Iran Executes 16 Year Old Girl

[Just the Facts]

Maybe a slightly fairer way of looking at the same stat.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe_percap-crime-executions-per-capita

 

[L Gilbert]

Depends on your viewpoint, I suppose. What's more important: actual numbers of dead or percentages of the total population?

 

[tamarin]

Hmmm, I'm well educated, aware of all the stats and still believe strongly that responsible nations execute. I can't conceive of a working, representative and caring government not executing career criminals and first degree murderers. Life is short and if you want your citizens to live in a safe society that reflects their commitment and the state's responsibility to them, you will permanently remove ruthless murderers and incorrigible predators. If you don't agree with that, don't run for office. You're not up to the job.

 

[Curiosity]

Well wasn't that an exercise of flinging adhominem statements into the abyss of illogical reporting.....

The stats are provided by Amnesty International.....they are unreliable. Amnesty International IS unreliable.
They even state in their "disclaimer"

DEFINITION:

Number of known executions in the country (Data is for 1998). Because these figures include only documented cases; the true figures are likely to be much higher. Per capita figures expressed per 1 million population.

Data is for nineteen hundred and ninety-eight ..... figure obscured by emoticon interference.

Can anyone honestly think and believe that the figures for example ... from Zimbabwe or Rwanda are accurate?

The civilized nations who actually carry out legal court proceedings, which terminate in execution of the guilty party as charged by the peers of that guilty party may be accurate and even then they may not be.

I think this bit of biased garbage is beneath the people here who think it necessary to put it up for consumption.

 

[ads]

to kill or not to kill

Well, how about economic in some cases? One might even say humanitarian.

Some people have incurable mental defects where it is never safe to leave them with other living creatures.
So you can
A.) Let them out to kill again
B.) Leave them in a tiny cell their entire natural life for $100,000 a year
(meaning more people who need healthcare don't get it) to suffer endlessly
and repeatedly attempt suicide.
C.) Kill them humanely and use the money on something worthwhile.

Im not saying that should be done, but to claim there is never any sense in killing someone is a bit off in my opinion.

Suppose we have a totally innocent person, who has incurable mental defects and is never safe to leave with others.
Are you saying he/she is to be killed humanely to save money on something worthwhile?

Bus with elevator for disabled person cost much more than regular one.
Should we follow economic reasoning in this case too?

No, I do not think so. Economy does not fit well when sombody's life at stake.

And for the case of a malignant person it would be better to let him/her do some work while spending time in a tiny cell.
With a good management it even could be profitable ...

 

[Curiosity]

Zzarchov

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zzarchov
Well, how about economic in some cases? One might even say humanitarian.

Some people have incurable mental defects where it is never safe to leave them with other living creatures.
So you can
A.) Let them out to kill again
B.) Leave them in a tiny cell their entire natural life for $100,000 a year
(meaning more people who need healthcare don't get it) to suffer endlessly
and repeatedly attempt suicide.
C.) Kill them humanely and use the money on something worthwhile.

Im not saying that should be done, but to claim there is never any sense in killing someone is a bit off in my opinion.[/quote]


Dr. Mengele would love you for your ignorance. Science is discovering regularly new ways to treat malfunctions of the brain and nervous system - what is diseased today, could be cured in a year.... and what then - do we bring these sufferers back from the dead?

I can hear your ancestors roar at watching Mme. Guillotine having her way with the blood spattering the screaming crowd. Or worse the long suffering starvation into the winter's long freeze at some Gulag....man's untold creativity in imprisonment of others.

Yes do think of the money saved, while morality of civilization rots.

Take note of the Innocence Projects regarding enhanced new DNA proof of guilt being spread across the U.S. in the following link which describes the exhonerations up to early 2006. These are people who before were guilty at trial and sentenced to death: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6

 

[Curiosity]

ads

You write:

No, I do not think so. Economy does not fit well when sombody's life at stake.

When a person is on trial and adjudged guilty with the penalty phase being execution, years of future trials are also conducted (I believe there are three separate ones in U.S. jurisprudence) where they go over old evidence, new evidence, a new jury, and determine at great cost to the state if the original punishment of "death" is still affirmed.

It is in fact more expensive to execute than to incarcerate for life wherein many life felons can be trained into service at a cost savings. Death row inmates are rarely in the general population and I believe are allowed only one hour per day of R&R.

 

[Hotshot]

Both. White men and women are the majority in the United States, so logic follows that most crimes and capital crimes are committed by white men and white women. Being black doesn't mean that you are more likely to commit a crime than a white.

There are a disproportionate amount of blacks on death row in the country hilariously known as "The Land of the Free."

First we are not talking about only the united states.

Second, can you prove your 'facts'?

 

[Shia]

hmm the topic was about iran executing a young female... how did it turn up in a black and white war? :|

To be honest... i dont think its realistic to blame the whole religion based on a single crime...
In america there is such a high rate of rape... Do you think its because of christianity? ... I doubt it..

Secondly, there is no truth to the movie, because the commentary person in the beginning of the movie said, they wont use the real people as the voice of witnesses... how do you know that its not a fake..?

