Iran uses young boy to execute serial killer

[News_Editor]

Iran uses young boy to execute serial killer

2011-05-27 16:07:27 GMT+7 (ICT)

TEHRAN (BNO NEWS) -- Iran used a young boy on Thursday to carry out the execution of a convicted serial killer, reports said on Friday. Ten other people were also executed in various parts of the country.

One of the eleven people executed on Thursday was identified by state-run media as 37-year-old Mehdi Faraji, who was previously convicted of murdering five women between May 2009 and March 2010. He was executed in the city of Qazvin, west of the capital of Tehran.

According to human rights group Iran Human Rights, Faraji was publicly hung by a young boy whose precise age was not known. The group published a picture on its website that showed the execution being carried out.

"According to our reports, a young boy was used to draw the chair Mehdi was standing on and carry out the execution," Iran Human Rights said on its website. "The picture above shows the boy while conducting the execution."

"These barbaric executions and using ordinary citizens, especially the minors to carry out these executions must be condemned by the world community," said Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, a spokesman for Iran Human Rights. "Iranian leaders must be held accountable for promoting a culture of murder and brutality in Iran."

Four other people were executed in the southern Iranian city of Shiraz on Thursday, while six convicted drug traffickers were hanged in prisons in other regions of the country. Their identities and ages were not released.

According to Amnesty International, the Iranian government acknowledged that at least 252 people were executed in Iran last year, although their reports indicate the actual figure is more than 550. Among those executed were five women and one adult who committed his crime when he was underage.

The vast majority of those executed in Iran last year was for alleged drug trafficking, a crime authorities claim has killed more than 4,000 police officers in recent years.

According to human rights groups, trials in Iran do often not meet international standards of fairness. Proceedings, particularly those held outside Tehran, are often summary, lasting only a few minutes. Mass trials also take place on some occasions.

In October 2010, Amnesty International reported, Iran's Interior Minister stated that the campaign against drug trafficking was being intensified, and the Prosecutor General stated in the same month that new measures had been taken to speed up the judicial processing of drug-trafficking cases, including by referring all such cases to his office, thereby denying them a right to appeal to a higher tribunal, as is required under international law.

Two months later, the amended Anti-Narcotics Law came into force, apparently making it easier to sentence to death those convicted of drug trafficking, according to Amnesty International. The law extended the scope of the death penalty to include additional categories of illegal drugs such as crystal meth, possession of which became punishable by death. Under the Anti-Narcotics Law, some defendants are not granted a right to appeal, as their convictions and sentences are confirmed by the state Prosecutor-General.

Family members of executed persons also faced persecution in some cases last year and were often not given the bodies of their relatives for burial. Others said that they had to pay officials in order to receive their relatives' bodies, as payment for the rope used to hang them.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-05-27

[geriatrickid]

If this report is correct, it speaks volumes about the Iranian government.

This has the hallmarks of national insanity.

[transam]

If this report is correct, it speaks volumes about the Iranian government.

This has the hallmarks of national insanity.

Yep, the world is slowly sorting itself out BUT there are still a few to sort out then we can all stay home and be free men and ladies.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts have been removed.

[samurai]

Certainly a son (or other relative like the younger brother) of one of the women the serial killer had murdered.

I wonder how many cheered up and celebrate that justice was served with killing the murderer.

Edited May 27, 2011 by samurai

[chuckd]

Certainly a son (or other relative like the younger brother) of one of the women the serial killer had murdered.

I wonder how many cheered up and celebrate that justice was served with killing the murderer.

Do you have any links to support your supposition about the young boy being a relative of a victim?

[samurai]

Certainly a son (or other relative like the younger brother) of one of the women the serial killer had murdered.

I wonder how many cheered up and celebrate that justice was served with killing the murderer.

Do you have any links to support your supposition about the young boy being a relative of a victim?

I think that is part of the law there.

Similar to the case of the woman that wants blind a man with acid, because she is a victim of his acid attack.

It makes the death penalty as a form of punishment not more or less acceptable.

[Steely Dan]

Certainly a son (or other relative like the younger brother) of one of the women the serial killer had murdered.

I wonder how many cheered up and celebrate that justice was served with killing the murderer.

Do you have any links to support your supposition about the young boy being a relative of a victim?

I think that is part of the law there.

Similar to the case of the woman that wants blind a man with acid, because she is a victim of his acid attack.

It makes the death penalty as a form of punishment not more or less acceptable.

And does the age of the boy make it any more or less acceptable?

