[Jetmech Jr.]

Not surprising. Iran is a ****hole, what did you expect?

[aldo_14]

Just because no UK/US court would prosecute doesn't mean it's not still illegal.

That's arguably true for every conceivable thing, through; there are courts in the world that prosecute people for posting criticism of the government or having sex out of marriage.  However, the UK/US courts do a reasonably good job of reflecting our societal opinions on crime and morality, and also have to more strongly adhere to international conventions upon human rights (in the UK from both the EU and UN aspects; AFAIK US is a lot less strictly adherent to the UNCHR but does have the Constitution to enforce restraints upon law).  I would say a good judgement of which legal system is 'better' can be made by reflecting upon the freedoms within UK and Iranian society.

And diminished responsibility also sometimes covers trauma and shock - crimes of passion and whatnot. Like if you come home from your brother's funeral to find your wife ****ing the milkman.

It won't get you off, but it'll get your sentence reduced.

Not necessarily; diminished responsibility (in murder) only acts to remove the mandatory life sentence; but a whole-life tariff is still possible based on the judges discretion (the idea of dimished responsibility dates from when murder was still a capital offence)

For reference, the CPS guidelines on diminished responsibility (pleas) are;

Acceptability of Pleas
Manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility

Before accepting a plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, there should be:

    * a satisfactory psychiatric report that concludes that the defendant fulfils the criteria set out in section 2(1) Homicide Act 1957 (Archbold, 19-66); and
    * agreement between the police, The CPS and counsel; and
    * consultation with the family of the victim

Be cautious where:

    * the report's findings depend on certain facts provided by the defendant which cannot be proved by independent evidence; or
    * there are a number of specialist reports which give conflicting opinions whether the defendant fulfils the criteria under section 2(1) Homicide Act 1957; or
    * the medical evidence appears to be straining to bring a defendant within the criteria.

Section 2-1 on the Homicide Act (1957) is

2.--

      (1) Where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.

Whilst this may (I think) include severe shock, trauma, etc within the definition, evidenciery proof of such would be very hard to establish.  In any case, diminished responsibility is not in itself part of a charge but a defense/plea.

NB: List of (some) diminished responsibility cases

[an0n]

The second 'wrong', however, was commited by an entire state, an entire set of laws drawn up by 'supposedly' those responsible for defending the public from both inside and outside threats. They weren't there to defend this woman, and so, for defending herself, she is to be killed.

So you're a fan of vigilantism then?

As for the 'Diminished Responsibility' thing, I know a guy who got off with destroying his wife's house and her boyfriend's car simply by citing emotional distress or some ****. Then he had his solicitor sell off all his assets in the cheapest and most legal ways possible so his wife couldn't get anything from the divorce.

[Flipside]

And yes, I agree that not punishing the girl at all for killing a man is also wrong, but so is hanging her, undeniably so. The first 'wrong' was commited by one person, who was scared and in danger, that doesn't forgive the crime

From the same post.   

[Charismatic]

In the US people carry guns to prevent getting attacked, and that's sanctioned in the bloody constitution.

 Hell yeah. And do u have a problem with that? Do you know the reason that we carry guns around? So if anyone else tries to rule over us and by tyrants, we can fend for ourselfs and overthrow them. Its a big 'we wont take **** from nobody' sign. Sadly enough we do but.. thats besides my point.

[vyper]

Perhaps because your potential tyrants have much bigger guns?

[Martinus]

Hell yeah. And do u have a problem with that? Do you know the reason that we carry guns around? So if anyone else tries to rule over us and by tyrants, we can fend for ourselfs and overthrow them. Its a big 'we wont take **** from nobody' sign. Sadly enough we do but.. thats besides my point.

Dare I say that it's already too late, the tyrants are working in full view of everyone and the people blissfully smile and get on with things as they're told 'it's all for your own good'. This could turn into another anti-gun/pro-gun thread but the last few have pointed out that countries that promote the ownership of guns have drastically higher rates of shootings.

As for the main story of this thread, until a few days ago I thought that Iran had as much right to access nuclear power as anyone else and that those countries that had it and were attempting to block Iran were hypocrites.

Lets just say my mind has been changed.

[Mefustae]

I'd like to know why most think the western view on this matter is invariably 'right', and the Iranian view 'wrong'. Both systems are undeniably flawed, but why is one right, and the other wrong? As such, why the hell is everyone so outraged and/or disgusted at this!?

[an0n]

The gun rights in the Constitution are there because the US was never supposed to have an army.

You're allowed to carry a gun so you can defend your home and family from attackers and oppressive government, but also so they could quickly activate a militia to defend the nation.

[Martinus]

I'd like to know why most think the western view on this matter is invariably 'right', and the Iranian view 'wrong'. Both systems are undeniably flawed, but why is one right, and the other wrong? As such, why the hell is everyone so outraged and/or disgusted at this!?

