Iran hangs woman despite campaign

[JakeStarkey]

Stop whining, stop opining, and give me the evidence that says she did not commit cold, calculated pre-meditated murder.

If you can't, what you think simply does not matter.

 

[Sally]

Stop whining, stop opining, and give me the evidence that says she did not commit cold, calculated pre-meditated murder.

If you can't, what you think simply does not matter.

Little Jakey thinks that whatever he says matters even though there have been others who know much more about the Iranian judicial system. Maybe Little Jakey has delusions that he was in the room with this young woman and potential rapist so he knows everything that happened. Actually what I think is going on, since Little Jakey can't resist talking about this case, is that he is trying to rack up posts so that he can win the Crown for the month.

 

[Penelope]

I've read several articles on it. One said she bought the knife two days before and she had already met him a few times. It also said she has a man with her and he did the killing, she refused to say the name of the man, and then at a later time she said there was no other man. One article said he was knifed in the back when he was praying. Now this man seemed to be of wealth and importance, so possible a robbery gone bad, and did she have a man there with her? Who knows.
One article said the mans son said he would let her live if she took back the rape charges and said the name of the accomplish. Who knows what really happened.

Were there members of Amnesty International at the trial?

 

[Sally]

I've read several articles on it. One said she bought the knife two days before and she had already met him a few times. It also said she has a man with her and he did the killing, she refused to say the name of the man, and then at a later time she said there was no other man. One article said he was knifed in the back when he was praying. Now this man seemed to be of wealth and importance, so possible a robbery gone bad, and did she have a man there with her? Who knows.
One article said the mans son said he would let her live if she took back the rape charges and said the name of the accomplish. Who knows what really happened.

Were there members of Amnesty International at the trial?

Amazing how Penelope will believe anything coming out of Iran as true!!!. Say, Penelope, why not speak to some ex Iranians and ask them for their opijnion on how the judicial system works there. There are tons of Iranians living right here in the U.S., and if you can get yourself away from your computer for a while, I am sure you can find some to interview. By the way, when you interview them, ask them why they left their native land.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stop whining, stop opining, and give me the evidence that says she did not commit cold, calculated pre-meditated murder.

If you can't, what you think simply does not matter.

Little Jakey thinks that whatever he says matters even though there have been others who know much more about the Iranian judicial system. Maybe Little Jakey has delusions that he was in the room with this young woman and potential rapist so he knows everything that happened. Actually what I think is going on, since Little Jakey can't resist talking about this case, is that he is trying to rack up posts so that he can win the Crown for the month.

Sally tries unsuccessfully to make it personal and fails.

The evidence was given, the system evaluated it, the judges found her guilty, and she died.

Sally is unhappy (1) that it was a woman and (2) has nothing to show that the verdict was not correct.

Sux to be you little Sally.

 

[Roudy]

Stop whining, stop opining, and give me the evidence that says she did not commit cold, calculated pre-meditated murder.

If you can't, what you think simply does not matter.

Little Jakey thinks that whatever he says matters even though there have been others who know much more about the Iranian judicial system. Maybe Little Jakey has delusions that he was in the room with this young woman and potential rapist so he knows everything that happened. Actually what I think is going on, since Little Jakey can't resist talking about this case, is that he is trying to rack up posts so that he can win the Crown for the month.

Sally tries unsuccessfully to make it personal and fails.

The evidence was given, the system evaluated it, the judges found her guilty, and she died.

Sally is unhappy (1) that it was a woman and (2) has nothing to show that the verdict was not correct.

Sux to be you little Sally.

Nothing to show that the verdict was correct either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Roudy, it was a court of law, so prima facie it is correct until some one can prove it otherwise.

 

[Roudy]

Roudy, it was a court of law, so prima facie it is correct until some one can prove it otherwise.

That's where you're mistaken, Iran doesn't have "courts of law". Like I said the verdict had been decided before the woman stepped into the courtroom.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Roudy, you are no more authoritative on Iran jurisprudence that Sally et al.

Stop the prejudicial assumptions and tell us why, on the evidence presented, this court reached the wrong decision.

Hint: because it is Iran is not the answer you provide.

 

[irosie91]

It seems to me that since roudy lived in Iran and is fluent in
Farsi-----he knows more about the Judicial system than do I----and you----starkey baby

 

[Sally]

It seems to me that since roudy lived in Iran and is fluent in
Farsi-----he knows more about the Judicial system than do I----and you----starkey baby

One really has to laugh at Jakey. Here on a Middle East forum, it appears that all he is obsessed about is shutting up everyone who wants to talk about this case. Meanwhile, there are many countries in the Middle East and the people living in these countries were not fast asleep like Rip Van Winkle while this was going on in Iran but actually had things happening in their respective country. We, however, have no seen Jakey bring up anything else. Could he have been a lawyer in the judicial system in Iran, could he still have friends sitting on a jury there, etc. etc.? After all, he has been trying to get all the posters to just move on with regard to this. It was he who said the following, like he is some head honcho around here and the posters should just pay attention to what he says even if they want to talk about the case.

"One, she killed a man.

