Pakistani man sentenced to death for murdering 100 children
March 16, 2000
Web posted at: 5:12 PM HKT (0912 GMT)
LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) – A court on Thursday sentenced a Pakistani man to death for murdering 100 children in this country’s worst serial killing rampage, saying he would be strangled in front of the parents of his victims.
The judge ordered that 42-year-old Javed Iqbal be publicly executed in a park in this eastern city, suffering the same fate as his victims.
“You will be strangled to death in front of the parents whose children you killed,” said Judge Allah Baksh Ranja in handing down the sentence. “Your body will then be cut into a 100 pieces and put in acid the same way you killed the children.” So, what is your opinion of this punishment?
Will treating him this way bring back any of the children? Will it do anything but allow us to perform the same depraved act on him that he performed on the children? What is to be gained but yet another act of brutality?
We may thirst for vengance. But vengance serves no rational purpose than to allow us into the same world of horror which that person lives in. Do we want to reduce ourselves to his level?
Although it is not an emotional response which I am proud of, I confess to indulging in it periodically, particularly when I hear of a case in which someone seems to be going out of his way to distance himself from all concepts of human decency. That is, I indulge in the thirst itself, not the vengeful acts.
It doesn’t seem to me that snuffing out someone’s life does much to quench a real thirst for vengeance. At least, not the way I experience the thirst. For true vengeance to be achieved, the transgressor must, in my opinion, suffer; suffer horribly; suffer so outrageously horribly that the very desire for death becomes the only coherent thought that his brain can hold. Ideally, this level of suffering should be maintained for an extended period of time. And there’s no need for the suffering to be unremitting; the sure knowledge that it will return, and that there is not a single thing the person can do to prevent its return can be a powerful adjunct to whatever active suffering is inflicted upon him.
I think I’ve just described life without the possibility of release in solitary confinement within a cell in which the prisoner’s only auditory and visual sensory input comes from a giant screen projection TV showing reruns of “The Little House on the Prairie,” “Highway to Heaven,” “Touched By An Angel,” and “Knight Rider.”
Wow! 4 posts so far and not even one attempt to frame the debate as YET ANOTHER examination of its implications and relevance to the Libertarian philosophy!! I am heartened!
As to the case at hand: revenge is bankrupt, morally and legally. Violence unto death is justified ONLY when directly protecting the innocent and/or the helpless. Only recently have we released men from Death Row when it was proven that they could not possibly be guilty. How many have we buried? How many have we condemned to live out thier lives in darkness and fear? We’ll never know. Is there really such a thing as “beyond the shadow of a doubt?” We Americans, it seems, have a weakness for appearing to be stern and resolute, when we are simply blind and cruel.
“Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay” And until he saith otherwise, keep your noose out of His business.
{{{So, what is your opinion of this punishment?}}}—pashley
Then we can be certain that he will never kill again–thus their society is being protected by their government.
:::shrug:::
If they want to take vengeance against the man through the manner of his death, more power to them.
{{{Violence unto death is justified ONLY when directly protecting the innocent and/or the helpless… …Is there really such a thing as “beyond the shadow of a doubt?” }}}—elucidator
The responsibility of government to protect the innocent from the criminal is served by removing the criminal permanently from society–hate to tell you this, but the death of the criminal is the only sure means of doing so.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the proper criteria used in law. It’s unfortunate that your misunderstanding of this is so widespread today. So many criminals walk free because of it.
On capital punishment in general:
Tragically, most folks seem to have a tough time dealing with the responsibilities of freedom, while demanding all of its benefits. This is one of those responsibilities–detestable business at best and something that no person should take joy in having to deal with, but something that must be done to maintain a civilized society.
Just like paying our bills… nobody likes doing it, but we do it because we have to.
–Kalél TheHungerSite.com
“If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.”
“Well, there was that thing with the Cheese-Wiz…but I’m feeling much better now!” – John Astin, Night Court
What is their intent in killing this man? To punish, to rid society of a menace, to take restitution, to do what is just?
Here in the U.S. we have the ‘Penal’ code, which is part of the Criminal ‘justice’ system, in which criminals are frequently remanded to ‘correctional’ facilities. To me, that is the main problem with capitol punishment debate of any kind.
Is our goal to be just, to punish, or to rehabilitate? Our system seems confused on that issue.