[samurai]

Certainly a son (or other relative like the younger brother) of one of the women the serial killer had murdered.

I wonder how many cheered up and celebrate that justice was served with killing the murderer.

Do you have any links to support your supposition about the young boy being a relative of a victim?

I think that is part of the law there.

Similar to the case of the woman that wants blind a man with acid, because she is a victim of his acid attack.

It makes the death penalty as a form of punishment not more or less acceptable.

And does the age of the boy make it any more or less acceptable?

The answer probably depends on the question how much civilised we consider ourselves.

[Steely Dan]

And does the age of the boy make it any more or less acceptable?

The answer probably depends on the question how much civilised we consider ourselves.

Nice try at a moral equivalence argument but totally irrelevant to the question implicit in the OT - Is it acceptable for a minor to even be present at an execution let alone play the part of the executioner?

[samurai]

And does the age of the boy make it any more or less acceptable?

The answer probably depends on the question how much civilised we consider ourselves.

Nice try at a moral equivalence argument but totally irrelevant to the question implicit in the OT - Is it acceptable for a minor to even be present at an execution let alone play the part of the executioner?

What is a minor and what makes the difference?

[Steely Dan]

What is a minor and what makes the difference?

I take your point, my bad of course a minor is below 9 years of age in Iran based on the Islamic textbook and it's literal adoption by the mad mullahs taking us back to 7th century norms. Most of the civilised world recognises the universal declaration of human rights, except for Iran, Egypt and most Islamic nations who don't think universal is a good idea - For instance the rights accorded to children.

[Orac]

What is a minor and what makes the difference?

I take your point, my bad of course a minor is below 9 years of age in Iran based on the Islamic textbook and it's literal adoption by the mad mullahs taking us back to 7th century norms. Most of the civilised world recognises the universal declaration of human rights, except for Iran, Egypt and most Islamic nations who don't think universal is a good idea - For instance the rights accorded to children.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the right to life which, to me, pretty much covers all capital punishment no matter how it is carried out.

[Flatouthruthefog]

And does the age of the boy make it any more or less acceptable?

The answer probably depends on the question how much civilised we consider ourselves.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4451981

Nice try at a moral equivalence argument but totally irrelevant to the question implicit in the OT - Is it acceptable for a minor to even be present at an execution let alone play the part of the executioner?

It would not amaze me if the young boy concerned was a relative of one of the victims of the condemned man.

This reminds me of references to the judicial process in some particular countries which I can't turn up right now.

All I can say is that the culture and ideologies - of the people to which this story refers - are so utterly different to ours (western), or our Thai hosts, none of us are really qualified to comment or condemn.

Hmmm?

[SteeleJoe]

All I can say is that the culture and ideologies - of the people to which this story refers - are so utterly different to ours (western), or our Thai hosts, none of us are really qualified to comment or condemn.

Hmmm?

Ah, moral relativism. Gotta love it.

(Excuse me while I gag).

[samurai]

All I can say is that the culture and ideologies - of the people to which this story refers - are so utterly different to ours (western), or our Thai hosts, none of us are really qualified to comment or condemn.

Hmmm?

Ah, moral relativism. Gotta love it.

(Excuse me while I gag).

Still better than hypocrisy.

[SteeleJoe]

All I can say is that the culture and ideologies - of the people to which this story refers - are so utterly different to ours (western), or our Thai hosts, none of us are really qualified to comment or condemn.

Hmmm?

Ah, moral relativism. Gotta love it.

(Excuse me while I gag).

Still better than hypocrisy.

Says who? How do you quantify it? Moreover, that's awfully faint praise.

And the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed they often co-exist.

[luckizuchinni]

While I supported capital punishment in my younger days, I have turned away from considering it a valid course of action for a civilized nation, and I regret that some states in the US still practice it. But even when I did support it, I don't think I could ever condone using a minor to be the executioner.

This harks to the practices of the African warlords having their child soldiers execute people as part of their brainwashing procedure. Iran, despite some well-educated and even westernized people, and despite treating their Jewish population among the best of the Islam nations. is one of the barbaric countries in the world, in my humble opinion. Iran is one of the handful of nations which is truly at odds with the nations of the West.

[Pakboong]

What is a minor and what makes the difference?

I take your point, my bad of course a minor is below 9 years of age in Iran based on the Islamic textbook and it's literal adoption by the mad mullahs taking us back to 7th century norms. Most of the civilised world recognises the universal declaration of human rights, except for Iran, Egypt and most Islamic nations who don't think universal is a good idea - For instance the rights accorded to children.

