• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran executes 22 year-old

Islam, the religion of mercy. Here we go.....
 
Again, that is the point.
You drew a conclusion when you said the following.That conclusion is based on speculation.

What speculation? She has been convicted of murder in a court of law. Therefore she is a convicted murderer. The death penalty despite what scumbag sympathizers say is an appropriate punishment for murder.
So if you are going to draw conclusions based on speculation then there is no reason why we shouldn't speculate further, with reason based on what we know of the country, it's culture, and how women are treated.

Again she was convicted in a court of law of murder.So there is no speculation. She wasn't convicted of adultery,pissing off religious people or a rape victim.


Uh, hello!
Her claim is, in and of itself, evidence. Evidence that she may not have murdered someone.

Uh, HELLO!,
No it isn't.Criminals claim **** all the time no matter what country they are in.

Secondly, we have the claim of her lawyer that she didn't receive a fair trial.

And how many lawyers over here in the US use that line to try to get their client off the hook. Lawyers are not synonymous with honesty.
What is lacking to us, is evidence supporting the claims.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of something. Her claims she didn't do it is nothing more more BS to say her hide.

But then again, since we are speculating, we again need to go to how the country and it's culture treat women.

Yes we know they execute woman for adultery and other non-executible worthy crimes. Murder is a different story.


No, it doesn't just take sympathy.

Yes it does. Maybe you are correct, it takes misplaced sympathy and lack of common sense and a total disregard for the victims to not want to have scum on death row executed..

As far as I am concerned, it's use, and the use of other vitriolic comments are amoral.

Scumbag sympathizers who whine about being called sympathizers simply do not like being called what they are. If you are going to be a scumbag then fine, but you must also accept the fact you are a scumbag sympathizer and people are going to call you what you are.
 
Yes it is. Just saying. :roll:

BS - I was not defending Iran in the slightest. Read my post again, especially about the part where I said "and just when you think it couldn't get any worse". If I was defending Iran at all, don't you think I would have said "and just when you think it couldn't get any better?".

And, of course, the reference to Texas was tongue in cheek. Texas' justice system is broken, and a few innocent people have died as a result. A few more have been let go after spending a good portion of their lives in prison, or even on death row. So I was making a statement about that. How you can claim, based on my post, that I am defending Iran, is ridiculous. It is also patently dishonest debating.
 
Iran just executed a 22 year old girl for a murder she committed when she was still a minor.

Iran is way out there in their punishments, but just when you think it couldn't get any worse, Iran becomes like Texas. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

There are plenty of people who endorse the DP who should endorse this as well. Killed someone, and that was the taking of a life, which is incredibly valuable. As I understand it the people who support the DP will show us how valuable life is by taking life.
 
Texas' justice system is broken, and a few innocent people have died as a result.

Texas' justice system isn't broken, though it bends quite a bit... just like every justice system in every state and in every nation around the world.

Compared to some other states, I'd say the Texas system probably bends more toward protecting the public than protecting the rights of the accused. And that probably sits just dandy with most Texans. A delicate balancing act.

Is it really better to let 10 guilty men go free than to condemn 1 innocent?


The relevance of answers depends, of course, on getting the questions right. Sometimes, however, we are not quite sure that we actually know what the question is. The doctrine that underlies the title question to this essay is commonly ascribed to William Blackstone. in Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769), Blackstone wrote that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer." (1) This formulation is not the only version of the doctrine. For example, in his book on Evidence (1824), another British scholar, Thomas Starkie, insisted "that it is better that ninety-nine ... offenders shall escape than that one innocent man be condemned." (2) The various versions of this idea in circulation inspired Jeremy Bentham to make the following skeptical comment in A Treatise on Judicial Evidence (1825):

At first it was said to be better to save several guilty men, than to condemn a single innocent man; others, to make the maxim more striking, fixed on the number ten, a third made this ten a hundred, and a fourth made it a thousand. All these candidates for the prize of humanity have been outstripped by I know not how many writers, who hold, that, in no case, ought an accused to be condemned, unless the evidence amount to mathematical or absolute certainty. According to this maxim, nobody ought to be punished, lest an innocent man be punished.
AccessMyLibrary Essay

;)
 
Texas' justice system isn't broken, though it bends quite a bit... just like every justice system in every state and in every nation around the world.

Compared to some other states, I'd say the Texas system probably bends more toward protecting the public than protecting the rights of the accused. And that probably sits just dandy with most Texans. A delicate balancing act.

Is it really better to let 10 guilty men go free than to condemn 1 innocent?


AccessMyLibrary Essay

;)

Although I still disagree with you on this issue, your response is one of the most well thought out postings I have ever seen at DP. Thank you.
 