Most importantly... propoganda like this is usually used to brain-wash people about countries, especially at war times, so that the story your government tells lives up to its expectations.

American went to war against Iraq for hidding nukes... they found nothing, put saddam on trial...and you know why he got on the death sentence..cause he apparently "killed his own people"!!

Its like a game of chess... and as Mr. Bush said in one of his speeches " you are either with us, or against us.." that sums up what US government has to say for the rest of the world..!!

 

[gopher]

"Saddam on trial ... got death sentence ... caused he killed his own people"


Racists in India have killed FAR more Sikhs, along with Christians and Muslims, than Saddam killed Kurds:

http://www.khalistan.com/CongRecords/CR031704_Burton_KerryShould Apologize.htm





Quote:


Since June 1984, India has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs, according to figures compiled by the Punjab State Magistracy and human rights groups and published in the book The Politics of Genocide by Inderjit Singh Jaijee. A report from the Movement Against State Repression (MASR) shows that India admitted to holding 52,268 Sikhs as political prisoners. Some have been in illegal custody since 1984! Tens of thousands of other minorities are also being held as political prisoners, according to Amnesty International. Indian forces carried out the March 2000 massacre in the village of Chithisinghpora, according to two independent investigations. Indian forces were caught red-handed trying to set fire to a Sikh Gurdwara and Sikh homes in a village in Kashmir. Sikh and Muslim villagers joined hands to stop them.

The book Soft Target, written by two Canadian journalists, Zuhair Kashmeri of the Toronto Globe and Mail and Brian McAndrew of the Toronto Star, shows conclusively that the Indian government blew up its own airliner in 1985, killing 329 innocent people, to blame it on the Sikhs and have an excuse for more repression.

Other minorities such as Christians and Muslims, among others, have also felt the lash of Indian repression. Over 300,000 Christians in Nagaland have been killed by the terrorist Indian regime. Nuns have been raped, priests have been murdered, churches have been burned, schools and prayer halls have been destroyed, all with impunity. A mob of militant Hindus affiliated with the parent organization of the ruling BJP murdered missionary Graham Staines and his two sons by burning them to death while they slept in their jeep, all the while chanting “Victory to Hannuman,” a Hindu god. India threw missionary Joseph Cooper from Pennsylvania out of the country after he was beaten so severely that he had to spend a week in the hospital. A Christian religious festival on the theme “Jesus is the answer” was broken up by police gunfire.

Almost two year ago, Muslims were massacred in Gujarat while police were ordered to stand by and do nothing, according to Indian newspaper reports. One newspaper quoted a policeman as saying that the Indian government planned the massacre in advance. This is an eerie parallel to the 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi, in which police were locked in their barracks while the state-run radio and television called for more Sikh blood.



The rule of law must be applied on a uniform basis to all who violate the rights of others. Merely pointing to one act of capitol punishment in one country while ignoring another's record of killing tens of thousands does NOTHING to serve the cause of justice and peace.

 

[Ariadne]

Part 1 of 6

Part 2 of 6

Part 3 of 6

Part 4 of 6

Part 5 of 6

Part 6 of 6

This is quite the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5217424.stm

 

[Shia]

gopher:
Racists in India have killed FAR more Sikhs, along with Christians and Muslims, than Saddam killed Kurds:

well said...thats exactly the point...the media will point out how that muslim person had done mass-killing.. but when it comes to that guy in bosnia, who they put up in the hague justice palace and that died in the freakin jail, without a proper justice, they started questioning that...! :|

 

[I think not]

The book Soft Target, written by two Canadian journalists, Zuhair Kashmeri of the Toronto Globe and Mail and Brian McAndrew of the Toronto Star, shows conclusively that the Indian government blew up its own airliner in 1985, killing 329 innocent people, to blame it on the Sikhs and have an excuse for more repression.

It's really not surprising an article like this is posted by you. Carry on.

 

[Ariadne]

My point was that when she said "as a women" she signals all women out to feel bad. Men never say "as a man I was horrified" when a man gets beheaded in Saudi Arabia. We're all equal. And we all equally feel bad when someone, regardless of sex or race, is treated terribly in these countries. We don’t say "as a Caucasian man I felt terrible when those journalists were beheaded in Iraq".
It's just my point of view. Sassylassie is intitled to hers and that's fine.

I understood that male or female children and women are being treated as second class citizens in some countries. Their status, as 'second', places them in circumstances where they can be condemned because they are guilty of seducing jailors or men three times their age. The women are found guilty of being voluptuous and by definition, seductive at 13-16 year olds; but are in fact raped and the men that rape them are guilty of 'being forcibly seduced to betray their Sharia Law marriage vows'. Additionally, because the woman is guilty of having sex with several different men (regardless of rape), including having been found in a compromising situation at the age of 13 ... she has again violated Sharia Law.

"It was just a matter of time before she came to the attention of the "moral police", a branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, whose job it is to enforce the Islamic code of behaviour on Iran's streets." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5217424.stm)

We all feel bad when someone is terribly treated, but in some countries second class citizens are defined by age and sex rather than occupation, so that should be a concern to everyone; even journalists. It upsets everyone, including men, but it is only a situation that happens to everyone other than men.

