An eye, quite literally, for an eye
News, Law ·Saturday May 14, 2011 @ 21:09 EDT (link)
Recently the National Review article "Sulphuric Injustice" was brought to my attention. It involves an Iranian man and woman; the man pursued the woman romantically:
She rejected his advances, whereupon he threw a bucket of sulphuric acid over her. In spite of seventeen operations her face is still appallingly disfigured, unrecognizable, and she remains blinded. Under the operative [Islamic] law of retribution, known as qisas, she has the right to blind him, literally to take Âan eye for an eye. The manÂs father, and bodies like Amnesty, have tried to pressure her into showing mercy. She would relent, she says, if she received two million euros to take care of her future needs. In the absence of money, she will have retribution. A doctor is due today to pour sulphuric acid into the manÂs eyes.
The punishment is just. It is generous of the victim to offer an alternate acceptable compensation, even though it would seem difficult for the man to reach on his own. But let us see how much he manages to raise after all those that think the punishment is wrong donate money to his cause. Perhaps the (neo)conservatives expressing horror at this most direct and equitable form of justice will tell us how much they donated toward his cause?
Some call the punishment torture. That is false. It is not torture. It is equal retribution in return for what was done to her—not the causing of pain for its own sake, or to extract information. Not everything that causes pain is torture (nor is everything that doesn't cause pain excluded, i.e., waterboarding; there are many psychological forms of torture).
Others have called for execution of the man because he "destroyed her life". But that would not fit the crime committed (even the Godfather understood this much, as Dr. Block pointed out at a recent convention), because the man did not kill anyone. When you use figures of speech ("destroying her life") as justification for punishment (execution), you leave the realm of moral retribution and enter into the arbitrary (read: random, political) penalties of the present system (e.g., Oklahoma's recent 10-year prison sentence against a woman for selling $31 of marijuana, a victimless non-crime act that morally allows for no harm in response). The commission of a crime does not imply the giving up of all rights: and only killing allows the infringement of the right to life. A thief, for example, may be restrained with necessary force to ensure the return of what was taken, but not beaten for the sick pleasure of the police. That would not be justice, but assault and battery, and itself requires retribution and reparations.
Where would the justice be in the Western-style idea of locking the man up with three squares a day at taxpayer expense for a number of years? The taxpayers have not wronged the man; why should they suffer? The man has not wronged "society"—that fetid myth used to justify imprisonment—but a specific woman who is owed reparations and retribution. She has seen fit to forgo just retribution in return for a sum of money, as is her right, but not her obligation.
Forcing a doctor to participate, if that is indeed occurring (quite possibly he sees it as a religious duty), is also wrong; let the woman do it herself if she has the stomach for it. The man receives better than he deserves having his wickedness returned to him under the precise care of a doctor, who will also be there to care for him throughout.
Perhaps if we looked at the principles involved rather than leaping to conclusions and answers based on emotional reaction or our own cultural traditions, we would make progress. Note: I do not say not to judge other cultures, because they may frequently be wrong too; but here, they have provided for justice.
But did not the Lord himself tell us to reject the Old Testament's "eye for an eye" and instead "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38-9)? Indeed; unfortunately for this man, the lady is not a Christian, and seems disinclined to show mercy. The principle of justice remains; the New Testament adds mercy, but does not replace the justice of the Old. Does the lex talionis make the world blind, like the adage? Clearly not: the buck stops here; plenty of sighted people will remain afterward; so much for that banal balderdash.
Even if this were not an Islamic country, and others were inclined to get involved, they have no right: just like Adam can't give Bob permission to hit Craig, Daniel can't forgive Ethan for hitting Fred, nor compel Fred to forsake the justice (reparations and retribution) due him. Nor may an agency, such as the state in modern society, morally do this: the thing is between victim and criminal, although agencies working for each may aid and facilitate, or may attempt to persuade and negotiate (as Amnesty is doing here), or third parties may offer money or other considerations to the victim in place of retribution. But the enforcement of arbitrary penalties (most heinously against non-crimes), and the compulsion to forgo justice owed, are utterly immoral and barbaric acts of the state.
Books finished: Asking the Right Questions, Soul of the Fire, The Ethics of Liberty.