The fact she was 17 when she committed murder and facing an appropriate punishment for it is irrelevant.This is just scumbag sympathizer nonsense whining over the fact she is being executed for a crime she committed when she was 17. At 17 years old you should know that murder is wrong. If you are old enough to do the crime then you are old enough to be punished for it. As Dav said a country that uses the death penalty for everything will eventually use it for the right reasons. This is one of those moments the death penalty in Iran is being used for the right reason.
I beg to differ. Killing just perpetuates the notion that ending life is acceptable and desensitizes the masses to murder. Hardly progress by today's standards.
 
Islam, the religion of mercy. Here we go.....
Yes, here we go. Tell us how evil and sadistic and terrible Islam's teachings and practices are. Make sure you quote out of context Surrahs. That's always a big hit.
 
Islam, the religion of mercy. Here we go.....

A country which executes preaching to another country that executes?

Pot ... meet kettle :roll:
 
Is it really better to let 10 guilty men go free than to condemn 1 innocent?

I would say yes. Because of the notions of who has power in this country, it is best to allow the guilty go free to ensure as few innocents caught up in the process as one resonably can. The government is supposed to be the restricted force, and the People are the source of all power and authority. Therefore, it's up to the government to present its case because it's the handicapped one. Gobbling up innocents to make sure that the guilty pay can be done only in a system where the government dominates the People. The burden of proof would be less, it would be more a system of guilty until proven innocent. Which is horrible because then the focus isn't that the govenrment must prove you're guilty but that you must prove you're innocent. In such a construct; you would definitely pick up more innocent people, but you'd probably also capture a higher percentage of the guilty. I just don't think it's necessarily a good thing to try to set up. I'd rather the government be limited and that they need to prove their case; not the other way around. Especially in a time when we need to be reevaluating our prison system, the laws we have, and asking why so many people are going to be put in jail. I think it's something like 1/3 of the American populace will at some point spend time in jail. That value for African American is astronomical. Why? I think we're already in the over jailing state and we need to maybe lessen it. Not so much with letting guilty people go on purpose; but by reevaluating the law and the level of interference the government has in our daily lives.

The converse to your statement is interesting, I wonder how many would agree.

Is it better to condemn 10 innocent people to ensure that 1 guilty man doesn't go free?
 
I would say yes. Because of the notions of who has power in this country, it is best to allow the guilty go free to ensure as few innocents caught up in the process as one resonably can. The government is supposed to be the restricted force, and the People are the source of all power and authority. Therefore, it's up to the government to present its case because it's the handicapped one. Gobbling up innocents to make sure that the guilty pay can be done only in a system where the government dominates the People. The burden of proof would be less, it would be more a system of guilty until proven innocent. Which is horrible because then the focus isn't that the govenrment must prove you're guilty but that you must prove you're innocent. In such a construct; you would definitely pick up more innocent people, but you'd probably also capture a higher percentage of the guilty. I just don't think it's necessarily a good thing to try to set up. I'd rather the government be limited and that they need to prove their case; not the other way around. Especially in a time when we need to be reevaluating our prison system, the laws we have, and asking why so many people are going to be put in jail. I think it's something like 1/3 of the American populace will at some point spend time in jail. That value for African American is astronomical. Why? I think we're already in the over jailing state and we need to maybe lessen it. Not so much with letting guilty people go on purpose; but by reevaluating the law and the level of interference the government has in our daily lives.

The converse to your statement is interesting, I wonder how many would agree.

Is it better to condemn 10 innocent people to ensure that 1 guilty man doesn't go free?
The bolded statements were excellently written.
 
Yes, here we go. Tell us how evil and sadistic and terrible Islam's teachings and practices are. Make sure you quote out of context Surrahs. That's always a big hit.

Yep damn us misunderstanders of Islam. :roll: "Slay the infidel wherever you find them" really means "shower the infidel with roses and candy". Fact is Mohammed was a genocidal mad man who perpetrated mass genocide and ethnic cleansing against the banu tribes of the Arabian peninsula after they had surrendered. But ya don't let historical facts like these stand in the way of your apolegetics of a virulent and dangerous ideology.
 
Last edited:
Yes, here we go. Tell us how evil and sadistic and terrible Islam's teachings and practices are. Make sure you quote out of context Surrahs. That's always a big hit.
Booboolaboo 7:34 Thou shalt not execute a 22 year old fox, just cause she hath killed a rich bitch.

I guess we have nothing to say about this. It's Iran's business. Let's move on.
 
I beg to differ. Killing just perpetuates the notion that ending life is acceptable and desensitizes the masses to murder. Hardly progress by today's standards.

Or it makes murder less acceptable by making it a life-ending proposition?

Hell, locking people up for an entire lifetime is pretty rough too, so does doing that perpetuate the notion that it's acceptable? Because maybe some people don't think it is.
 
She has been convicted of murder in a court of law. Therefore she is a convicted murderer. The death penalty ... is an appropriate punishment for murder.
I haven't disagreed with that, have I?