If the goal is to punish, then killing is perhaps merciful. If the goal is justice, then killing seems a fair (or just) recompense. If the goal is rehabilitation, then it is encumbant on society to treat the offender with far more kindness than he offered his victims. I realize I’m away from the specifics of the Pakistani issue here…
In fairness to the Pakistani judicial system, it should be noted that
A) the sentence is being appealed by his attorneys, and
B) the Justice Minister thinks that it is not allowed under Pakistani law.
Frankly, although we don’t see anything quite this egregious, individual US judges do a lot of wacky things in sentencing, things which often get overturned by wiser, saner heads on appellate benches.
Let’s wait out the result before condemning the society.
Unless the Pakistani murderer killed the kids as acts of vengeance, it is not quite the same “world of horror”.
How can you compare the killing of an innocent child to the killing of a serial child-murderer? That’s not the same world, it’s not even the same universe.
If a society puts someone to death then they are dead, no matter the method used.
Do we sometimes get the wrong person? Sure. Do we sometimes let a guilty person go? Sure.
Why should someone die in the manner of their victims? Justice, restituion, revenge, some other reason?
Let’s take the case of Susan Smith. She is the young lady that pushed her car with her two boys into a lake and let them drown slowly. Then she went home and told her husband that some black guy had car jacked her car and then they got on the news pleading for the return of her children. Then the police realize that something was not matching with some of her statements and she eventually confessed to killing the children and told the police where they could find the car and the boys.
She ended up just getting life in prison. Now, I think she should have gotten the death penalty. Getting life does keep her away from society but it does nothing to deter others. However, her children did not die quickly as a lethal injection or electrocution does. No, they drowned slowly and were probably very frightened. It had to be one of the most horrible ways to die.
She should have been handcuffed into her own car and they should have pushed the car into the same lake. She should then have had to watch as the water slowly rose around her, knowing that she would be dying soon and dying in the manner that she had killed her own children.
This would rid the world of her, but it would also give others something to think about. Maybe it would not stop someone from killing, but it might cause them to kill in a quick relatively painless manner.
They are, of course, not precisely the same acts. But killing is killing. It’s not only in the same universe, it’s right down the block.
I’m not, and never will be, a murderer. I will never kill someone with premediation and intent under any circumstances (with a possible exception for assisted suicide) nor will I condone that action in my name. I hold respect for sentient life as a paramount value.
I cannot say with absolute accuracy that one person or another deserves death. Does a schitzophrenic deserve death? Someone so twisted by an abusive childhood that he cannot conceive that another person has reality?
I can and do, of course, say with reasonable confidence that a person presents a danger to me, and take rational measures to protect myself and others from that danger.
Jeffery: I’m not a Christian, so I won’t say anything specific, but look deep into your heart and ask whether your beliefs in this matter are in accordance or contradiction to your religion. Can God speak to you through the words of an atheist?
This guy killed a hundred children, folks. I don’t think there’s much possibility of mistaken identity. They’re not condemning an innocent man. What, they made a mistake and he only killed 67? Come on. More likely that he’s killed 150, or 200, and the hundred is just those they know about.
When a mosquito lands on your arm and draws blood, you slap it. That’s the reaction. It doesn’t eliminate, or make up for, getting an itchy bump on your arm, and it doesn’t stop other mosquitoes from biting you, but it’s what you gotta do.
“Capital punishment. It’s just what you gotta do.” Sounds like a bumper sticker…
I agree, and with reference to the original question, no I don’t think this is a fair punishment. Since I have disagreed, I’ll elaborate with an equation…
100(murder of a child) = 100(execution of him)
[taking murder=execution (argue amongst youselves)]
This is clearly not possible (although with the wonders of modern medicine… I digress) so we must find an alternative to amplify his death to 100 times.
I have a son who I love dearly. I can only imagine that I would (or would not) get to understand the meaning of ‘temporary insanity’ if anything like this happened to him.
So, taking into consideration the feelings of the parents and the fact that seeing him throttled would quite frankly be a bit lame, they should dispense with the throttling bit, dispense with the dissection bit, and draw out of a hat the name of the parent who gets to press the button to drop him alive into a vat of acid (hydro-flouric, spelling?, should do the trick nicely).
My opinion of the punishment is that it is too LIGHT!
There was an old time punishment that has fallen out of favor called Death by 10,000 cuts. It is a slow and obviously painful death. Would this be sufficient, DaphyDuck?
I say chop up the motherfucker…there is no punishment that would be good enuff for this motherfucker…and anyone who disagrees…should take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself “If this was my child butchered and they caught the sonuvabitch…what would I do” this cocksucker needs to die bigtime…
