Submitted by Yardbroom
On a pleasant day in an ordinary street a young woman went about her daily business, it could have been anywhere as Ameneh Bahrami a university student, 33 years of age came face to face with Majid Movahedi 30. She had met Majid several times before at the university, he had asked her to marry him, and she had always refused. Today she felt there would be another request followed by a refusal, alas this was not the case.
Majid had other plans, he carried with him a red container within it a jar, after looking at her, as if savouring her beauty, he threw the contents of the jar into her face. In excruciating pain she screamed, the acid tore into her face, melting her tender skin and tissues. The eyes that once looked out on the world were unable to do so again, they became permanently shut. She was blinded in both eyes and facially disfigured, because she dared to refuse an offer of marriage, from a man who could not accept no as an answer.
In the criminal trial that followed in 2008 Ameneh Bahrami told the Iranian Court: “He looked into my eyes for a second and threw the contents of the red container into my face.” She asked a Retribution Court to allow her “Qisas” – allowed in Shraia Law – to allow her to exact an “eye for an eye ” punishment. She wants to drop acid into his eyes and for him to be rendered blind as she is. He was also required to pay her compensation, she refused to accept “blood money”. She told the Court, “inflict the same life on him as he has inflicted on me”.
According to the Iranian media, Bahrami’s lawyer, Ali Sarafi has said: “A very good sentence has been given and an appropriate method has been adopted so that the convict will be blinded by a few drops of acids in his eyes after he is rendered unconscious”.
Information from Iran suggest that the procedure will be done in a hospital under the supervision of a doctor. Since then is is believed, because of International pressure on Iran, the blinding of Majid Movahedi due to have taken place last week has been postponed. Can one understand the thinking of Ameneh Bahrami and why she is “insistent” that the same penalty is exacted on Majid Movahedi. He deliberately with intent, and in a premeditated act inflicted on her a punishment with the sole purpose of disfigurement. Would it be right for a penalty of a fine or a few years in prison be deemed enough. After which he would be released find a partner, even marry have children and carry on as if nothing had happened.
Is society ever able to confront the evil within it; with a sentence commensurate with the offence, or is it that some acts are so inherently evil, that a civilised society can never give a comparable penalty that will reflect the seriousness of some offences. Can we condemn the thinking of Ameneh Bahrami, and if we do, the question follows. How are we to adequately deal with the likes of Majid Movahedi because to a lesser degree, that thinking is prevalent with some in every society.
The social and moral problems which such acts confront us with, must be explained in a way that will make sense to an ordered society or must all societies ultimately accept that there are crimes so heinous in their nature that there is no penalty a civilised society can impose, that will adequately compensate the aggrieved.
Leave a Reply to ZackCancel reply