Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kie99 on March 17, 2005, 01:08:31 pm
-
Taken from here (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9678)
An Iranian serial killer who murdered at least 20 children has been executed in front a large crowd of spectators. Mohammad Bijeh, 24, dubbed "the Tehran desert vampire" by Iran's press, was flogged 100 times before being hanged. A brother of one of his young victims stabbed him as he was being punished. The mother of another victim was asked to put the noose around his neck. The execution took place in Pakdasht south of Tehran, near where Bijeh's year-long killing spree took place.
The killer was hoisted about 10 metres into the air by a crane and slowly throttled to death in front of the baying crowd. Hanging by a crane - a common form of execution in Iran - does not involve a swift death as the condemned prisoner's neck is not broken. The killer collapsed twice during the punishment, although he remained calm and silent throughout. Spectators, held back by barbed wire and about 100 police officers, chanted "harder, harder" as judicial officials took turns to flog Bijeh's bare back before his hanging. Bijeh was stabbed by the 17-year-old brother of victim Rahim Younessi, AFP reported, as he was being readied to be hanged. Officials then invited the mother Milad Kahani to put the blue nylon rope around his neck.
The crimes of Mohammed Bijeh and his accomplice Ali Baghi had drawn massive attention in the Iranian media. They reportedly tricked children to go with them into the desert south of Tehran by saying they were going to hunt animals. They then poisoned or knocked their victims out, sexually abused them and buried them in shallow graves. They were found guilty of the murders of between 19 and 22 people, but local people believe the toll to be higher.
-
We can't abandon civilization in the name of civilization.
-
If he wasn't killed, he should certainly be put away for life. Why should he be granted any mercy when so many others recieved none from him?
I'm not saying I enjoy the idea of him being killed - but I do feel that if murderers and rapists knew that if they were caught their lives would be over - they'd think twice before doing what they do.
-
Originally posted by vyper
We can't abandon civilization in the name of civilization.
Exactly...
-
I don't think this is a question that anyone is qualified to answer. I'd never condem anyone for demanded this kind of retribution for crimes like this and the guy was clearly pure evil.
But... ah, I don't know, maybe I think the death penalty is justified in these cases. I certainly don't think there's anything worse than this type of violence and abuse against children. The only thing I think is truely wrong with this is the fact that he was effectively tortured for revenge. Something quick, more as protection against further crimes rather than an attempt to sate bloodlust.
Lets face it, either way its a lose, lose situation. The victims are still dead.
-
And as well as that. Whose to say its civilised to keep someone locked up in a 5' by 5' cell for the rest of his life. Strikes me as pretty cruel.
-
As a deterrent
Torture + Slow Death>>>>>Instant Death
-
Originally posted by Rand al'Thor
And as well as that. Whose to say its civilised to keep someone locked up in a 5' by 5' cell for the rest of his life. Strikes me as pretty cruel.
Name a better punishment that protects the innocent but still punishes the guilty? Although giving people with life sentences the right to euthanise themselves might be fairer.
-
No, it's not justice. I would want to do many of those things to him myself for what he did, the law should apply to all, and there should be no exceptions. Punishment that brutal is almost the same as what he did to those childen. He should've been locked up for life, but what happened to him was absolutely brutal.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong. I repeat: if I met that man alone, I would probably do much worse to him. But that is not how a society should function.
-
Can't say he didn't have it coming, but no, it should have been a simple execution, no government in the world should "encourage" acts like these, hanging or bullet to the head is enough in my opinion for a capital punishment.
-
Except the guy committed over 20 murders - and you can only execute him once. Is his life worth all 20? Because that's the penance - one life in retribution for the ending of 20.
-
I don't like that style of execution, but he did deserve death. Maybe something more along the lines of a firing squad, or perhaps a more traditional hanging.
-
Brutal execution but not undeserverd. Sexual perverts like that are frowned upon greatly in muslim society, especially a Sh'ite one.
-
He was being made an example of. I think what happened to him will act as a huge deterrent to any other "Vampires."
I personally think executions shouldn't be held, but prisons should be truly horrible places, and Murderers should be dumped there and fed through a tube for the rest of their lives. It may seem brutal/cruel but murdering bastards deserve horrible punishments, not just for revenge but for a deterrent to others.
(I have some pretty radical ideas for justice, which I would detail, if I didn't think I would be flamed to death for them.)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Name a better punishment that protects the innocent but still punishes the guilty? Although giving people with life sentences the right to euthanise themselves might be fairer.
My vote is to be lenient for the first (serious) offence, and incriminetaly stricter for any subsequent crimes. Becuase let's face it, under the right circumstances, any of us could kill once, but it takes will to do it a second or third of fourth time. As punishment, ship 'em off to a labour camp, though of course within reason(not 22 hour a day death camps).
