“community service for women’s charities (if they exist in Muslim societies)”

There are tons of women’s charities in the Muslim world, and there always have been. The greatest universities in the Muslim world, in Egypt, Syria, Morocco, etc. were all founded by Muslim women’s organizations.

Also, Iran is not a horribly misogynistic place. Over 50% of university graduates are women, and they generally don’t have problems making a living when single. It’s not perfect of course, but remember the nation-state is really only 30 years old and is still evolving rapidly.

Muslim societies have already produced 7 or 8 female heads of state. The United States has yet to produce a single one. Go listen to Krista Tippett’s NPR interview with Leila Ahmed on iTunes.

“Would a secular government, with no authority from the Koran, even consider this option? I think it’s less likely.”

Without a believe in Absolute Truth, there is really no limit whatsoever. Look at China, totally atheistic. They put people in prison for political ‘crimes’ and harvest their organs to save other people’s lives. An atheist can not prove they are wrong to do so.

Sharia law is a sick joke, of course. It is a remnant of the dark ages which should be found only in history books and discussed only in works on deviant social behavior.

It certainly has no place in enlightened society.

That said, I am, as I explained above that they took the case and didn’t find the woman guilty of some sin against the man. Maybe there is some faint glimmer of hope for the Mullahs after all.

Nonviolence isn’t happening in Iran anytime soon. Until sharia law and religion stop ruling their country, this will continue. I just want to make sure that other men hear that torturing women can lead to their own demise. It doesn’t make us evil. His torture might possibly prevent others from experiencing it. It’s all very ugly, but that’s the way religious societies function.

I mean no offense but I think you aren’t taking a long enough look. (To be fair, maybe I’m looking unrealistically far and thinking too idealistically!) It is indeed unlikely that this man could be changed meaningfully. But the effort should ideally be made.

One, even if his behavior cannot be altered such that it would become less likely that he would offend again, we could learn from him what could be done in the future preventatively. This would be the general approach toward all violations of others’ liberty.

Two, even though I’m pretty sure we know in this case what largely must be done to eliminate this kind of behavior, it will take time. A lot of time in even the most promising of environments I would say.

Three, deterrence does not work. If it did then this wouldn’t be the world we had made for ourselves. I think it is safe to say that there has been an unknowable number of instances over time from which a would-be offender might draw pause.

Four, I think that until we STOP thinking in terms of “punishment” and start looking at our societal problems scientifically, then we will be condemned to just keep remaking the same barbaric world we have been remaking for ourselves in all our time. It is all very ugly. Most ugly perhaps is that there will inevitably be victims who will suffer for no discernible reason and for whom there will be no recompense of any kind. It is a harsh truth that until we become determined to change our world and then have actually done it, there will be these people. I have to think that this idealistic future is made less likely every time we indulge ourselves in any but the most dispassionate and scientific of attempts to make it happen. In other words: Pouring acid into the eyes of another human being is not going to be the kind of thing that goes on in a world that has any promise of becoming enlightened.

Read humanist’s post again. S/he wasn’t proposing to educate this man. He/she said that we should educate the people who think it’s ok to melt the man’s face.

“I myself am revolted by how many people here nonchalantly justify putting acid in Majid Movahedi’s eyes. Someone said that we don’t need people in society who think it’s ok to splash acid in other people’s faces. I agree, and that goes for all who justify maiming Movahedi. Which doesn’t mean we should jail or kill them, it means we should educate them.”

How do you propose we educate this man? He has been raised in a society where women’s value is their chastity. The misogyny is ingrained in these men. I don’t think we can sit him down in a “Why You Shouldn’t Melt Women’s Faces Off By Throwing Acid On Them: They won’t necessarily love you for it” class and expect a changed man.

An example needs to be made of this man. Men don’t give up their unearned exalted position in society voluntarily. Women have been voting in this country for less than 100 years. The movement started in 1848. When men decided to give women the right to vote it was 1920. It took 72 years for men to do the right thing, and yet you think these men can just be educated?

Sharia law is a problem and their misogynistic society is a problem. I think the only way men might actually THINK before doing something so terrible is to show that there are consequences.

Nonviolence isn’t happening in Iran anytime soon. Until sharia law and religion stop ruling their country, this will continue. I just want to make sure that other men hear that torturing women can lead to their own demise. It doesn’t make us evil. His torture might possibly prevent others from experiencing it. It’s all very ugly, but that’s the way religious societies function.

Can guilt be established without doubt? In this case it can. And therefore in this case, I do not think blinding this man is as bad as “eye for an eye” would be in other situations.

That said, would such a sentence help this woman, help this society, or give justice? If I were dictator for a day I would not blind this man – I would garnish a portion of his wages for this woman, for as long as he lives, and make him perform manditory community service for women’s charities (if they exist in Muslim societies). Of course, that presumes a society affluent enough to pay for such administration and policing.

I realise that I am out of step with many or most humanists on this, but I do think there are cases where a death penalty is warranted, or where a physical punishment like this is not morally wrong.

However, what always makes me say “yes, but . . .” are those people with life sentences who have recently been set free by modern science (ie DNA tests). Sometimes we get verdicts wrong. And that, perhaps, is the best argument against irreversible penalties.

This is truly a question which the humanist is much better equipped to ponder than the dogmatic theist, though.