In a State sponsored murder (capital punishment) who should pull the chair

Bavafa
by Bavafa
02-Dec-2010
 

It has been brought to light that in the recent State sponsored murder that took place in Iran the son of the victim, Laheh, has acted as the executioner and pulled the chair to hang Shahla.

But first let me condemn the vast killing and murder by IRI, whether it has been done in the name of justice and in criminal cases or in private and covert operation and in so many prisons to the brave Iranians that their only crime was to speak their mind and stand up to tyranny and dictatorship.

I know this is probably going to bring much heated emotions nevertheless, as I was reading the news about who actually "pulls the plug" in an execution in Iran… I asked myself, in all this madness, who should really carry out the execution?

Should this be a job of a state employee or those who insist on death "capital punishment"?

Knowing that there have been many innocent people executed for the crime they never committed, why should that guilt be on the conscience of a state employee and not those who insist on taking the life.

I think it is only fair and just to expect those who hold the life in their vote and give the verdict whether by a jury system as in the West or thru ghesas in Iran (Islamic system), those who insist on taking a life also should carry it out. Let the guilt or retribution be on the conscience of those who hold the life in hand and have the power to take or give it back.

Lets not ask a State employee to commit to murder and have it on his conscience. But better yet, lets abolish this barbaric law/tradition once and for all.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by BavafaCommentsDate
RP as the potential leader of Iranians….
-
Aug 20, 2012
تو حلقم
1
Aug 04, 2012
Celebrating 4th July ….
6
Jul 03, 2012
more from Bavafa
 
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

NP; Mehrban

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

Mehrban is right about the damage Ghesas does to people. The act of killing is incredibly damaging to the one doing it. To ask the victim to compound their hurt by murder is criminal.

That is what Islamist Republic does. They get a vulnerable person and instead of support make them a murderer.

The spreading of vengeance is real. Imagine two families involved in this. One "victim" and one supposed "guilty". If the decision is made by the state there is no fight between the families. But in Islamism the decision is left to the families. Now say the victim decides to kill the "guilty". Based on shoddy evidence and that leaves the family of the executed blaming the victim's family. You got the making of a family fued. 

For 1400 years the best minds of Iran like Hafiz have tried to sugar coat Islam. They use anything from philosophy to poetry to put lipstick on this pig. The glorious outcome has been the Islamic Republic!

I say **** Islam. Give it up! It ain't working. Be realistic and stop pretending to find meaning or greatness where there is none. 

We have to accept that Islam is a prehistoric barbaric death cult. Give up on trying to find meaning or greatness in it. If we do this then we see the truly ugly face of Islam. 

 


Mehrban

DA, VPK

by Mehrban on

DA, your blog about trying to be (or pretend to be) the fiercest mourner and its relationship to the culture of martyrdom was not lost on me.  Thanks

VPK, I have not read many of the comments before mine, just the blog.  Sorry if I were repetitious. 


Hoshang Targol

Clarification # 1

by Hoshang Targol on

Not only is NP a shameless advocarte for Islamic Republic of Hell, he/she is totally ignorant of thereality that in fact whithin the greater "real-existing, actual" Islamic world IR and its Shia theology is considered horse sh.t, as it ought to be.

Any close reading of the texts and history of Shiaism , should make  clear, beyond any doubt, that all along it was a mumbo-jumbo "interpretation" invented only to challenge the dominance of Sunni muslims. A strickly political act, nothing to do with theology.

Further more the Shia "version" in Iran is creation of one of the sickest mind of the 20th century , namely Ayatshaytan Khomeini. So here we have "laws" and "codes" created based on a double distortion of an original set of thoughts ( which were incredibly barbaric and pre-historic  to begin with) and "people"  in here actually support it, based on "empiric" ," touching of blood",...

( just how debase and low these IR apologists could get seems to have no limit).

 


Calrification #2
;

The difference between Reza Sadeghnia:

//iranian.com/main/2010/dec/mohammad-reza...