More important than right and wrong is the morality issue. Just because we 'westerners' (which, might I add covers a rather significant religious and idealistic spectrum) have a problem with it doesn't make our judgement poor.

They're going to murder a girl who protected herself from rapists. She killed someone, over here the circumstances would be investigated and accounted for. It isn't over there. That simply makes those of us who think it is wrong more moral.

[aldo_14]

Hell yeah. And do u have a problem with that? Do you know the reason that we carry guns around? So if anyone else tries to rule over us and by tyrants, we can fend for ourselfs and overthrow them. Its a big 'we wont take **** from nobody' sign. Sadly enough we do but.. thats besides my point.

Did you ever notice that tanks>pistols?

Albeit AFAIK the Constitution only really referred to the right to bear arms within a militia (i.e. a trained paramilitary force  akin to the police or national guard), reflecting the role of the said militias in the initial stage of rebellion against the British Empire (specifically, the nascent US did not have an army for some years; the initial revolutionary forces were militia - akin to police - groups from the individiual colonies, relying on a short supply of arms either stolen from the British or imported from France).  On reading the Constitution alone, and within the historical context of it's writing, it would seem to me to be far more likely that the constitutional right to bear arms reflects the need and desire to have a self-defence force, from a time when re-invasion by the British would have still been a concern.

[Flipside]

I'd like to know why most think the western view on this matter is invariably 'right', and the Iranian view 'wrong'. Both systems are undeniably flawed, but why is one right, and the other wrong? As such, why the hell is everyone so outraged and/or disgusted at this!?

Because there is no such thing as right or wrong, fair or unfair, they don't exist, they never appear on any periodic table. There is only what we do. If we choose to be religious, then maybe we get judged by a greater power, though I have my doubts about that. My own interest is in 'what will happen to the attempted rapists', I have noted that no word whatsoever was given of their punishment, that is why I have been willing to accept this as a propoganda play from the top, however, I am still interested to find out if there was any punishment meted out to them.

Humanity lies to itself every single day, we apply rules to others and yet bend them around ourselves. What is worse is that we know we do, but because it is convenient, we choose to ignore the fact.

Some will say the punishment should fit the crime, a life for a life, others will say that a person has the right to defend themselves from the possibility of death with deadly force if neccessary. Both sides are 'right' both sides are 'wrong' depnding on which individual is doing the judging. I don't think this is an East/West thing at all, it's all a question of empathy. The West itself is incredibly good at ignoring the big crimes that harm thousands of people and instead focus on small crimes that often harm no living thing.

Regardless of your gender, if you were attacked by somebody, would you deny yourself the right to use deadly force to preserve your own existence? Indeed both the East and the West have proved time and time again that they are perfectly willing to do so.

And yet we feel perfectly comfortable denying it to other people, because that is really easy when you're not the one being threatened.

[aldo_14]

I'd like to know why most think the western view on this matter is invariably 'right', and the Iranian view 'wrong'. Both systems are undeniably flawed, but why is one right, and the other wrong? As such, why the hell is everyone so outraged and/or disgusted at this!?

There is no unquivocal answer to right and wrong; it's a view formed by a multitude of factors through society and our own development.  We can look at our systems, and their systems, and say 'which is better?' or 'which would I prefer to live in?'; and I think most people would find it fair if we chose the system that respected individual rights to decide what religious or moral code to live by* as being better than a code whose main purpose is to enforce the religious and moral dictat of a party which uses said dictat to preserve it's power beyond all else (not just in law; for example look at the Iranian religious leaders opting to bar candidates from elections in order to tailor the result).  This obviously moves to another issue; do we have a right to expect to be free, and to be treated fairly?  I'd say the answer to that issue would and should be 'yes', as to accept otherwise would be to indicate a right to harm others and to expect to be harmed ourselves.

*with the obvious caveat of the law protecting individuals from harm, so that a personal code of being a murderous raping bastard is not allowed nor respected

[BlackDove]

Charismatic, I am afraid of people who can't spell using guns.

You know.

The majority.

edit: oh look that was the end of page one.

Well....all the same you get my meaning. No need to waste precious time to go hunt for quotes.

[castor]

Hmmh..
If the law/government/court/whatever won't make the slightest attempt to act justfully, and you know it, what else is there left to do (in such a situation)?
Seems like her only mistake was not to finish all three of those bastards.

[Jetmech Jr.]

I'd like to know why most think the western view on this matter is invariably 'right', and the Iranian view 'wrong'. Both systems are undeniably flawed, but why is one right, and the other wrong? As such, why the hell is everyone so outraged and/or disgusted at this!?

If you need this explained to you, well...

[Ford Prefect]

The situation also represents a rather extreme sexual double standard. In the same country where a woman is being tried for killing a man trying to rape her, a man barely needs an excuse to kill a woman.