What speculation?
You said the following:
This is one of those moments the death penalty in Iran is being used for the right reason.
This is nothing but speculation.
You do not know if they got it right or wrong this 'moment'.




That conclusion is based on speculation.
So if you are going to draw conclusions based on speculation then there is no reason why we shouldn't speculate further, with reason based on what we know of the country, it's culture, and how women are treated.
Again she was convicted in a court of law of murder.So there is no speculation. She wasn't convicted of adultery,pissing off religious people or a rape victim.
I've already shown that it was speculation that they got it right this momment. So you are mistaken.
Those other crimes only have a little bearing, in comparison to this case, to that of which I am speaking.
That is the way that women are treated and considered, not only by the government and the culture but by the legal system which has been brought about by their culture.
Women are treated as second class citizens. Women are only valued as half that of a male. Their word in court is automatically treated as having half the value of a man's word.
By their own standard, they used half valued words to convict her.




No it isn't.Criminals claim **** all the time no matter what country they are in.
Uh, hello; I have already addressed this.
It doesn't matter, because people also say they have committed crimes they haven't committed.
Regardless, her claim is still evidence that should have been considered (but wasn't), and treated equally as the confession.



And how many lawyers over here in the US use that line to try to get their client off the hook. Lawyers are not synonymous with honesty.
Gee? I really don't know if I know.
Why don't you start another topic and tell me about it with factual information.
Once you start digging up the information I am sure you will find that amongst all convictions, it, as well as the claims of innocence by the convicted, is very much smaller than the media driven hype you seem to have bought into.
If you start digging further into actual cases, you will find that it is the prosecution that gets away with wrong doing more than defense attorneys ever do.



The absence of evidence is not the evidence of something.
Are you not following the conversation?
I am saying we don't have the evidence that the court had. So we don't know.
All we do know is what has been posted on the net, which is an incomplete record.



Her claims she didn't do it is nothing more more BS to say her hide.
There you go speculating again.
You do not know it is "bs". You believe it is "bs".
Your statement is nothing but speculation based on your own preconceived biases.



Yes we know they execute woman for adultery and other non-executible worthy crimes. Murder is a different story.
Again. Not in how they value a woman and her word.


Yes it does. Maybe you are correct, it takes misplaced sympathy and lack of common sense and a total disregard for the victims to not want to have scum on death row executed.
No it doesn't.
And I have already given you examples where none is required.
But you just go ahead and hold steadfastly to your misbegotten biased belief. :rofl


:::::::::::::::::::::::::


Scumbag... scumbag... scumbag...
Wow, you really impressed me.
I guess you missed the compliment I gave.
Regardless; You know its use is nothing but vitriol, and amoral.

I happen to know for fact that humans are not bags of scum. They are made up of flesh and bone.
Although I am sure that there are those out there that would use the word 'scumbag' to describe people who use such vitriol, I am not not of them.
That would be as juvenile, uneducated, and a sign of a hateful, irrational and convoluted mind, as using it in the first place.
If I were to use it, I could imagine my creator judging me just as harsh, if not more harshly than those who have committed crimes, just for calling his/her creations such, instead of just calling their actions for what they were.
 
Yep damn us misunderstanders of Islam. :roll: "Slay the infidel wherever you find them" really means "shower the infidel with roses and candy". Fact is Mohammed was a genocidal mad man who perpetrated mass genocide and ethnic cleansing against the banu tribes of the Arabian peninsula after they had surrendered. But ya don't let historical facts like these stand in the way of your apolegetics of a virulent and dangerous ideology.
Any passages that I've come across have only condoned killing "infidels" in self-defense. Again, continue to perpetuate xenophobic ignorance. It's all the rage right now.
 
Or it makes murder less acceptable by making it a life-ending proposition?

Hell, locking people up for an entire lifetime is pretty rough too, so does doing that perpetuate the notion that it's acceptable? Because maybe some people don't think it is.
"You killed so now we're going to do the same thing you did, but it's okay because you did it first."

That is why the Death Penalty is laughable.
 
"You killed so now we're going to do the same thing you did, but it's okay because you did it first."

That is why the Death Penalty is laughable.

It's not the same thing. Killing an innocent person, and killing a murderous person, are two very different things. And no, killing a murderous person doesn't make you murderous yourself.
 
It's not the same thing. Killing an innocent person, and killing a murderous person, are two very different things. And no, killing a murderous person doesn't make you murderous yourself.

I don't think they are strikingly different, given the circumstance it could be the same. And killing a murerous person doesn't necessarily make you murderous (though it could, depending...if you're Charles Bronson Death Wish style, I may contend that you are rather murderous) but it does make you a killer.
 
It's not the same thing. Killing an innocent person, and killing a murderous person, are two very different things. And no, killing a murderous person doesn't make you murderous yourself.
It makes you a killer and a hypocrite. It perpetuates the extinguishing of life and desensitizes the masses to human induced death.
 