And Abji Nilofar aka NP,

The former operated with his real name, and is back to his pay masters for good, the latter doesn't use his real name, and still has a short while to distort and justify everything in favour of IR, and then go back to his pay masters for good, cheers

 


Mehrban

NP, human societies are imperfect

by Mehrban on

 

The idea is that the circle of revenge and violence should end somewhere and so far societies that have encapsulated this need for justice and punishment strictly in the hands of the Law, have been able to maintain a more calmly functioning societies.   


Niloufar Parsi

mehrban

by Niloufar Parsi on

the first part of your comment makes sense, but it is also a matter of perspective. is it really more 'civilised' to shop packed meat in a supermarket than to cut off the head of an animal? there is something equally disturbing about our mechanised way of farming and processing live animals into supermarket packages. a chicken farm, for example, is quite a 'fascist' entity!

we can talk in a similar way about the difference between a violent gun fight and a drone or guided missile attack. the latter kills far more people, but no one on the attacking side even flinches. they think they are perfectly civilised because they don't have to look into their victims' eyes when they kill them.

point is: isn't it more civilised to touch the blood we spill? and to feel  responsibility for it? wouldn't this lead to less violence and bloodshed?

re. the islamic penal code, there is no strict set of punishments, no. the general rule is 'eye for an eye', but only if the grieved insist on it. you can get blood money or even just forgive someone. this is how i understand it works. am no expert. perhaps someone else can help clarify.

Peace


Hoshang Targol

" قصاص" Ghesas is the pre-historic form of "justice"

Hoshang Targol


imposed in Iran since the rule of IR. It basically says an eye for an eye, and all that nonsense.

 

Malijak, was a Royal Court's "favourite"  boy of Ghjar period, it's also used as a slang for those who carry water for rulers,( aka KHAYEH MAL) justify ruling classes crimes, and suck their toes.

 

Abji Nariman, is NP's  real name. It involves putting two farsi words together: Iman; faith, and Nar; male, in reverse order. A male with lots of faith. Nar Iman, for short Nariman.


Mehrban

NP

by Mehrban on

If you agree with the first part of my comment I would say that we have made progress towards a civil society.

 

Ps. It is my understanding that the punishment is determined based on the Islamic penal codes strictly by the judge. Never the less .......


Hoshang Targol

What's the difference between Reza Sadeghnia and NP?

by Hoshang Targol on

The former is a well known IR thug on the run:

//iranian.com/main/2010/dec/mohammad-reza...

The latter, not as a famous a stoog/thug, crawls pages of IC, shamelessly supporting mullahs and all their policies: including Ghesas, stoning to death, elimiination of all subsidies,...

The former, gone for good, back to his pay masters.

The latter, still has a short while left before departing to his pay masters.


Raoul1955

Hoshang Targol:

by Raoul1955 on

Who is 'Abji Nariman?' 
Also, what are 'Ghesas,' and 'Malijak Bazi?'
Thanks


Niloufar Parsi

mehrban

by Niloufar Parsi on

you started well but it seems you drifted into fantasy half way through. correct me if i am wrong, but my impression is that the penalty is decided in consultation with the victim or their family.


Hoshang Targol

My dearest Abji Nariman, your incoherence has no limits

by Hoshang Targol on

your support Ghesas and all other crimes of IR, and others are killers?

The slogans below are the demands and slogans that will put and end to Ghesas, IR and all your Malijak Bazi's for mullahs, meanwhile enjoy those toes, cheers


Mehrban

"What is wrong with that"?

by Mehrban on

What is wrong with Ghesaas is that it spreads the violence of punishment among the citizenry.  It makes it into a personal vedetta, when the punishment is executed by the Law, it leaves (at least tries to) the families and the affected parties out side of the decision and act of killing and prevents (tries to) further personal animosities.  

The concern here is the psychological health of the society over all.   

Islamic republic renders the Death Penalty BEFORE it asks the relatives of the victim to decide to execute it or not.  It decides the punishment by its own authority but leaves the citizenry in this painful predicament of executing it or not while they are most vulnerable.  This process spreads confusion, hatred murder and revenge right into every citizen.  

