Well, in theory I'm not shocked, but in reality this is terrible and I can't believe the courts overturned this. I guess they found loopholes in the original trial, but I doubt this is a glove didn't fit type loophole. Its pretty well acknowledged that the actions were sanctioned by officials..there's no misidentified get-away car.



Not that we'll say anything about this, since we're pretty picky about who's rights we actually care to defend. I hope theirs a bit of an international outrage like in the original trial.

Wait...I don't quite understand...so what is happening to the 5 convicts now? Nothing?

Well they're not gettin glife-sentence, because it specified who did. Look, I don't believe in the death penalty, so I have no problem with a turn-over to improsonment (which doesn't seem to be the case), but there are issues that need to be handled here. I don't like how in Abu Graib cases here the weight lay on the fott-soldiers (so to speak) so I don't want to point fingers just at the people who went through with the rape. But their were village officials involved here, and this needs to be addressed. Two of the original men tried were officials, and that's a start (It would be like trying our generals over here instead of just who takes the orders) but a ruling of mistrial rather than creating a broader arguement about eliminating such forms of vigilante justice and treating women like *excuse the language* shit, is something the court has pretty much failed to do.

[quote="dolcevita"] I don't believe in the death [quote]

I doubt the gang rape victim would have a similar outlook.

That's low to assume what the victim would want, so unless you have evidence of the victim's feelings I don't think you should say anything.


...uh. I don't know what else to say regarding the article :???:

Put yourself in the victim's shoes. Plus, Michael wasn't speaking for the victim, he was merely making a theory of how the victim is thinking.

He is right, I don't support the death penalty but I can see where the rape victim would want death...

I was going to go into that, but I don't know want to make this a thread about the death penalty.

I do think if I were a victim of a comparable crime to this one, I might want death for the person who did it. MIGHT. I'm not sure. But I also think at that point I'm seeking revenge and not justice.

This is all well and good, but what about getting a fair trial? It seems to me that the government decided to make a show trial out of this and was not necessarily concerned with justice.

Yeah, I already mentioned th scapegoating aspects of this, and how I think had the court overturned the decions in a discusion around authority figures and larger systems that encourage this, that would have been one thing. I doubt it though. I'm wondering what the mis-trial is since they all admitted to doing it, and the officials were public about ordering this act done? If you mean that it warranted the death penalty, no, but that for my personal reasons. The article mentioned how in less-accessible areas their is no immediate court, etc, and that's why the village officials got to ascertain the method of revenge and the situation, but c'mon, this country isn't living in 1100, they have a prime-minister and high courts already. I think unless this is about a major overhaul of an entire system that treats women like second hand citizens (not to mention other questions about sexuality and punichment suiting the crime, etc) that they had better find some damn big inconsistencies in the crime, seeing as how no one is argueing they didn't do it, and that the officials actually produced it.

an eye for an eye

she got gang raped then so should each of the guys, while they serve life in prison or death.
they should suffer the same pain she did.

Well of course this shouldn't be going on, but then again, any kind of crime shouldn't be, don't you think? How long ago was it that lynchings took place? They too were approved by the communty.

Well revoultions, depends on who they are. The people tossed in jail for the most part are the bottom of the picking order. They were informed to do something and didn't question its propriety, but is that on the same level as the person in authority who gave the order? Some argue yes, others no. This is the same questions that came up in the recent military trials of servicepeople associated with Abu Grahib. Do you really think those guys are the most culpable? Or do you think whoever gave the orders from the top was more responsible? How much should they be held accountable for obeying orders even if they felt uncomfortable? Should a distinction between someone who did it and didn't want (enjoy) doing it be made vs. someone who got really excited and gave thumbs up signs throughout the process? And if you find out Rummy gave the orders (he didn't I'm just going as high up the line as possible) should he be the one on trial for the entire situation? The fact is this was an action taken with a certain amount of civilian authoriy support (as in village/city officials) in a space were they haven't bothered to reform such institutions. Who's culpable? Who made the demand? I don't know, I think there is more to this and am just really pissed by what sounds like a really bad court decision to completely drop 5 of the sentences.



Yep. I hate community and authority sanctioned actions such as this and I hope there is a international outrage over not dealing with the larger issues. Part of which include the cases, part of which are far more endemic problems with the handling of women, sex crimes, and governing. Like I said, its not a backwards country, they have plenty of nation-state leaders and institutions already erected to handle such issues in other parts of the country.

the people who commited the act are far worse in my view. they are the one who actually inflicted teh horror.
the ones who ordered it should be punished also but not as bad as teh ones who did the actual act.

