Monday, January 15, 2007

Blood Money for Nazanin

As I predicted: when exoneration time came, Nazanin, the young woman whose sentence for “murder” was overturned in Iran, the next step would be to keep her in jail until the family of her would-be rapist decided on a suitable blood price for his death.

In a just world, she should be allowed to dig him up and kill him again.

But back here in Reality Sucks, Nazanin is going to get bled herself, by her assailant’s relatives. Her lawyers released the news today:

They have received verbal confirmation from the court that she will be exonerated from the charge of murder. The incident that took place in March 2005 has been recognized as an act of self-defense, however the court has ruled that disproportionate force was used by Nazanin while trying to defend herself and her 15-year old niece. Accordingly, they have asked Nazanin to pay “dieh” (blood money) to receive a pardon from the family of the deceased. Once this amount is paid, Nazanin can be released from prison.

Shadi Sadr and Mr. Mostafaei, Nazanin Fatehi’s laywers, are appealing this blood money because they believe that Nazanin is innocent for acting in self-defense and therefore she should not have to pay any money. Unfortunately, this appeal may take several months, so in the meantime arrangements may be made to have Nazanin released from prison by paying “bail” money into court.

I am delighted that her life will be spared. I am disgusted that she has to pay for the right to defend herself.

What a lousy, criminally insane “justice” system. Its archaic nature makes you feel as though you’re staring down a hole into a past so distant it isn’t recoverable. The amazing part is that so many people have labored so hard to keep this travesty called Sharia “law” — this evil, inhumane system — up and running.

Little do they know that history is bearing down on them.


[nothing further]


Fellow Peacekeeper said...

Yes, Sharia is evil.

But to be fair to Iran, killing someone even in self defence will get you jailed or sued in many western countries. Britain for example.

robert in england said...

fellow peacekeeper:
"Britain for example."
No. It. Wont.
If it's 'self defence'(a court ruling), that means you are 'not guilty'.
Being sued by the family of a scrote was and remains a no-hoper here, unlike, say, the USA. Juries are still (just) able to see through that one.

cathyf said...

In this case I've got to agree that this particular corner of sharia looks remarkably like the American legal system. Gerald Amerault is on the sex offenders registry and has to wear a monitoring ankle bracelet. And they just notified him that the legislature passed a new law requiring him (his family, of course -- it's not like he can get a job) to pay $10/month for the monitoring device.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

Robert in England : I'd be more than to believe you, but is then the Tony Martin case the rule, or just a grotesque exception then?

robert in england said...

fellow peacekeeper:
The Tony Martin case was indeed a gross miscarriage of justice, despite his original conviction for murder being reduced to manslaughter on appeal.
Please note that despite said convictin and despite his being in possesion of an unlicenced shotgun, the family of the pikey scum he killed got nowhere with a lawsuit, nor did the surviving scrote who also sued.

InklingBooks said...

What a lousy, criminally insane “justice” system. Its archaic nature makes you feel as though you’re staring down a hole into a past so distant it isn’t recoverable.

Like some other posters, I don't think that I'd call this sick business "archaic" or "a hole into a past so distant..." As a teenager girl she's in trouble for using what the court considered excessive force against her rapists, more numerous, stronger and male. That's precisely the sort of arguments that gun control liberals use in this country to justify keeping crime victims disarmed. Shooting someone who has broken into your house or is trying to mug you is, by their lights, using excessive force. We should just call 911, assuming we can, and wait for the police to arrive. And hopefully, while we're waiting our daughter or wife won't get raped or, still worse, shoot her attacker and open herself open to prosecution.

And in the UK matters are far worse. People having been sent to prison for shooting burglars. That isn't Sharia law and it certainly isn't ancient English common law. But it is modern, politically correct British law.

History isn't an unbroken line of progess pushed forward by an enlightened few. It can circle back into the pits, often with the assistance of the so-called enlightened.

--Mike Perry, Seattle

Dymphna said...

The concept of guilt or innocence replaced the idea of a blood money settlement eons ago. The fact that Sharia law still carries that one on the books is positively archaic.

What you describe in Britain is a recipe for anarchy, which is different -- and not ancient at all. It's all too modern EU-sy and very deadly.

But that doesn't make blood money any less archaic.