As for the Desert Vampire...honestly, it seems fair. They didn't have to be so brutal about it, but he more or less got what was coming.
-
Two wrongs don't make a right. He was a horrible man, but society needs unbreakable rules to function. Punishments like those break those rules.
-
It's a bit much, but I think he got what he deserved.
-
Of course he did. But the fact is that the laws of society were broken in his punishment, which is in itself wrong.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
He was being made an example of. I think what happened to him will act as a huge deterrent to any other "Vampires."
I doubt it. People like that aren't rational (or indeed sane) enough to be scared off by potential punishment.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Two wrongs don't make a right. He was a horrible man, but society needs unbreakable rules to function. Punishments like those break those rules.
I assume the unbreakable rule in Iran is that No-one except people with authorization from the State is allowed to kill, if you think that law is BS, then you could say the same about putting someone in prison. i.e. False imprisonment is a crime, but we still put people in prison.
-
Yes, but legally, we can only do it if a jury of 12 men finds them guilty, and kill people quickly and without a lot of suffering (nowadays at least, and even the chair pales in comparison to that). Iran, well, they went bonkers with the death penalty.
-
They were too merciful.
-
Justice? Maybe mob justice, but not in any other sense of the word. Yes, I know that, if a family member was brutally murdered, we'd probably want to do the same thing and so much more, but that doesn't make it right. State-sanctioned torture and brutal execution? Are you suggesting that that's a good thing? Who are any of us to say that he "deserved" what he got? Who are any of us to say whether or not he "deserves" to live or die? Personally, I think that the people in the Iranian government who support this type of punishment are no better than the murderer himself.
-
define justice.
"Punishment that brutal is almost the same as what he did to those childen."
exactly.
an injustice, when something is made wrong, when one person gets more than, or takes from someone else, there fare share. to correct this, that person must either repair the damage they have caused (plus intrest) or have a similar inequality exacted on them, untill one of these two things happens the world is out of ballence and there is no justice.
revenge you say?
so what?
revenge is an integral component of the human understanding of justice, it is just as universal, and many cultures fully embrace the concept. yes it is a deterant, and yes it is punishment, and yes (in the case of life in prison or death) it does remove dangerous people from society, these are all good rational reasons, nice and logical, but they are simply that rationaliseations for people unwilling to simply accept vengance and justice as good enough.
there is a reason why you feel like beating this person to death when you read about him. it's natural, it's the way humans are suposed to act, to force yourself to behave diferent is unatural, it goes against your nature.
-
This is the sort of punishment supported by the Code of Hammurabi. Are you to say that human society has not evolved int the past 4000 years?
-
I definitely think that he deserved to die for what he did. However, I think the torture was a little over the top. Maybe they should have just chopped off his 'nads kinda like they chop off your hand if you steal. A public beheading would've been effective too.
-
This is the sort of punishment supported by the Code of Hammurabi. Are you to say that human society has not evolved int the past 4000 years?
You don't want to know the answer to that question.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
This is the sort of punishment supported by the Code of Hammurabi. Are you to say that human society has not evolved int the past 4000 years?
the aligator hasn't changed hardly in 100,000,000 years.
when you get something right you don't need to change.
if(it_ain't_broke)fix(false);
-
About a year ago, a ten year old girl was raped on my island. However, before the court case could close, the accused was found dead.
Not just dead, but he had his genitals sliced off with a knife, shoved in his mouth, and he had been stabbed.
So...that's ok? Besides the fact that the state says that's ok, how is it different from what happened there?
As a government, you should take a higher moral standing than the common murderers, rapists and thieves, don't you think?
-
is there no doubt that he did it?
if not /*thinks... double negitive...*/... if there is none, then sence the girl was still alive, then, maybe they should have just stoped with cutting off his balls and shoveing them down his throught. (though a dull knife would have probly been good, or maybe crushing them off with some sort of blunt object)
isn't the trait common to murderers, rapists and thieves that they initiate injustice, they do bad things to other people whithout them haveing first been wronged? isn't that what makes them 'bad'.
as a government shouldn't you enact the will of the people you serve?
-
I expect the government to do what is right. And it is wrong to kill, especially like that, is it not?
-
not if they have it comeing.
not if they deserve it.
not if they have done something of similar horror to someone else without cause.
-
Who are you to decide who dies and who doesn't? Who are you to play God, so to speak? Man is not infallable, and more often than not, blind rage blinds him to moral justice.
I want it clear, though, that I'm glad this man died like this. I see it as justice, and I wish he had suffered more. However, if I had been on the jury (if they had one), and if they were going to do it all over again, then I would say no, no death penalty, simply because killing a man won't make those people come back.