Sanhedrin 55b

Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 (24) I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.

[Steely Dan]

What is a minor and what makes the difference?

I take your point, my bad of course a minor is below 9 years of age in Iran based on the Islamic textbook and it's literal adoption by the mad mullahs taking us back to 7th century norms. Most of the civilised world recognises the universal declaration of human rights, except for Iran, Egypt and most Islamic nations who don't think universal is a good idea - For instance the rights accorded to children.

Sanhedrin 55b

Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 (24) I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.

Hmmm, nice to know Judaisms archaic past has been faithfully lifted by another (ahem) faith, but let's just say things have moved on in most of the developed world and follow a secular basis which has moved with the times. To say you were just as bad two millenia ago is a novel way of looking at things.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Steely Dan

[geriatrickid]

What is a minor and what makes the difference?

I take your point, my bad of course a minor is below 9 years of age in Iran based on the Islamic textbook and it's literal adoption by the mad mullahs taking us back to 7th century norms. Most of the civilised world recognises the universal declaration of human rights, except for Iran, Egypt and most Islamic nations who don't think universal is a good idea - For instance the rights accorded to children.

Sanhedrin 55b

Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 (24) I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.

Congratulations on the attempt to divert attention away from a disgusting current event in by making an out of context reference to a passage in a text that has long ago been repudiated and countered. Your attempt would be laughable if the motivation for placing it here in the forum were not so suspect. Here's the reality; The ancient texts have been superseded by other rules and teachings. Jewish laws and cusoms, just like Christian, Buddhist and Hindu laws and customs has evolved and is still evolving. Long before the Sanhedrin opinions were written, the laws of Leviticus and the tale of Sodom & Gomorrah was written in Genesis. Those writings held precedence over the opinion of one Rabbi. Do you even know what the sanhedrin was? Every city in ancient Israel had a panel of 20-23 judges. It was the equivalent of of one local judge making an opinion. Just as one opinion can be modified over time in the west, so too was the case of the sanhedrin. I doubt you will find one reputable jewish religious leader or legal officer that would support the text you referenced.

This is not the appropriate place to have a discussion of ancient religious customs. We live in the year 2011 and the child killing the prisoner happened now, not 1000 years ago. The fact of the matter is that the practices of Judaism and more specifically the laws of the nations where jews live such as Israel, the USA, UK etc. forbid sexual contact between adults and minors. I do not know what the exact current position is from muslim adherhents or states where Islamic law prevails, so I won't comment. The other fact that you ignore is that it can hardly be considered a sound practice for a child to be encouraged to kill someone. Do you not think that such an act will seriously screw up the kid's head? This story isn't even about capital punishment. It's the revealing story of how Iran allegedly indoctrinates children into a cult of death. The event was wrong to those with any semblance of a moral compass.

[luckizuchinni]

What is a minor and what makes the difference?

I take your point, my bad of course a minor is below 9 years of age in Iran based on the Islamic textbook and it's literal adoption by the mad mullahs taking us back to 7th century norms. Most of the civilised world recognises the universal declaration of human rights, except for Iran, Egypt and most Islamic nations who don't think universal is a good idea - For instance the rights accorded to children.

Sanhedrin 55b

Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 (24) I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.

Congratulations on the attempt to divert attention away from a disgusting current event in by making an out of context reference to a passage in a text that has long ago been repudiated and countered. Your attempt would be laughable if the motivation for placing it here in the forum were not so suspect. Here's the reality; The ancient texts have been superseded by other rules and teachings. Jewish laws and cusoms, just like Christian, Buddhist and Hindu laws and customs has evolved and is still evolving. Long before the Sanhedrin opinions were written, the laws of Leviticus and the tale of Sodom & Gomorrah was written in Genesis. Those writings held precedence over the opinion of one Rabbi. Do you even know what the sanhedrin was? Every city in ancient Israel had a panel of 20-23 judges. It was the equivalent of of one local judge making an opinion. Just as one opinion can be modified over time in the west, so too was the case of the sanhedrin. I doubt you will find one reputable jewish religious leader or legal officer that would support the text you referenced.

This is not the appropriate place to have a discussion of ancient religious customs. We live in the year 2011 and the child killing the prisoner happened now, not 1000 years ago. The fact of the matter is that the practices of Judaism and more specifically the laws of the nations where jews live such as Israel, the USA, UK etc. forbid sexual contact between adults and minors. I do not know what the exact current position is from muslim adherhents or states where Islamic law prevails, so I won't comment. The other fact that you ignore is that it can hardly be considered a sound practice for a child to be encouraged to kill someone. Do you not think that such an act will seriously screw up the kid's head? This story isn't even about capital punishment. It's the revealing story of how Iran allegedly indoctrinates children into a cult of death. The event was wrong to those with any semblance of a moral compass.