 


Niloufar Parsi

psycho killer

by Niloufar Parsi on

has arrived with his long boring list of slogans...!


Hoshang Targol

state sponsered violence in Iran is not rhetorical, symbolic or

by Hoshang Targol on

fictional. Only and only "indefatigable" toe suckers of mullahs such as Abji Nariman, aka NP, NF, and their ilk are the ones,- too blind, dumb, incoherent, irrational or just simply  bought-off by the regime-, to reduce such monstrosities to everyday facts.


DOWN WITH ISLAMIC REPUBLIC.


STOP ALL EXECUTIONS IN IRAN.


FREE ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN IRAN
.


Niloufar Parsi

it was a rhetorical question,

by Niloufar Parsi on

but just to be clear: i don't see iran and iri as the same thing. so i agree with your distinction, but sometimes i note anti-iri comments and blogs that are really anti-iran in character.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

NP

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

 

  • There is an inherent difference in how Islam views crime vs modern legal system. In Islam victims have a great deal to say about the punishment. Within that framework you and Mehrdad points are valid. Yes if they had to pull the trigger it *may* reduce the demand. On the other hand it may not. Plenty of vengeful and angry people out there. They will do it then 20 years later when it is discovered the person was not really "guilty" they have to live with the results.My point is that we should get away from the Islamic approach and use the modern one. That means the victim does not have a final say in the punisment. I gave my reasons already. I am sure many people will disagree.
  • Regarding killing animals: yes that is legitimate. I remember we wanted to bake some lobsters. I was with a group of tough frat boys and none of them could get themselves to kill the lobsters. At the end they had to "outsource" the cooking to a biologist who was used to killing animals.
  • Regarding praise: Indeed IC is the right place to praise Iran. It is also the right place to praise IRI if you are so inclined. Of course you will have an "animated" discussion to put it mildly. But that is the right place!

Niloufar Parsi

vpk

by Niloufar Parsi on

i was not specifically refuting your comments. was just agreeing with the sentiment behind mehrdad's original blog. you are taking a legal and academic approach. the question is a far more basic one at the level of what is right or wrong. it is similar to the question of vegetarianism: my guess is that if we had to kill animals with our own hands, fewer people would eat meat. islamic justice makes it a point to allow individual choices when it comes to the level of punishment. what is wrong with that? i quite appreciate its flexibility. and in the final analysis, if i have been grieved, then i should have a say in the punishment too within a fair framework. christianity talks about turning the other cheek. islam actually provides a legal framework for it!

your point about usa.com is well taken. but what if someone wants to praise iran? should they go to huffington post?!

Peace


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

NP

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. To me a crime is committed against the "state" AND against an individual. However only the "state" may request a criminal penalty. The idea that a person demands criminal penalty is inherently a part of Sharia and something that I reject. I have given a long list of reasons why. The short of it being that it leads to unequal justice. It makes punishment dependent on the emotions of the victims which is wrong.

be the one who wishes for the death rather than a 'professional'. 

The state prosecutor is the one wishing for death. So by your argument the state should provide the one to do it. Now if as I want the state BANs this practice then no one would be able to legally make this demand; hence no issue.

The individual may request a CIVIL penalty a.k.a. money. That thankfully does not involve killing anyone.

Regarding: your point on the USA . We are on IC not on USA.com. Why should I condemn USA and not Saudi or China or Russia or Pakistan. It makes no sense to bring in all the other nations. In fact I have condemned USA and its death penalty but on American forums not on IC: because it is not an Iranian issue. If you want condemnation of USA just go to Huffington Post where you will find it. 

