispute between the couple.

Judge Afzal Sharif ruled Thursday at a court in Bahawalpur that Sajid and his brothers were guilty of the attack and be jailed for seven years, and that Sajid be blinded by acid, said Rana Riaz, a local police official.

The judge ordered that a doctor perform the punishment publicly at a sports stadium.

"This is an Islamic way of doing justice," the judge wrote in his verdict.

Police said the defendant was likely to appeal his conviction and the sentence.

Violence against women, including acid attacks, are common in Pakistan, particularly in rural and deeply conservative tribal regions.

Article

Gives a new twist to "eye for an eye"

Violence against women, including acid attacks, are common in Pakistan, particularly in rural and deeply conservative tribal regions.

- sheeesss

 

[tnitsuj]

seems fair

 

[kage69]

Man, the things that happen in Pakistan... *shakes head*





Least they didn't order anyone gangbanged this time.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: kage69
Man, the things that happen in Pakistan... *shakes head*





Least they didn't order anyone gangbanged this time.

They should send him to a US prison. Gangbang for sure there...

 

[DealMonkey]

At least he gets to live. Here, we'd probably execute him.

 

[rjain]

Execution for blinding? Maybe in Texas, but that's a different country just like Pakistan is.

 

[kage69]

They should send him to a US prison. Gangbang for sure there...

Difference being, here it's by frustrated inmates, where in Pakistan it can be handed out as a sentence...to minors no less.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
At least he gets to live. Here, we'd probably execute him.

Not bloody likely.

A total of 85 prisoners - 83 men and two women - in 14 U.S. states were executed during 2000

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
At least he gets to live. Here, we'd probably execute him.

Uh huh...

Convincted, maybe 10-15 years.

Paroled out in maybe 2-4 years.

 

[Howard]

Wow! A literal interpretation of "An eye for an eye". And maybe with the temperaments over there, everybody WILL end up blind.

 

[Miramonti]

For some reason I don't have a problem with this punishment, altho performing it at a sports stadium is barbaric.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
seems fair

yup, ill agree with that.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

You see, this is why I call these people SAVAGES. For Christ sakes, they burn their loved ones with acid and bomb their neighbors for worshipping the Invisible Man in the Sky differently. Sheesh!

Jason

 

[boran]

cant entirely agree with the method, but I can understand the ruling of teh court, for one, it's i their law, this kind of an eye for an eye punishment, and second, doing it in a stadium will get the publics attention a bit about how horrid this is, acid in the face is allmost common overthere, a very scary tought.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Yeah, it's pretty gruesome. I understand *why* you could reach this sort of decision, and surely the guy deserves no better. For me, anyway, it serves to remind me why we have the 8th Amendment, which disallows "Cruel and unusual punishment." I used to think it should be repealed when I was younger, because bastards like this don't *deserve* humane punishments, and I always thought that it was based on the misguided idea of criminal's rights.

When I got a bit older and had read a lot more I began to think that Madison, in writing the amendment, was acting on the principle that Frederich Neitzsche would later describe as "He who fights with monsters must look to it that he himself does not *become* a monster. When you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." I've since come to think that the 8th Amendment is actually genius, because it serves as a prophylactic, if you will, against those who administer punishments becoming enraptured by dishing out cruelty, even if it woudl be *just* cruelty. After all, if the guys in charge have license to be as cruel as human nature will allow some men to be....well, let's just say that the history of cruel governments isn't real pretty.

Jason

 

[Moonbeam]

There are two facts to the sentence that warrant consideration. One is that the punishment is brutal and done in public. The other is that where such forms of justice are swift, consistent and sure, the crime rate is almost non existent. There won't be any communal blindings by impulsive boys of their girlfriends where these kids are from for a long long time. Think of it as preemptive war on misogyny.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Yeah, it's pretty gruesome. I understand *why* you could reach this sort of decision, and surely the guy deserves no better. For me, anyway, it serves to remind me why we have the 8th Amendment, which disallows "Cruel and unusual punishment." I used to think it should be repealed when I was younger, because bastards like this don't *deserve* humane punishments, and I always thought that it was based on the misguided idea of criminal's rights.

