She wass only 16

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by GScholz
I wet of what?

I see Americans wanting to invade Iran over this ... I'd call that "dictating".

Err I meant to write "went."  

Americans always want to invade Iran  since 1979.

[Gyro/T69]

Let’s see, Sean Sellers was 30 at the time of his execution for the murder of five people. +14 years

Napoleon Beazley was 25 at the time of his execution for the murder John Luttig. +8 years

Shareef Cousin is now off death row for murder. No death for him.

Scott Hain was 32 at the time of his execution for the murder of two people. +14 years


On average, they were given 11 years to find a way out of it. In one case, he did. How long did the girl in Iran get? 10 minutes?

[Pei]

Originally posted by GScholz
What right does any outsider have to dictate how a country runs its legal system? She was found guilty of a crime and punished according to their laws.

You are assuming that all legal systems have equal value: they do not. Legal process in Iran is dominated by the religious hardliners who use it to enforce their own power and view of morality (a view of morality that is manifestly unfair and prejudiced IMHO).

The US system has it's problems but the vast majority of trials are fair and open (the relatively small number of trials of people accused of terrorism are a sorry exception to this of course).

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by GScholz
How do you figure my posts constitute a "rant"? From what I can see my posts are either expressing my personal opinions, or presenting facts as I know them.

Then why haven't you?

Because they are long and emotinal, the word rant was not meant to express any sort of value judgement. In fact I find your position perfectly clear and rational, you are aginst the death penalty for crimes commited by minors. Thats fine, perfectly understandible.

Why not invade Iran? Honestly?  Because the powers to be think it's tough to do, same for North Korea.  I'm pretty sure Iraq was done, at least in party, because it was tjhought to be doable and more or less easy - which as far as invasions of large countries go I suppose it was. The occupation part obviously wasnt so well thought out.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by GScholz
Where did I defend that? I believe I called it despicable. You failed to mention that after they reach adulthood you KILL THEM for crimes they committed when they were CHILDREN. "Juvenile delinquent" is an oxymoron. Children are not in authority of their own lives, but are in the custody of their parents or guardians and society in general. Therefore children are not responsible for their own actions.

It WASN'T directed at you.  But now that you mention it, at age 16 (31 now), I knew damn well what I was doing.  I guess I was the only 16 year old who knew he was into mischief eh?  

Don't throw stones in glass houses.   Again, they knew they were committing murder.   Furthermore, they appeal for 10 years anyways.  So they won't be EXECUTED as JUVENILES.  "Innocent until proven Guilty".   My point still stands.

Karaya

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Pei
You are assuming that all legal systems have equal value: they do not. Legal process in Iran is dominated by the religious hardliners who use it to enforce their own power and view of morality (a view of morality that is manifestly unfair and prejudiced IMHO).

The US system has it's problems but the vast majority of trials are fair and open (the relatively small number of trials of people accused of terrorism are a sorry exception to this of course).

Very good point.  I'm very much against this idea of moral relativism that seems to form the basis of Gsholz's non interfearnce idea.

I suppoose that by his standard none of the euro countries should have spoken out or done anything like an embargo or sanctions or perhaps even  war  against Hitler's laws in the 1930s.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by GScholz
I assume nothing. You are not a member of their society. You are not subject to their laws. You have no right to dictate how they should run their legal system. You may dislike it all you want.

GsScholz with all due respect I disagree 100%

[jEEZY]

Just a bit of clarification.  In the common law tradition, a person can create the necessary mental state (mens rea) to commit a crime at the age of seven.

This does not mean we shoud execute them for thier actions at such a tender age.  However, the idea that "children" at the age of 14 or 17 are not responsible for thier actions, or alternatively thier parents or society [sic] is in fact to blame has little merit.

Yes, indeed the death penalty is alive and well in the USA, but so procedural due process--the difference that seperates us from the rest of the world.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
GsScholz with all due respect I disagree 100%

Couldn't have said it any better.

Wait, we're all supposed to stand by and watch it happen.  My bad.  

Karaya

[Pei]

Originally posted by GScholz
I assume nothing. You are not a member of their society. You are not subject to their laws. You have no right to dictate how they should run their legal system. You may dislike it all you want.

I bet China would change a few things in your country if they considered it their right to do so.

In the respect of legal process the Western world has better systems than Iran, therefore the western world should encourage Iran to improve: the Iranian legal system has less value (IMHO) than the US (or UK, or Norwegian) because it is less fair and more political.

I think it is right to try and make the world a better place.  I think nations have a duty to encourage other nations to improve themselves.

Why should Iranians be subject to unfair, political and prejudiced trials when we are not? Are they less deserving of justice than we are?

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by GScholz
Irrelevant. Genocide is a criminal act according to international law. Executing criminals is not.

No you dont.. You are not going to weazel out of it that easy..

Who said anything about Genocide...  The Nazis did a lot of things before they commited genocide against the jews, or even saettled on genocide as a solution.. Property was taken away, jobs denied, marriage laws, discrimilation, the mandatory wearing of the star, plain old beatings and on and on...

Or one could simply say that Nazi laws stated that all jews were criminals, so who are you to dispute thier legal findings..

You cant win this one GScholz...

[GRUNHERZ]

And GScholz sidesteps to the right, followed by a quick left, spin back right and he avoids the real damn question...

You cant face the nazi problem about your bankrupt moral relativism so youre trying to change the subject.

[Pei]

They are not masters of thier own fate because they don't have a deomcratic system. One of the reasons they don't have a democratic system is because the religious establishment uses the legal system to keep itself in power.

[GRUNHERZ]

You are avoiding the question..

It's undersatndible, you moral relativits will never be able to answer the nazi germany question..  I dont hold it gainst you though, this basic denial is equired to maintain your illusion.

Just stand by and do nothing, because we are not members of their society!

"I assume nothing. You are not a member of their society. You are not subject to their laws. You have no right to dictate how they should run their legal system. You may dislike it all you want."

[Sandman]

Interesting tangent, GScholz. Thanx.