 


Niloufar Parsi

mehrdad

by Niloufar Parsi on

interesting question you put. i totally get your point. in the last moment when a life is being taken at someone's hand, it makes good sense for that person to be the one who wishes for the death rather than a 'professional'. there is something very human and realistic about the idea. it also leaves the door ajar for forgiveness right till the last moment. you can find several traces of this in islamic justice. but hey, who has the courage to say such things around this place?! this brings me to the second point i wanted to make about your blog. i am sick and tired of the hypocrisy of iranians in exile. a good example is the fact that no one, and i mean no one, is allowed to open up such topics as you have here without feeling the obligation to state just how much they 'hate' the islamic regime just in case someone jumps down your throat for saying something positive about the system. it's just like the 'bismellah...' of anyone opening their mouths on iranian tv!  funny thing is, there is far more murder in usa both in terms of coldblooded killing inside the country as well as abroad. but i don't see people opening every blog here with a disclaimer like "But first let me condemn the vast killing and murder by USA..."

why do you think that is? is it similar to the question of personal versus the professional executioner?


Dirty Angel

VPK

by Dirty Angel on

I meant that it proposes SOME "ethical" conversation, whether sound/valid or not , but SOMETIMES overlapping and to be considered in very few circumstances. (Consider the whole notion of "murder"....)

 

Great poingnant ditiguishing point about "crime" and"punishment" !

 

 

AGAIN, the field of Ethics is gigantic and everyday in e.g neuroscience there are so many new disoveries to confirm or of  change hitherto well-accepted concepts of blame and consequently  punishment and implementation.

 

This blog throws so many,: I'm not quite sure where to start...

 

 

"The shorter the life, the longer the death."


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

DA

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

I am not sure what you mean. We may be saying the same thing. I oppose bringing Sharia into the legal system. That to me IS a kind of political Islam.

Sharia law condones many barbaric acts. Sure it also has some sensible things. For example it says people should not steal. But the penalty i.e cut off the hand is barbaric. Sharia allows a "mjotahed" to issue death fatwahs. That is just wrong and no sane society should allow it.

Regarding building a foundation I did not mean you personally. I meant a nation must not build its legal system on a rotten foundation. I believe that Sharia is unsound. It is a rotten foundation for a judicial system. Now if the Mollahs want to get offended: tough. I call it as I see it. 


Dirty Angel

VPK , Nope!

by Dirty Angel on

Shariah Law has Very few but coinciding laws with others. By totally dismissing all of it, all you do is playing into their hands... They love that for playing into the cards of prejudice... Not all of it is rotten, although most of it is, just as with Hinduism, Catholicism, Mormons etc..

 

The problem is and is pOLTICAL ISLAM. ISLAMISM!

I certainly haven't built anything on "their foundations" and I very much doubt that Mehrban has (without going much out on a limp here). 

 

"The shorter the life, the longer the death."


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Mehrban

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

Yes the sentencing should be confined to the judiciary. This is a separate issue from the death penalty. If it is a big mistake to turn victims into executioners or even decide the sentence.

I already gave a lot of reasons why victims should not decide criminal penalties. They should be able to get some form of restitution through civil law. In USA we even use different standards for culpability when dealing with criminal vs civil.

DA: Sharia has to go plain and simple. Or we are not going to have justice. It is a pile of barbaric garbage. There is no point even taking about justice if Sharia is the basis. Let us not waste time building on foundation which is rotten.


Dirty Angel

Mehrban, You did, you highlighted better

by Dirty Angel on

You had mentioned it yesterday.

 

In one of my hard-hitting, ridiculous Uclgy yucky  "popped people" blogs I had attempted. I had tried...

 

It really is of most upmost importance. Even this vile , totally oppressive notion of appearences, without any foundations whatsoever, an obsession with appearing "good",  (with the most repulsive of manipulative displays of hysterical emotional histrionics, just to cofirm better payment in the will..) with no rational proof of any "good" deed" according to the fashion of the day, other than any form form of critical thinking, may cost one one's life.....

 

To me, this whining, whaling, howling martyrdom,When IF AT TIMES I ENJOY  joining in, I KNOW, that is a self-servient, self-indulgant, self-aggrandissemment of an excercise, and that's when once in a blue moon I take care to moan and whine andwiddle and woddle and wobble and wonder . But that's when I listen to ....