When I got a bit older and had read a lot more I began to think that Madison, in writing the amendment, was acting on the principle that Frederich Neitzsche would later describe as "He who fights with monsters must look to it that he himself does not *become* a monster. When you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." I've since come to think that the 8th Amendment is actually genius, because it serves as a prophylactic, if you will, against those who administer punishments becoming enraptured by dishing out cruelty, even if it woudl be *just* cruelty. After all, if the guys in charge have license to be as cruel as human nature will allow some men to be....well, let's just say that the history of cruel governments isn't real pretty.

Jason

There is another form of cruelty, Dragon, and that is to live in a society where the fear of becomming a monster has turned everyone into monsters from the fear of being cruel. Like somebody said, two years nd probation for omebody blinding somebody, where the offence continues and continues in the society is also barbaric.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

There's certainly some validity to that perspective, because the results are undeniable. However, I still think it's preferable to *not* engage in cruel and unusual punishments for the same reasons mentioned above.

Jason

 

[Moonbeam]

Even if the blinding of women were to continue?

 

[SuperTool]

Wow, things are really turning SOUR

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You see, this is why I call these people SAVAGES. For Christ sakes, they burn their loved ones with acid and bomb their neighbors for worshipping the Invisible Man in the Sky differently. Sheesh!

Watch it! That's our #1 ally in the War on Terror that you are talking about.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: kage69
Man, the things that happen in Pakistan... *shakes head*





Least they didn't order anyone gangbanged this time.

Hey they are our valued ally in the region.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Moon, I like your hypothetical, but the blinding of NO ONE happens every single day. Talk about going overboard.

It's important that the guys IN CHARGE OF (which is to say the guys who ADMINISTER) punishments not do so in a cruel and unusual manner. Why? Because doing so, particularly on a regular basis, will deaden their senses to the tragedy of the matters at hand and make it *too* easy to abuse their authority.

Consider the case of Timothy Mcvay(sic?). He was a scoundrel who most assuredly deserved death, IMHO, and it was done in a relatively painless, simple process. There were those, of course, who cheered and partied and *celebrated* the death, and while I *understand* their feelings I do NOT agree with the celebratory stance. Why?

Think about this: What SHOULD a human being's life be? Without becoming too specific (because that would naturally entail violating peoples' rights), a human being should have a productive life, a fulfilling life, a *happy* life. When killers like McVay are put to death, it is NOT cause for celebration. It's another casualty in a horrible tragedy. It's one more life destroyed that *should* have been happy. Is it right that he was put to death for his crime? In my opinion YES, without hesitation. But let us be solemn in our understanding of what has happened. A man's life went so horribly wrong that he abandoned his reason and destroyed the lives of innocents. Every person who died, murdered and murder, is a tragic event, a human life gone where none should ever have to go.

Jason

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Moon, I like your hypothetical, but the blinding of NO ONE happens every single day. Talk about going overboard.

It's important that the guys IN CHARGE OF (which is to say the guys who ADMINISTER) punishments not do so in a cruel and unusual manner. Why? Because doing so, particularly on a regular basis, will deaden their senses to the tragedy of the matters at hand and make it *too* easy to abuse their authority.

Consider the case of Timothy Mcvay(sic?). He was a scoundrel who most assuredly deserved death, IMHO, and it was done in a relatively painless, simple process. There were those, of course, who cheered and partied and *celebrated* the death, and while I *understand* their feelings I do NOT agree with the celebratory stance. Why?

Think about this: What SHOULD a human being's life be? Without becoming too specific (because that would naturally entail violating peoples' rights), a human being should have a productive life, a fulfilling life, a *happy* life. When killers like McVay are put to death, it is NOT cause for celebration. It's another casualty in a horrible tragedy. It's one more life destroyed that *should* have been happy. Is it right that he was put to death for his crime? In my opinion YES, without hesitation. But let us be solemn in our understanding of what has happened. A man's life went so horribly wrong that he abandoned his reason and destroyed the lives of innocents. Every person who died, murdered and murder, is a tragic event, a human life gone where none should ever have to go.

Jason

Eff that. We give murderers 3 square meals a day, a roof over their heads, medical care, etc., in our sad excuse for a criminal justice system. I think it is awesome that this guy is going to be blinded and feel what his helpless fiance felt.

As for your comment on the barbaric nature of Pakistan, remember that decapitations, bludgeonings, impalings, and a host of other things much worse than being blinded by acid, are done to fiancees by their partners every year in the US. You just never hear about it because it's a pretty dull story if the offender ends up with a life sentence in prison.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

where do a people who can't get shoes get acid?