-
Is it truly right to give into the desire for vengeance? Is it not better to kill them quickly and cleanly, as you would do to an animal that had killed humans?
-
who was he to decide that those 20 childeren's lives and futures were less valuable than his momentary sexual satisfaction?
-
An animal has no rational thought - an animal simply sees food or a threat and attacks it. A human is cool, calculating, and knowledgable, even in insanity. People should not be put down like animals, even if they act like them.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
who was he to decide that those 20 childeren's lives and futures were less valuable than his momentary sexual satisfaction?
He's not that man! No one is! That's one of the reasons it's wrong that he killed them! And we as a people and a government are not that man either! No one is, and if you are an aethiest, no one ever will be!
-
and thus, you see the balence of it.
-
I wasn't implying that they should. What I'm saying is that, in the event of capital punishment being necessary, shouldn't we not draw it out, but rather make it quick, clean, and painless? Is it not the removal of the felon from society that is the important part, not an attempt to force him to feel the pain he inflicted on his victims?
EDIT: Sorry about that, my mind must have still been partially stuck in the Star Wars Character thread and caused me to type the wrong word.
-
How so? That no man, and no government, should legally be allowed to kill someone?
EDIT: And Grey Wolf, in the United States, the death penalty is carried out by lethal injection, which is pretty quick and painless.
-
that he wronged someone, many people in fact, and as a result had the same pain, or some small fraction of it, despenced upon him.
-
I was referring to the slow hanging that the man in the article was killed by. As a note, I don't really agree with capital punishment at all, as:
1. How are we to know that he won't ultimately be proven innocent?
2. Life imprisonment, and being forced to serve for the crime as opposed to a quick death, seems a far more appropriate punishment.
-
Yes, but that pain wont' bring those people back. That pain might give you a small satisfaction, but those people still suffered. And now you have become him, and tortured him in the way he tortured them. Now you are no different than he is, because at the end of the day, you tortured and killed a man.
EDIT: That was directed at Bob.
-
it wasn't intended to bring those people back, it was intended to cause him great pain.
how have you become him? you killed someone who took someone from you, someone who has caused you great unrepairable harm. he killed many innocent childeren, for the fun of it. he made your child, the thing in your life most precous to you above even your own life, and turned that child into a desposable sex toy.
you torchered and killed a man who had it comeing to him. a man who had done things, horable things, a man who owed you great suffering.
for some reason I am reminded of the Peta comerccals that liken chicken farms to the Holocost.
-
You're adding too much emotion to it. If we want to have a functioning society, the law must see all life as having equal value, no matter who the victim was or who committed the crime.
-
"must"
why?
-
Exactly. Once you add emotion, judgement becomes clouded. Yes, Bob, he deserved it, and worse, I'm not disputing that, but you can't go around torturing and killing people because they "deserve it". You have to have limits and rules and follow those rules yourself. If your laws say that you can't kill someone, then not only can a citizen not kill someone, but neither can the government.
The real challenge is to look at every case completely emotionless and dispasionate, so you can reach a fair verdict, no matter how much you want to see that person suffer.
-
Indeed. When you decide that one person deserves it for a seemingly obvious reason, it sets a precedent that allows anyone and everyone to decide who deserves what, and you have Lord of the Flies.
-
but takeing the emotion out of the situation is a distortion of it. yes you need someone dispasionate to figure out what the facts are, but if it is proven that something like this happened not only do I not see a reason for continued dispasionacy I firmly regect the notion. this is a pasionate situation you are an emotional person, they have done you wrong, there will be retibution!
hows this for a rule, you reap what you sow. you may not harm another person, unless they have proportionately harmed you.
-
And how will you define "proportionately harmed"? Because it won't be the same as how someone else does. And then what happens if you get the wrong person? (All the more likely when you're blinded by your primal emotions.) What if someone gets in your way? You'd probably kill them too. That passionate desire for retribution is the reason that humanity has always and will always be the same thing, trapped in the same cycle brutality. People want what satisfies them. Very often it's harmless, but when it comes to violence, it's a force that constantly threatens to render us extinct.
-
and as you say, it's part of who and what we are.
-
But if you allow abuses like this in the justice system, then you get people who do this to people just for the spite of it, just because they don't like them or their beliefs.
If you allow emotion into the trials, then you get prejudice, and then you have unfair trials and unfair verdicts.
Bob, right now I am looking at this with a dispassionate eye, and you are looking at it with an emotional eye. Everything in my brain is telling me that this man deserved it - hell, when I think of what he did to those kids, it's a consolation to me that he died the way he did.
However, I am overriding that thought and impulse for revenge with the thought that: yes, he was horrible, and a description of how awful he was is more than my vocabulary can produce, however, I know that it is wrong to kill someone, and that nomatter what, you must hold true to your values. Same with having sex with a drunk woman. Sure, she might be coming on to you, and only a little drunk - but she's still drunk, and if you are a good person, you will hold onto your values of not doing drunk women, and turn her down.