Agree with everything you wrote.

[Huey]

As long as the boy was a relative of one of the victims and was given a choice I don't see what the problem is.

I had a loved one murdered buy a scum bag like this when I was young, and given the chance I would have liked to kick the chair out from under him as well.

Hallmark of Insanity my Azz.

[manarak]

As long as the boy was a relative of one of the victims and was given a choice I don't see what the problem is.

I had a loved one murdered buy a scum bag like this when I was young, and given the chance I would have liked to kick the chair out from under him as well.

Hallmark of Insanity my Azz.

Best post of the thread.

[Ulysses G.]

Congratulations on the attempt to divert attention away from a disgusting current event in by making an out of context reference to a passage in a text that has long ago been repudiated and countered. Your attempt would be laughable if the motivation for placing it here in the forum were not so suspect. Here's the reality; The ancient texts have been superseded by other rules and teachings. Jewish laws and cusoms, just like Christian, Buddhist and Hindu laws and customs has evolved and is still evolving. Long before the Sanhedrin opinions were written, the laws of Leviticus and the tale of Sodom & Gomorrah was written in Genesis. Those writings held precedence over the opinion of one Rabbi. Do you even know what the sanhedrin was? Every city in ancient Israel had a panel of 20-23 judges. It was the equivalent of of one local judge making an opinion. Just as one opinion can be modified over time in the west, so too was the case of the sanhedrin. I doubt you will find one reputable jewish religious leader or legal officer that would support the text you referenced.

This is not the appropriate place to have a discussion of ancient religious customs. We live in the year 2011 and the child killing the prisoner happened now, not 1000 years ago. The fact of the matter is that the practices of Judaism and more specifically the laws of the nations where jews live such as Israel, the USA, UK etc. forbid sexual contact between adults and minors. I do not know what the exact current position is from muslim adherhents or states where Islamic law prevails, so I won't comment. The other fact that you ignore is that it can hardly be considered a sound practice for a child to be encouraged to kill someone. Do you not think that such an act will seriously screw up the kid's head? This story isn't even about capital punishment. It's the revealing story of how Iran allegedly indoctrinates children into a cult of death. The event was wrong to those with any semblance of a moral compass.

Agree with everything you wrote.

Me too.

[Steely Dan]

Congratulations on the attempt to divert attention away from a disgusting current event in by making an out of context reference to a passage in a text that has long ago been repudiated and countered. Your attempt would be laughable if the motivation for placing it here in the forum were not so suspect. Here's the reality; The ancient texts have been superseded by other rules and teachings. Jewish laws and cusoms, just like Christian, Buddhist and Hindu laws and customs has evolved and is still evolving. Long before the Sanhedrin opinions were written, the laws of Leviticus and the tale of Sodom & Gomorrah was written in Genesis. Those writings held precedence over the opinion of one Rabbi. Do you even know what the sanhedrin was? Every city in ancient Israel had a panel of 20-23 judges. It was the equivalent of of one local judge making an opinion. Just as one opinion can be modified over time in the west, so too was the case of the sanhedrin. I doubt you will find one reputable jewish religious leader or legal officer that would support the text you referenced.

This is not the appropriate place to have a discussion of ancient religious customs. We live in the year 2011 and the child killing the prisoner happened now, not 1000 years ago. The fact of the matter is that the practices of Judaism and more specifically the laws of the nations where jews live such as Israel, the USA, UK etc. forbid sexual contact between adults and minors. I do not know what the exact current position is from muslim adherhents or states where Islamic law prevails, so I won't comment. The other fact that you ignore is that it can hardly be considered a sound practice for a child to be encouraged to kill someone. Do you not think that such an act will seriously screw up the kid's head? This story isn't even about capital punishment. It's the revealing story of how Iran allegedly indoctrinates children into a cult of death. The event was wrong to those with any semblance of a moral compass.

Actually from what I read after the overthrow of the Shah it was indeed an Iranian Mullah who reduced the allowable age for marriage down to nine years, in line with the example set by the prophet I do find it quite telling how those who bristle with moral indignation and outrage over every perceived wrong done by the west suddenly drop their sheeps clothing and are quite happy to grant infinite slack to squalid despotic regimes in the name of moral relativism.