This is nothing but speculation.
You do not know if they got it right or wrong this '

I am sure that if they wanted to kill this woman they could find something less than murder.
I've already shown that it was speculation that they got it right this momment. So you are mistaken.
Those other crimes only have a little bearing, in comparison to this case, to that of which I am speaking.
That is the way that women are treated and considered, not only by the government and the culture but by the legal system which has been brought about by their culture.
Women are treated as second class citizens. Women are only valued as half that of a male. Their word in court is automatically treated as having half the value of a man's word.
By their own standard, they used half valued words to convict her.



Uh, hello; I have already addressed this.
It doesn't matter, because people also say they have committed crimes they haven't committed.
Regardless, her claim is still evidence that should have been considered (but wasn't), and treated equally as the confession.






Again people claim **** all the time to weasel out of their punishment.

Gee? I really don't know if I know.
Why don't you start another topic and tell me about it with factual information.


The claims of lawyers are not evidence.



Are you not following the conversation?
I am saying we don't have the evidence that the court had. So we don't know.
All we do know is what has been posted on the net, which is an incomplete record.



There you go speculating again.
You do not know it is "bs". You believe it is "bs".
Your statement is nothing but speculation based on your own preconceived biases.



Are you trying to claim criminals do not lie and that lawyers do not claim some sort of bull **** to help their client weasel out of punishment. You are a very deluded person.



No it doesn't.
And I have already given you examples where none is required.
But you just go ahead and hold steadfastly to your misbegotten biased belief. :rofl

Only scumbag sympathizers who show as much regard for the victim as the murder try to help scumbags weasel out their punishment.
 
I beg to differ. Killing just perpetuates the notion that ending life is acceptable and desensitizes the masses to murder. Hardly progress by today's standards.

That is nothing but scumbag sympathizing drivel. Oh the poor wittle serial kiwwers and murderwer shouldn't be executed its not right that we take their lives, we should force millions of tax payers to support these poor people for the rest of their lives and perhaps if they been good enough we can release these people back into society. What a load of ****en garbage. You people have as much regard for the victims of these scum as the scum or maybe even less.
 
That is nothing but scumbag sympathizing drivel. Oh the poor wittle serial kiwwers and murderwer shouldn't be executed its not right that we take their lives, we should force millions of tax payers to support these poor people for the rest of their lives and perhaps if they been good enough we can release these people back into society. What a load of ****en garbage. You people have as much regard for the victims of these scum as the scum or maybe even less.

Death penalty cases in the US are much more expensive than life imprisonment cases.

And most murderers get life without eligibility for parole if they are not tried for capital murder and punishment. That means these people won't be released back into society and it's cheaper to keep them imprisoned till they rot than it is to go through with a lengthy execution appeal.
 
I am sure that if they wanted to kill this woman they could find something less than murder.
Interesting.
More speculation (irrelevant at that) in response to me pointing out you were speculating.
Doh!
:doh



Again people claim **** all the time to weasel out of their punishment.
And what didn't you get about people claiming that they have committed crimes that they haven't?

Neither claim has any bearing on whether or not this girl's claim is true.
Nor is your claim above, a reason to simply dismiss hers.

It's like you are saying the following.
When an accused claims they committed a crime you automatically believe it, yet if an accused claims they didn't do it, they are just trying to get out of punishment.
That way of thinking is convoluted.
It's like saying;
'I am going to believe an accused only if they say they did it.'
It shows clear bias and prejudice.

I am saying it all depends on the evidence.
Which is something the record available to us in this case is lacking.
Both which are things that you seem unable to comprehend.



The claims of lawyers are not evidence.
The claims of the lawyer is a reason to look and see whether or not she indeed did receive a fair trial.


Are you trying to claim criminals do not lie and that lawyers do not claim some sort of bull **** to help their client weasel out of punishment. You are a very deluded person.
The delusion lays with yourself.
I have never made the claim that criminals do not lie, nor would I.
Nor would I make a claim that police, prosecutors and the general public, do not lie.

As for lawyers claiming,
"some sort of bull **** to help their client weasel out of punishment".

Your view is extremely jaded.
Legal arguments are not bs if founded in the law.

What I am saying is that you have no evidence to say that they got it right in this instance, or that her claim was bs.
Your words in regards to this were nothing but speculation.
What I am saying is what I already said:
You do not know it is "bs". You believe it is "bs".
Your statement is nothing but speculation based on your own preconceived biases.


Only scumbag sympathizers who show as much regard for the victim as the murder try to help scumbags weasel out their punishment.
You have already been shown that you are wrong with examples given.

So, like I already said;
"But you just go ahead and hold steadfastly to your misbegotten biased belief. :rofl"
It is funny, as well as sad.
 
Back
Top Bottom