... she was predisposed to being found guilty of adultery. She had her chosen love at the age of 13 and everything after that was adultory. She received 100 lashes and jail time. A couple of jailers raped her and then some dude that was three times her age grabbed her and was abusive ... then during a fourth court appearance at the age of 15 or 16 she was convicted of infedelity - perhaps she was being raped again ... sentenced to death for promiscuity.

Could that possibly happen to anyone other than a child (male or female) or a woman? The human rights violation is inconceivable, yet it happens all the time. North American rape has been argued as forced seduction, but people try to assign some moral and ethical responsibility to both parties unless proven otherwise. Feeling a little compassion or sympathy is not the same as empathy.

 

[Ariadne]

My point was that when she said "as a women" she signals all women out to feel bad. Men never say "as a man I was horrified" when a man gets beheaded in Saudi Arabia. We're all equal. And we all equally feel bad when someone, regardless of sex or race, is treated terribly in these countries. We don’t say "as a Caucasian man I felt terrible when those journalists were beheaded in Iraq".
It's just my point of view. Sassylassie is intitled to hers and that's fine.

When who said "women" they meant what? Or you thought what?

Who is signalling whom and who is supposed to feel what ... bad?

We all feel badly; not equally badly, but badly when someone is treated badly and put to death because they violated Sharia Law when they admitted to having been raped. The point is that women are the potential victims and they would rather not be in that situation. Men are never those same potential victims so they can only be conscientuous observers. It's different ... surely you understand (and it's not about journalism and skin colour).

 

[Ariadne]

Gonzo when men get hanged for being raped, I'll be the first person to speak and yell from the roof tops about the injustice but let us be honest it's women in Islamic countries that are ill treated not the adult males. Male children suffer equally to the female children so I try to always include them. I feel no compunction to explain my vernacular to you, "As a women" I can understand how it must feel to suffer or be punished for being nothing more than a female you will never understand because males are the domanant force in Islam. Males live a priviledged lifestyle in Islamic countries and are free to beat, kill, divorce their wives and torture their children. When women are free to do the same I'll stop using the phrase "As a woman". Regarding religion and race in these countries, it's always the women and christians whom suffer and yes even males but this thread is about a little girl so that is the subject I responded to.

As a woman, you have a responsibility to inform men, who think sympathy is equal to empathy, that being part of the victimized group is different than being part of the concerned group.

 

[Ariadne]

She's not that little. She's 16. In Britain, anyone aged 10 or over can be put into prison. It used to be that people - both males AND females - were eligible to be hanged at not much older than that age. At 16 she should know right from wrong and when she was carrying out a capital crime she would have been old enough to know it was a capital crime.

Britain abolished the death penalty in 1971 (although we still have it for treason) and both males and females under the age of 16 were often executed even in the 20th century.

In fact, women who appeared on trial were MORE likely to be executed than men. Even though more men than women were executed in total, that's only because most serious crimes were committed by men. But when you look at the numbers of crimes that were committed and the proportion of women who were executed compared to men, women (including teenagers) were actually three times more likely to be executed in Britain than a man.

Evidently she was quite clear on right from wrong. She knew that it was wrong to be raped in prison so she kept it a secret. She also knew that it was wrong to be raped by a married man with children three times her age but it endured for 3 years and kept everything a secret until trial. She was hanged for adultery, but she was not married - adultery requires commitment for breach of promise and she had commited to none. The only person that violated the adultery rules was the man, but he received only 95 lashes for his adultery Sharia Law crime. He was, after all, seduced by a voluptuous 14 year old.

 

[Ariadne]

Well obviously I feel rather clear on this issue about having to be a woman to know what it is like to be victimized as a woman. For all those men that claim to feel sympathy and compassion ... great ... fight for the cause ... whatever ... 2000 years hasn't gotten men to the point of preventing this from happening so I doubt that a comment here or there will make a difference but whatever ... feel the sympathy and your outrage that these things happen and blah, blah and blah.

Overthrowing a government will not solve the problem nor with nukes ... it's just culture.

 

[Gonzo]

That’s right; it's a culture that has to change. And there is nothing we can do about it, sadly. Sanctions only hurt the population, not the leaders (who don’t care about there public anyway). Wars make things worse. How do you get a country to respect human rights laws? How do you change beliefs that have been around for thousands of years?

 

[Sassylassie]

When who said "women" they meant what? Or you thought what?

Who is signalling whom and who is supposed to feel what ... bad?

We all feel badly; not equally badly, but badly when someone is treated badly and put to death because they violated Sharia Law when they admitted to having been raped. The point is that women are the potential victims and they would rather not be in that situation. Men are never those same potential victims so they can only be conscientuous observers. It's different ... surely you understand (and it's not about journalism and skin colour).

Yep you nailed the nail on the head with that post.

I doubt things will ever change for women under Sharia Law,that is the point of that Law to repress and demean women. It's how they control women and children, invent a law using the Koran as it's foundation and you can abuse women for centuries in the name of Allah.