[luckizuchinni]

Actually from what I read after the overthrow of the Shah it was indeed an Iranian Mullah who reduced the allowable age for marriage down to nine years, in line with the example set by the prophet I do find it quite telling how those who bristle with moral indignation and outrage over every perceived wrong done by the west suddenly drop their sheeps clothing and are quite happy to grant infinite slack to squalid despotic regimes in the name of moral relativism.

I think one problem, if I may be so bold, is that many posters see the world in a very restrictive prism. Whether is it Israel/Palestine, Muslims/the rest, sexpats/expats in Thailand, Thailand as a whole, bargirls, Issan, the best burgers, whatever; things seem to be very black and white, very 100% one way or the other. I just don't see the world that way.

While I don't know if I have bristled with moral indignation at things Western or US, I have expressed my concern or misgivings about certain things, most recently about the US' involvement in Libya. I disliked Bush and us getting into Iraq. I thought that Florida pastor who burned the Quran to be a danger. But while I can respect many things about Arabs and the Muslim world, for example, I have bristled with moral indignation about the radical, anti-western turn of certain factions within the broader religion. I have decried Shia actions in Iraq against homosexuals, women, and all others not Shia. I have expressed disgust at Sharia law in Pakastan and Afghanistan. I have ridiculed Indian actions against HIV NGO's. On Thailand, while I love the place, I have criticized many things from here. I have criticized misogyny wherever I see it.

My point is that you can have both positive and negative feelings about anything. Just because you criticize Israel does not mean you have to accept 9-year old Iranian wives. Just because you criticize Ghaddafi doesn't mean you have to accept that NATO should be involved as it is.

Anyway, those are my meager 2 cents' worth.

[SteeleJoe]

My point is that you can have both positive and negative feelings about anything. Just because you criticize Israel does not mean you have to accept 9-year old Iranian wives. Just because you criticize Ghaddafi doesn't mean you have to accept that NATO should be involved as it is.

Isn't it odd -- and outrageous -- that that isn't just common sense?

[Wallaby]

Oh puleeease don't let this turn into another Israel appreciation thread.

I agree with an earlier poster. Notwithstanding my opposition to the death penalty in general, if the minor is a relative of the victim and was not forced to do it then I have no problem at all.

[Steely Dan]

I think one problem, if I may be so bold, is that many posters see the world in a very restrictive prism. Whether is it Israel/Palestine, Muslims/the rest, sexpats/expats in Thailand, Thailand as a whole, bargirls, Issan, the best burgers, whatever; things seem to be very black and white, very 100% one way or the other. I just don't see the world that way.

While I don't know if I have bristled with moral indignation at things Western or US, I have expressed my concern or misgivings about certain things, most recently about the US' involvement in Libya. I disliked Bush and us getting into Iraq. I thought that Florida pastor who burned the Quran to be a danger. But while I can respect many things about Arabs and the Muslim world, for example, I have bristled with moral indignation about the radical, anti-western turn of certain factions within the broader religion. I have decried Shia actions in Iraq against homosexuals, women, and all others not Shia. I have expressed disgust at Sharia law in Pakastan and Afghanistan. I have ridiculed Indian actions against HIV NGO's. On Thailand, while I love the place, I have criticized many things from here. I have criticized misogyny wherever I see it.

My point is that you can have both positive and negative feelings about anything. Just because you criticize Israel does not mean you have to accept 9-year old Iranian wives. Just because you criticize Ghaddafi doesn't mean you have to accept that NATO should be involved as it is.

Anyway, those are my meager 2 cents' worth.

All perfectly reasoned and reasonable. I too was against involvement in Libya after doing a little investigating. I suppose my point is how readily some people are prepared to use one set of rules for one group and another set for another group all based on the axe they happen to be grinding. I do think that Western culture has loads to commend it and we should stop beating ourselves up about our imperfections and stop bending over backwards not to offend those who are offensive.

The universal declaration of human rights is in my view a good place to start and any dilution of it's principles should be resisted, as Iran and Egypt did when organizing the Cairo human rights convention to list human rights as compatable with Sharia.

In my view moral relativism is not acceptable - we had no problem intervening when the Pitcairn Islanders were found to be sexually abusing their children. In doing so we may have infringed on their sovereignty and even religion if they ruled such acts acceptable. We do seem to have a great reluctance to take a similar stance with other Countries. In Egypt female genital mutilation rates were 95% (2006 figs), which is shocking and disgraceful. What to do? Well make aid contingent on ending such practices would be a start.