General Deterrence and an Eye for an Eye

By Bradley Wright

Ameneh Bahrami was a young woman in her twenties who worked as an electronics technician. She lived in Tehran, Iran, and in her free time she enjoyed photography and sight seeing. Several years earlier, when she was in university, she and some friends gave some clothes to a bedraggled, younger student named Majid Movahedi. Movahedi fell madly and obsessively in love with her and pursued her for several years. Finally, Bahrami made it clear that she would not marry Movahedi. “Continue with your life,” she told him. “There is absolutely no hope for us.” What Movahedi did next forever altered Bahrami’s life and stirred a national controversy in Iran. Movahedi staked out her office, and then as she was leaving one day, he poured sulfuric acid over her, permanently blinding and disfiguring her.

Iran, of course, is a fundamentalist Islamic country, and Bahrami petitioned the courts to punish her attacker according to Islamic jurisprudence. Recently, an Iranian court accepted her request and ordered that five drops of sulfuric acid be placed in each of Bahrami’s eyes so that he will be blinded in a similar manner--literally an eye for an eye.

As sociologists, we could examine this heartbreaking story in terms of gender and domestic violence or we might use it to explore the role of religion and the law. Instead, I want to address a different aspect of it, and that involves Bahrami’s and the court’s reasoning for this punishment.

In explaining her reasoning for requesting this punishment, Bahrami said that she wanted to prevent this type of crime from happening to any one else. “I am doing that because I don’t want this to happen to any other women.” The courts agreed with her. “If propaganda is carried out on how acid attackers are punished, it will prevent such crimes in the future," said Mahmoud Salarkia.

This motivation for punishment—to prevent future crimes by others—illustrates the criminological concept of general deterrence. Deterrence refers to preventing crime, and general deterrence is punishing one person as a way to prevent the crimes of others. Here in the United States, punishing criminals is also viewed as a general deterrent; in fact, that’s one of the arguments for the death penalty. By killing criminals who have killed, the criminal justice system might prevent future killings.

General deterrence works best when potential criminals find out about punishments given to previous law-breakers. So, punishing someone quietly with no one else knowing would have little general deterrence effect. It is not unreasonable, then, to expect that the sulfur-in-eyes punishment of Majid Movahedi might have some deterrent effect, for the case has become widely known, and the brutality of the punishment might make other men in Iran think twice before similarly attacking a woman.

Related to general deterrence is the concept of specific deterrence, when a person is punished not to prevent other people from committing crimes but rather to prevent that person from committing future crimes. For example, locking someone up in jail creates specific deterrence because it makes it difficult for that person to commit additional crimes (at least against the general population). The proposed punishment of Movahedi would also serve as a specific deterrent, for it will be more difficult for him to attack people if he’s blind.

The idea of deterrence assumes rationality among criminals. The reasoning goes like this: If society makes known the costs of crime, people should be less likely to participate in it. What if, however, criminals are not responsive to the costs of crime? Given Movahedi’s very strong emotions at the moment he injured Bahrami, would knowledge of future punishments kept him from attacking her? It’s unclear, but we might expect strong punishments to deter rationally-based crimes, such as theft, more strongly than emotionally-based crimes.

The application of general deterrence has its own issues, for not only does the victim have rights, but so does the attacker—though they forsake many of them when they commit crime. Is it reasonable to punish one person harshly in order to benefit other people? Is it appropriate for society to “make an example” of someone? In the story above, Bahrami is such a sympathetic figure that it’s easy to overlook these issues, but they still stand.

Questions remain about the effectiveness and appropriateness of general deterrence, and yet it stands as one of society’s main defenses against law-breaking. Do you think general or specific deterrence work? If so, in what situations might they be most effective?

Comments

[Chris Handlon]

I do and do not think a judicial system that revolves around an eye for and eye mentality works. In the muslim world this is a common practice because of it being dominated by religion. Sure a person deserves a harsh punishment but two wrongs dont make a right. Should our government and judicial system stoop down to a criminals level? I dont think so. Although it does keep people from doing dangerous crimes, it does so in an inhumane way.

[Corey Modreske]

I do agree with the judicial system. I believe that over there in a country like that, that the whole eye for an eye thing works. I honestly think that it wouldn't even be a bad idea for our judicial system over here in the USA to do something of this sort.

[Diamond Howard]

I agree with the statement and idea an eye for an eye, but if someone starts the eye for an eye won't everywhere else have to start doing that too?I just don't think united states government would allow such harsh punishments for the criminals.