Two, she could not prove she was raped, and even if she had, she was not empowered to kill the man after the fact.

Three, she was hung, hung, hung.

Let's move on."

 

[ChrisL]

How about the fact that in Iran, they can execute you for adultery? It would be interesting to see who this is applied to more often, men or women.

 

[Sally]

How about the fact that in Iran, they can execute you for adultery? It would be interesting to see who this is applied to more often, men or women.

What I have often wondered, Chris, since it is legal to have a transgender operation in Iran but Gays are hung, just how many Ayatollahs and Mullahs have told their boyfriends to have the operation so that their boyfriends can become their girlfriends and then everything is honky dory.

 

[ChrisL]

How about the fact that in Iran, they can execute you for adultery? It would be interesting to see who this is applied to more often, men or women.

What I have often wondered, Chris, since it is legal to have a transgender operation in Iran but Gays are hung, just how many Ayatollahs and Mullahs have told their boyfriends to have the operation so that their boyfriends can become their girlfriends and then everything is honky dory.

Your guess is as good as mine!

 

[Roudy]

Roudy, you are no more authoritative on Iran jurisprudence that Sally et al.

Stop the prejudicial assumptions and tell us why, on the evidence presented, this court reached the wrong decision.

Hint: because it is Iran is not the answer you provide.

Dude, I lived in Iran during the Shah's time. It was extremely corrupt and there was cronyism and bribery rampant in every aspect of life, and it got a thousand times worse when the Islamic lunatics took over. You don't understand how these societies work, You get pulled over by a cop and you give him a $50 and he'd let you off. If the judge doesn't render the verdict he was told to render, his ass is next in the slammer, or worse, he'd be incarcerated on false charges or killed. If you're wealthy and powerful enough, "getting away with murder" is not an expression, it's a fact of life for some people.

I believe in this case the woman was probably innocent. It makes more sense that she was falsely accused and convicted of murder, in order to save the man's reputation and his family "name".

 

[Indofred]

Iran has gone ahead with an execution of a woman despite an international campaign urging a reprieve.

Exactly the same as for Karla Faye Tucker, including the international campaign, but she was executed.
Is Texas the same as Iran and, if not, why not?

 

[Mineva]

What I read she was not executed because of "self defence" as some people claims to blame Islam in a way, but she was executed because of she planned to kill him days ago.

 

[I.P.Freely]

You are acting, without evidence, as if a miscarriage of justice occurred. Talk all the babble you want, but it is simply babble.

Amnesty International agrees that it is an atrocity and that Iran does NOT have fair trials. I am quite sure that they know FAR more about the situation in Iran and the court system, how prisoners are treated, etc., than you ever will know. I will listen to their assessments instead of yours.

Amnesty on the death penalty in the USA
FACTS ON THE DEATH PENALTY
Juan Melendez spent 17 years on Florida’s Death Row for a crime he did not commit. In December 2001, his conviction was overturned because prosecutors at his original trial had withheld key evidence.

© amnesty international

The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, whatever form it takes—electrocution, hanging, gassing, beheading, stoning, shooting or lethal injection.

There can never be any justification for torture or for cruel treatment. Like torture, an execution constitutes an extreme physical and mental assault on an individual. The physical pain caused by the action of killing a human being cannot be quantified, nor can the psychological suffering caused by foreknowledge of death at the hands of the state.

The death penalty is discriminatory and is often used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities. It is imposed and carried out arbitrarily. In some countries, it is used as a tool of repression to silence the political opposition.

In other countries, flaws in the judicial process are exacerbated by discrimination, prosecutorial misconduct and inadequate legal representation.

As long as human justice remains fallible, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.

The death penalty:

• denies the possibility of rehabilitation and reconciliation.
• promotes simplistic responses to complex human problems, rather than pursuing explanations that could inform positive strategies.
• prolongs the suffering of the murder victim’s family, and extends that suffering to the loved ones of the condemned prisoner.
• diverts resources and energy that could be better used to work against violent crime and assist those affected by it.
• is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it. It is an affront to human dignity.
• should be abolished. Now.

To be selective because of gender in your disgust re state sanctioned murder is pathetic.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Roudy, you are no more authoritative on Iran jurisprudence that Sally et al.

Stop the prejudicial assumptions and tell us why, on the evidence presented, this court reached the wrong decision.

Hint: because it is Iran is not the answer you provide.

Dude, I lived in Iran during the Shah's time. It was extremely corrupt and there was cronyism and bribery rampant in every aspect of life, and it got a thousand times worse when the Islamic lunatics took over. You don't understand how these societies work, You get pulled over by a cop and you give him a $50 and he'd let you off. If the judge doesn't render the verdict he was told to render, his ass is next in the slammer, or worse, he'd be incarcerated on false charges or killed. If you're wealthy and powerful enough, "getting away with murder" is not an expression, it's a fact of life for some people.

I believe in this case the woman was probably innocent. It makes more sense that she was falsely accused and convicted of murder, in order to save the man's reputation and his family "name".

so you ran like a rabbit from the shahs regime ?

 

[I.P.Freely]