She's operating the system she has. In the US, anyone convicted of such an attack would be sent to prison for a very long time, perhaps for life, and we consider that the best choice. But it doesn't sound like Iranian law has that option in this case. So what is she supposed to do, say "Oh, okay, judge, I'll just take the cash?" Look, I think eye-for-an-eye is pretty barbaric too, but there is no amount of money that's enough punishment for an act like this.

He "said that he still loved Bahrami but that if she asked for his eyes to be taken out, he would seek the same punishment for her."

"They must also completely empty out her eyes, since I'm not sure that she cannot secretly see," said the weirdo further, according to the Washington Post.

I'm against this punishment for him, but that he can say this does give ammunition to give the acid-sentence. He threw acid over the woman knowing what harm it could do, and now he's trying to diminish that by saying that maybe she can still see.

They are going to drop 5 drops of acid in each eye. Are they going to hold his head backwards? He will get wild after the first drop. Then there's still 9 to go. I feel for the people who have to perform the sentence. They will have to strap him in order to get to drop all 10 drops. One gets crazy just thinking about it. How this medically will turn out... The eyes are close to the brains. What if the acid burns his brains (I'm not considering of course what a sick mind he already must have)? I'm afraid Bahrami will come to regret this hugely. It just proves what weird a practice the sharia is.

Who said, paraphrasing here, the problem with our world is that different cultures are living in different centuries. This story leads me one step closer to atheism. I think Christopher Hitchins is right.

Fortunately, my distaste for the way the Iranian justice system works here is irrelevant.

Iran is a sovereign state.

Iran is actually something of a functioning democracy, but that's not my business, either.

The people of the US can vote to take actions in the US, like limiting economic contact with Iran, if they want to.

But it's not our job to tell Iranians how to run Iran, as long as they don't attack someone else (Iran has not invaded any other countries in modern times).

The armed forces of the United States, which absorb a great deal of our tax dollars, function to protect the national security of the United States.

So all of the dozens of letters that are about come in screaming that we should invade Iran and impose our values on the Iranians are stupid and wrong.

It wouldn't work, it would violate international law, and it wouldn't be in our self-interest to try.

This is incredibly horrible and sad. On the one hand I'm appalled that Iran would enact such barbaric punishment ... on the other, though, at least they take the assault on this woman seriously. Kristof had a piece recently in the NY Times about the horrible prevalence of acid attacks on women in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, and he noted that the male attackers are seldom punished. I wonder if the victim here is right that this will act as a deterrent.

Dear Editor,

I think that the young woman's decision to request an "eye for an eye" - literally - is unfortunate, if understandable. I also think it's terrible that Iranian law allows for this. But, at the same time, this is surely no worse than capital punishment. The strongest supporters of CP usually argue the eye-for-an-eye logic, and CP is still supported by a substantial majority of Americans, despite the obvious problems that it poses to human decency (not to mention the uncomfortable reality that lots of innocent people have ended up on death row). Admittedly, the administering of CP has become more "humane" over the years, but the problem remains.

It's fine to cast stones at the "barbarism" of the Iranian system, but remember that Americans are living in a glass house on this one.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Good for her. Good for her for keeping all her legal options open when pressured by people who think they know better. And good for her for taking options that legally exist for helping others understand what was done to her. Good for her for weighing the enormity of the decision she's making.

I'm not going to argue about whether the option should exist. It does.

In the US we have courts and restraining orders, but most of women also have the option to use deadly force in the event of attempted rape. Instead of empowering women to use every means at their disposal to resist... because an assertive woman isn't polite all the time and a strong woman doesn't need a man to carry the groceries and a self-confident woman won't stroke the egos of potential prospects... we sabotage their strength in a million ways and then blame them for not responding to the warning signs.

This *might* be a deterrent to others; I can imagine that a stalker would think that paying money would be a fairly painless penalty for his conduct, but to suffer blindness and pain....? In many countries jail is seen as a sign of street cred, not as personal a consequence as being the subject of an-eye-for-an-eye retribution. A young man who is crippled this way would not be looked up to as a tough guy, but seen as an object of pity.

On the other hand, such stalkers aren't really thinking in the first place, so who knows if it'll be a deterrent.

My heart goes out to the victim, though, and all victims like her. If she takes the cash, she's saying that her life is worth a finite amount of money. She doesn't have many options, does she?

I think that Ms. Bahrami will grow to regret her request. My experience with people who've been horribly hurt is that the healing they can achieve comes through forgiveness. However, I understand Ms. Bahrami's to blind her blinder: I think that impulse is in all of us. Then there are the people charged with blinding him. If they're sadists, they'll be given a sanctioned platform to practice sadism. If they're good hearted people, the acid might reach them too, albeit figuratively.