The Student Room Group

Iran executes woman convicted of killing man she claims tried to sexually abuse her

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

Reyhaneh Jabbari, 26, was hanged in a Tehran prison on Saturday morning. She had been convicted of killing a man she said was trying to sexually abuse her.

Jabbari was arrested in 2007 for the murder of Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi, a former intelligence ministry worker. She was sentenced to death by a criminal court in Tehran in 2009.

Human rights group Amnesty International said her execution was "deeply disappointing in the extreme".

Amnesty International said she was convicted after a deeply flawed investigation.

Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty's Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa Programme said: "This is another bloody stain on Iran's human rights record."

"Tragically, this case is far from uncommon. Once again Iran has insisted on applying the death penalty despite serious concerns over the fairness of the trial."

The United Nations says Iran has executed about 250 people this year.


www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29769468

This case is yet another example of the Middle East's diabolical failure with human rights - women's specifically here. It also shows how easy it is to misuse the death penalty.

Scroll to see replies

Can't say I'm surprised by that in a country which holds such backward views. I also see the death penalty as pointless because it is quite clearly not a deterrent and serves no purpose save that of bloodthirsty revenge.
(edited 9 years ago)
what Plantagenet said!

:facepalm:
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Can't say I'm surprised by that in a country which hold such backwards views. I also see the death penalty as pointless because it is quite clearly. It a deterrent and serves no purpose save that of bloodthirsty revenge.


Backward views? Or different views to those accepted in the west?
Reply 4
Original post by MatureStudent36
Backward views? Or different views to those accepted in the west?


Backward. More akin to a feudal society.
She gets none of my sympathy.
Original post by DErasmus
Backward. More akin to a feudal society.


Again. Different to our belief system but supported by many in Iran.

Although I don't agree with what has happened, I'm not about to jump into the outrage bus because one group of people with one set of belief systems does something another group of people with a different set if belief systems disagree with.

The only way for it to stop happening is for Iranians to stop it.
Reply 7
Original post by MatureStudent36
Again. Different to our belief system but supported by many in Iran.

Although I don't agree with what has happened, I'm not about to jump into the outrage bus because one group of people with one set of belief systems does something another group of people with a different set if belief systems disagree with.

The only way for it to stop happening is for Iranians to stop it.


Really? I am, some beliefs are not suitable for civilised people. There are thousands of belief systems in history that have been used to justify any sort of absurdity, it's a corruption of a natural basis of morality in my view which stems from the base needs of the human condition.
Original post by Reluire
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29769468

This case is yet another example of the Middle East's diabolical failure with human rights - women's specifically here. It also shows how easy it is to misuse the death penalty.


You appear to be making the assumption that her claims about the man attempting to sexually abuse her are actually true. If she has been tried in court and adjudged to have committed murder (not for self defence) then why should she not be punished?
Original post by MatureStudent36
Backward views? Or different views to those accepted in the west?


Backwards.
Reply 10
Original post by tazarooni89
You appear to be making the assumption that her claims about the man attempting to sexually abuse her are actually true. If she has been tried in court and adjudged to have committed murder (not for self defence) then why should she not be punished?


I would agree. But the legitimacy of her trial is under a lot of doubt - and rightfully so. Has she been given a fair trial? Almost certainly not.
Original post by Reluire
I would agree. But the legitimacy of her trial is under a lot of doubt - and rightfully so. Has she been given a fair trial? Almost certainly not.


What's unfair about it?
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Backwards.


What's the difference?
I think I'm stupid. Someone explain what this newspaper is conveying, not sure who's side to be on.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by tazarooni89
What's the difference?


Not all beliefs which are different to mine are backwards, that's why I made the distinction.
Reply 15
Original post by tazarooni89
What's unfair about it?


"Tragically, this case is far from uncommon. Once again Iran has insisted on applying the death penalty despite serious concerns over the fairness of the trial."


After her arrest, Jabbari had been placed in solitary confinement for two months, where she reportedly did not have access to a lawyer or her family.


Amnesty International said she was convicted after a deeply flawed investigation.


From the article I provided. It's vague on details, but does raise shadows of doubt.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Not all beliefs which are different to mine are backwards, that's why I made the distinction.


So how do you distinguish between beliefs and values that are different to yours, and beliefs and values that are "backwards"? What defines subjective beliefs as being "backwards", other than simply being different from your beliefs?
Original post by Reluire
From the article I provided. It's vague on details, but does raise shadows of doubt.


True; but anyone can raise doubts over the fairness of any trial, can't they?

Whether or not it is actually unfair is another matter, and can only be established by identifying what exactly was unfair about it.
Original post by tazarooni89
So how do you distinguish between beliefs and values that are different to yours, and beliefs and values that are "backwards"? What defines subjective beliefs as being "backwards", other than simply being different from your beliefs?


I think it is fairly easy to define "backward" beliefs. Surely, even you must have a good idea of what that roughly refers to.

Comparing it to general, civilised, Western values then I'd include things like torturing prisoners, the death penalty, (especially for someone who was trying to ward off an attacker), death to apostates, homosexuals etc.

In this case, the "backwards beliefs" (from my perspective), are different to mine, but that's by coincidence and not by correlation. Any belief or practice which is different from mine is not necessarily or automatically "backwards."
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
I think it is fairly easy to define "backward" beliefs. Surely, even you must have a good idea of what that roughly refers to.

Comparing it to general, civilised, Western values then I'd include things like torturing prisoners, the death penalty, (especially for someone who was trying to ward off an attacker), death to apostates, homosexuals etc.

In this case, the "backwards beliefs" (from my perspective), are different to mine, but that's by coincidence and not by correlation. Any belief or practice which is different from mine is not necessarily or automatically "backwards."


You haven't really defined what makes a belief "backwards" though. You've just given a few examples of beliefs that you consider to be backwards. I can see that they are different to your own beliefs; but you haven't told me what else it is about them that takes it a step further to put them in the "backwards" category.

You say it's easy to define, so I'd like to see what definition you can come up with, if you don't mind.

Quick Reply

Latest