EDIT: And even though it's part of who we are, that doesn't make it right.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
But if you allow abuses like this in the justice system, then you get people who do this to people just for the spite of it, just because they don't like them or their beliefs.
If you allow emotion into the trials, then you get prejudice, and then you have unfair trials and unfair verdicts.
we as a people decide what is right and wrong, trials and verdicts are only unfair to those who disagree with the majority
Bob, right now I am looking at this with a dispassionate eye, and you are looking at it with an emotional eye. Everything in my brain is telling me that this man deserved it - hell, when I think of what he did to those kids, it's a consolation to me that he died the way he did.
However, I am overriding that thought and impulse for revenge with the thought that: yes, he was horrible, and a description of how awful he was is more than my vocabulary can produce, however, I know that it is wrong to kill someone, and that nomatter what, you must hold true to your values.
so if I have a knife and you have a gun and I come after you, you willnot shoot me because I am a human and it's wrong to kill me? no, I doubt that (though I do assume here), there are exeptions to normal dayly life, most of the time your vengence is overiden by other factors, from mercy to lazyness, only when someone has done something truly horid will you be hell bent on getting back at them, and usualy you'll have a majority of people on your side. but most of the time you won't be slothering about trying to fufill your desiers, you'll be trying to get along, and so will most other people, that is why we haven't killed our selves yet
Same with having sex with a drunk woman. Sure, she might be coming on to you, and only a little drunk - but she's still drunk, and if you are a good person, you will hold onto your values of not doing drunk women, and turn her down.
your a person who empathises, you are like most people, you would not like to be taken advantage of either and you recognise this in her. however usualy when one person is jrunk the other person is too, this is probly why the situation doesn't usualy play out like we would like it to. people who do take advantage of people when they are in a compromised position are reviled, much like the person who was the subject of this thread
EDIT: And even though it's part of who we are, that doesn't make it right.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
we as a people decide what is right and wrong, trials and verdicts are only unfair to those who disagree with the majority
No, human beings are perfectly capable of discerning right and wrong. That is what our justice system should reflect, not petty emotions.
so if I have a knife and you have a gun and I come after you, you willnot shoot me because I am a human and it's wrong to kill me? no, I doubt that (though I do assume here), there are exeptions to normal dayly life, most of the time your vengence is overiden by other factors, from mercy to lazyness, only when someone has done something truly horid will you be hell bent on getting back at them, and usualy you'll have a majority of people on your side. but most of the time you won't be slothering about trying to fufill your desiers, you'll be trying to get along, and so will most other people, that is why we haven't killed our selves yet
No, I'm not saying that. I actually premented this argument earlier. Yes, I'd kill you, because you were attacking me. However, that man would be in a jail cell if there was no death penalty, and thus, harming no one.
Yes, people are more concerned with themselves than others, but that doesn't mean people who are capable of thinking above and beyond themselves shouldn't, simply because no one else does.
your a person who empathises, you are like most people, you would not like to be taken advantage of either and you recognise this in her. however usualy when one person is jrunk the other person is too, this is probly why the situation doesn't usualy play out like we would like it to. people who do take advantage of people when they are in a compromised position are reviled, much like the person who was the subject of this thread
No, the reason that I would not take advantage of a person in a compromised state is not because I would not want it to happen to me, but because I see it as completely wrong.
-
how do you know it's wrong?
it feels wrong, it is something you know inherently is going to cause harm.
nobody had to tell you this was wrong right?
emm, yeah, I asnwered that for you, I put that up more to show that you already have exeptions in your 'must be followed at all times' rules.
right and wrong are defined emotionaly.
-
Everyone's taken the fun out of executions these days. We need to make it a party again. Follow my 5 step plan for ultra-awesomeness.
1) Put the Condemned on platform that is 30 feet in the air
2) Tie an unknown length of rope to the Condemned's neck
3) Have the audience and home viewers place bets on whether the Condemned will hit the ground and die, or get get his neck snapped and die.
4) Drop the Condemned
5) FUN!!!1
/sarcasm :drevil:
-
Inappropriate but funny.
-
Actaully there's a similar Carlin routine, but his idea was to put the executions on pay-per-view and use the revenue to save social security. I just added interaction to it. :D
-
right and wrong are defined emotionaly.
I think you're right about that, but like I said before, you don't have to use right and wrong to argue this point. Civilization by definition requires us to suppress our animal urge to take revenge, because if you allow people to take revenge, our society will inevitably decay into a Hobbesian state of nature. Consequentially, those who commit atrocities will be punished less than we may feel they deserve so that there is no justification for atrocities against the rest of us.