NOT A person's judgment on life!

 

 

 

When a whole nation.....

 

 

 

"When... A nation obsessed with  appearances, doesn't have time for thoughts nor deeds..." 


Dirty Angel

So, here another ethical question

by Dirty Angel on

Yo BroffBavafa, I did say, you raised so many ethical questions.

Some are still going overboard about begazillions of murdrers of sperms. ...

 

No,  even under Sharia law the prerequisites for judgments is not based solely on revenge.  I did try to hint at the notional concept of " deterrent;, ((of which I don't totally agree with either).

It's huge, Bavafa. HUGE! Your entire subject.  HUGE. And on top of it there are on a daily basis, huge gagoongawoonga discoveries in Neuroscience that will topple loads of our previously stances on Ethics and might even confirm others. 

But no, in the meantimes, I shan't forget the images of those you have mentioned initially in you blog

 

 

"The shorter the life, the longer the death."


Mehrban

"Unfortunately that Is part of the law"

by Mehrban on

you are right, because the legal code of the Islamic Republic is based in large measure, on archaic religious codes. We might say that maybe (at that time) the shared guilt (?) of sacrifice by the members of the tribe would bind them together and would help the community survive as a unit.

In my first sentence I should add "ideally". All civilized countries (even the ones with the capital punishment) keep all proceedings within the judicial system.    

Ps.  Dirty Angel, I imagine that the topic of this blog and the culture of martyrdom are closely related.


Dirty Angel

Mehrban

by Dirty Angel on

Unfortunately that Is part of the law....(according to Sharia , including the executionof the execution...)

 

I'm just totally shocked most of the time...

 

But don't worry, According to many and Larijarni, Iran isn't a theocracy, it just has problems with people who act against Islam...{insert every conceivable swearword, you can imagine].The lack of critical rationality....

 

"The shorter the life, the longer the death."

 

Oh and Mehrban, what I noticed about your comment  on another blog about martyrdom. It truly deserves quite a few articles by itself.... 

 

"Sometimes what people want is the freedom not to be free"


Mehrban

Capital punishment or any other sentence

by Mehrban on

should never leave the realm of the Law in any of its stages, including its execution.   That is why there is a judicial system.   Definition of the crimes, the judicial proceedings and the execution of the punishment are in the realm of the law and not vigilantism.  

This barbaric inclusion of the citizenry (family of the victim) in actual execution (pulling the chair) is a left over from the archaic religious ceremonies of "sacrifice" that the whole tribe took part in.   

Ps.  This is a very important topic.  Thanks Mehrdad for bringing it up.


Ali P.

Devil's advocate

by Ali P. on

The proponants of death penalty say:

"Every generation produces some good, kind, nice people. It also produces some scum, some bad apples, if you will. Those who do nothing, but cause pain in the heart of others. They rape, molest, kill.All the education in the world does not a damn thing for these folks.

We say, enough is enough. I am not talking about political or property crimes. I am talking about the most sacred entity, the human life.

Look: You take a precious life, we take your precious life. You kidnap, rape, decapitate a 12-year old, someone's son, or daughter ? Guess what MF? We are frying your ass!

 

Call it state sponsored murder, if you wish. We don't give a damn! We already authorize men to kill, in case of war, and if a man kills in the name of the country, he is a patriotic hero.

We lose thousands of good, innocent people every year to accidents and  disease. So what if we execute a few scumbags? Western civilization is going to be fine, and survive, without them. Screw rehabilitation. Let's just write the SOB's off...We can afford it."


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Mehrdad

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

1) I do not agree that the punishment specially death is up to the victim. It should be up to prosecutors who are not personally involved. That at least takes some of the emotions out.

2) I do not agree with the death penalty. I don't want to make it harder. I want to make it impossible. The solution is to ban it as most civilized nations have done. If the people are willing to vote as a nation to ban it we are all set. If not then it WILL be abused.

I hope this clears up my position.