[Sheri Foster]

I like your post very much. I am taking a sociology class and in the chapter we are in it talks about multiple causation. This is when an event occurs as a result of sevral factors working in combination. Kind of like cause and effect. With your post crime is a big part of cause and effect. The cause would be commiting the crime and the effect would be an eye or an eye (punishment). Now whether or not an eye for an eye is fair depends on the situation, in this case I believe that he made her blind on purpose (the cause), (the effect) he should be blind as well.

[Nick]

Wow what an article. I am in a sociology class and we are reading about events that happen because of several events. This is the most shocking thing ive ever read. I do not for one understand why people commit such acts in the first place. But I see why this act would recieve the punishment it did. Iran is a very tumoltious place right now so, well for one I am glad to see justice here was served. But then again its a little too insense in my opinion but I guess its more foreign to me living in the west. But this is a class example of a cause and effect world. But I thank you for this articale it is helping me learn the ways of the world.

[Shailesh Singh]

An Eye for an eye will make the whole world blind - Mahatma Gandhi

[Dmitry]

it is about recidivism(the probability of reoffending)
research found (according to the criminology book that i read) that the correlation for such laws and recidivism is weak but positive

[Dalma Arreola]

I thought this was a very interisting article tha brought up and important issue of what really deters crime. It seems from what the blog is saying that people are thinking of putting harsher punishments for people who commit crimes but it is ignoring the fact that people sometimes commit crimes out of necessity and are willing to take the risk of the punishment.For example, when he said that harsher punishment might be placed on crimes like theft, is not going to deter an ecomically disadvantaged person that is trying to provide forthemselves because it is worth the risk. A real way of detering that type of crime is by addressing the social issues that cause a person to steal. I also dont believe that the death penalty that actually deters crime. The crimes that are commited are out of rage that happenis in the momoent so people are not thinkinmg about that they will be put to death for it that makes those types of cirmes not deterrable. I think it is interisting how the US are one of the few indstrialized countries that still have the death penalty while other countries relalized their ineffectivenes in detterring crime.I am not sayin that those crimes should not be punished just making harsher punishments for crimes are not going to prevent those crimes from happening again.

[Alexandria Xiques]

This article is so sad. It is good that the man that did that to Ameneh is being punished for his actions, but an eye for an eye just continues the cycle of harm being done and just leaves them both blind. Hopefully this does deter others from comitting similar crimes, but I feel there are other more humane punishments that would get the job done as well.

[Rebecca Mnayarji]

I feel that general deterrence is a great concept if properly executed. It gives the victim closure and a smaller feeling of loss. Take that woman who was disfigured and blinded for example, she had her whole life ruined for nothing that she did wrong. She was attacked by a fanatic and now has to live her life in darkness and with the fact that she is now deformed. If I were that woman I would also want some form of justice for my attacker. The thought of having him running free with no consequence when I was stripped of my life would ruin me even further. I although would not want the punishment to be to the extent to have sulfuric acid poured into his eyes, but I would like some ramification for his actions.
On the other hand, I feel that specific deterrence is an ineffective way to deal with criminals. Jail is the main consequence given when dealing with specific deterrence when there are more effective ways to deal with crime rather than putting them away. Take for example the United States; we have the highest prison and jail rates in the world yet crime still occurs. Land of the free? Our country relies too heavily on specific deterrence, in view of our prison rates, and that needs to change into a more effective way to execute justice onto criminals and victims. General deterrence is a more effective way to deal with criminals because it uses them as examples, keeping future crimes from occurring by different people. General deterrence can be used in a positive way without breaking ethical standards in punishments such as community service for petty crimes which benefit the community and by keeping others from committing the same crime.

[chad]

I think this was a good story about the way Iran uses the eye for an eye punishment. If America did this than there would be less rapes and less murder because people would think twice before commiting a crime. So it would cut down the amount of money the government spends on prisons to hold all the criminals.

[A Facebook User]

Found this while doing a homework assignment. Found it pretty interesting.

[andrewjackson]

Regarding recidivism (probability of recidivism)
Research has shown (according to a criminology book I read) that the correlation between such laws and recidivism is weak but positive.

[Dylan Bell]

This story is both heartbreaking and thought-provoking. Ameneh Bahrami's resilience amidst such injustice is remarkable, but the ethical implications of "an eye for an eye" punishment stir complex debates about justice and humanity.