An Iranian judge offered another glimpse into the medieval Sharia legal system.
After a man was given a trial lasting only a couple minutes, Reza Hosseini, 34, begged the judge to listen to his evidence that he is innocent. Instead, the judge told the man “if you’re innocent you’ll go to heaven.”
Hosseini was one of four prisoners hanged to death on Tuesday at Ghezel Hesar Prison of Karaj in northern Iran. His charges were drug related but he insisted that he was charged because he got into a “physical altercation” with the authorities in the parking lot of their house. The family said that the drugs seized in the case came not from his house but a neighbor’s house. They say that he was beaten while in custody for 70 days.
In a perfunctory trial, Judge Tayerani encouraged him to plead guilty but Hosseini replied saying: “Why should I plead guilty if I am innocent?” Tayerani reportedly responded “If you are innocent, then you will go to heaven after you are hanged.” Now that is convenient.
His wife, Azadeh Geravand, said that she and the family were not allowed to visit him and that they were only allowed to see him 11 months after his arrest.
The family was finally able to speak with the prosecutor who allegedly told them that Hosseini would be exonerated. However, without afforded an opportunity to defend him or present a case, he was summarily convicted and sentence to death. The only consideration extended to him by the judge was his assurance of paradise — apparently the only real appeal from a Sharia court.
Even after his sentence, officials refused to allow the family to see Hosseini and instead heaped ridiculed and abuse on them.
Those poor people.
You really shouldn't post these things, John.
It's bad for business.
Whose business?
Hey, where is the outrage from BDS?
We don't have to BDS Iran. They're a "partner for peace" in the Middle East.
Huh?
With partners like that, do we need enemies?
Politics.. strange bedfellows.
“If You’re Innocent You’ll Go To Heaven"
Well, let's not ride our "High Horse" too far ahead of these Iranian Judges.
Don't forget that it was the Sainted Justice Scalia who advocated that death for the innocent was OK in our own system, as long as they got a trial.
(2009) S CALI A , J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT O F THE UNI TED STATES IN RE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.
Great deflection. You should play hockey.
Now we don't have to discuss Iran anymore. We can get right back on the wagon that 80% of the other NT articles are discussing.
If you threw in something about Trump, it would've been 95%.
ArkansasHermit,
It's not that we haven't misstepped here, but at least we try to do the best that we can. In many states where they have found huge errors in their court system, they have done away with the death penalty. We haven't done this kind of stuff, since the Salem Witch Hunts.
I don't think you have an exact parallel there Hermit, but it is a good point. Scalia did justify the execution of an innocent person as a constitutionally legal action.
Which is one of the issues why I disliked Scalia, but it is also the reason we have 8 other judges.
If I believed in heaven and hell, I'd say that Scalia is not in heaven right now.
John
Not to pick nits, but was Justice Scalia not pointing out that he process followed the constitutionally legal path, not there could not have been an error in the decision process of the jury, judge, court
This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
Why did Scalia even go there? It sounds like he wanted to dismiss the work of those who try and prove convicted criminals , usually murderers, were unjustly convicted.
One could argue that he is saying, innocent or not, you went through the legal process. The Iranian judge could say something similar in the context of their society.
John
Your position could be reversed to the point that a person acquitted of a crime but later found to be guilty should be jailed or even executed despite the double jeopardy provision.
But that does not happen because the "constitutional Process" is followed.
It is a sad truth that innocents have been and likely continue to be executed on rare occasions, but so long as capital punishment is the law of the land following the constitutional processes which govern it is very important.
One could argue that he is saying, innocent or not, you went through the legal process. The Iranian judge could say something similar in the context of their society.
And that nicely sums up the only thing I was trying to highlight John.
John, I'm shocked. Is this not an Islamophobic article?