I remember this case really well. Read about it a lot. A lot of hoopla was made about it too. It was actually a breakthrough case when the news actually did hit the bigger cities in pakistan and the villages were actually called out on it.

It was important because what happened to this woman happens a lot in the rural regions. Actually what happened to her isn't half as bad that happens to a lot of women, men and families.

There are many factors here to consider again.

@krem: Fair trial?? fair trial!?!? umm dude .. this is pakistan. theres nothing known as a fair trial. and the circumstances if i remember correctly lead me to believe that a fair trial is something i wouldn't have even asked for. the woman first did not get a fair trial by the village council and more than anything, i wouldn't think twice if the trial for these men involved a lot of money, bribery and threats on both sides. so this was never a fair trial to begin with, taking both sides into accounts.

Another huge issue here was the actual sentencing. Death!?!? Are they kidding me!?!? I'm not surprised that didn't hold at all. for someone who was given authority to made a decision at a council (lawful or unlawful holds no value in tribal villages), the sentence was something that would so easily be contested and overturned.

and finally pressure. there are so many influential factors in play here. the courts must have even thought about rioting by putting village heads to death. sadly, some of those issues are still very very important. There is no actual legal procedure that caused this conviction to get overturned. there are many social and political things at work here.

And Dolce, we may have prime ministers but frankly, to me its never been more than a showcase. its a country not ready for that type of a govt. It saddens me to even say this but our last martial law was better for us than any of the prime ministers we've had since the fall of Zia. most people are threatened to vote, due to the duedal system in place ... and various other reasons ... why do we keep getting the same prime ministers that were thrown out of office a few years ago everytime then?

the country isn't living in the 1100s but quote a few parts of the country still aren't living in the 1900s either ... with the abilitity the buy part of the law enforcements, being scared to walk out on the street sometimes due to threats from the "police itself" and finally the major influential people in the country still uneducated feudal lords who treat their people as slaves, its definetely still not completely in the 21st century either : )

baba, I realize that it's hard to get a fair trial in Pakistan. But that doesn't mean that I should close my eyes and pretend that the justice was served. I'm of the mentality that I'd rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be jailed.

Define their guilt here Krem. No one is saying they didn't do it, not even themselves.

You missed the point of what I said. I'm not saying that i'm glad he didn't get a fair trial because i wanted him behind bars. But both sides were playing the same game. While the woman had the media and the international pressure behind her, the village council had the uneducated political figures and village leaders, bribing and threatening to get their way. Power is a very important thing there and if the case had come out against the woman, the international outcry would have meant little to these people as opposed to losing that power. my point is, there could have been no chance for a fair trial here at all. If they wanted a fair trial for the convicted, the consequences would have been an unfair proceeding for the plaintiff (do i have the terminologies right?). this thing would have, by default been unfair to one person. the media and the international pressure helped balance it out.

I got a great story for you ... i'll tell it at a later date.

Oh and krem, i dont know hwo things were in ukraine. In pakiland, i'd rather see a few laws being bent and see a 100 men go to jail for crimes they really did commit. cause if those rules weren't bent, the 100 guilty men certainly broke them by first commiting the atrocities and then influencing the trial like they always do there.

That's my point. They're guilty here, nobody doubts that. But I'd rather see them go free because the justice was not served. What happens when an innocent man has to go through the same process because the government decides to stage another trial?

baba, if the rules have to be broken to get criminals in jail then those rules aren't worth a damn. My opinion has nothing to do with how things work in Ukraine; it has everything to do with justice. If rules can be broken to get guilty men go to jail, then they can be broken to get innocent men go to jail. I just hope that one day you're not on the receiving end of such "justice".

heres where you weigh things in or how you even define justice. You have a great point. If proper and fair trials are not provided, who is going to stop the authorities from picking me or you up one day and putting a stamp on our head saying we commited a crime. I dont know if you read the post of mine where i was talking about an acquaintance of mine whos father was charged with murder but had another 3 or 4 murders put on his head because they wanted the cases closed. he was tortured for it. actually, i recall you did. Thats always an issue.

the worry for me is, if i'm letting prisoners walk free everytime knowing full well that they aren't playing fair to begin with, what should i preserve ... the proper route to get to justice or the protection of the peopel that i knnow will come under threat once they're back on the street. its a difficult choice to make and atleast in this case, i'm willing to side against the guilty and thats why i have issues with the justice system to begin with. we all know they're not guilty so they still shouldn't be allowed to walk free even after a conviction is overturned on the sentencing.

If rules are always being broken on the other side of the fence krem, those men aren't ever going to jail. Thats the sad reality behind it. And yes, I hope i'm not on the receiving end of such justice either ... i compeltely understand the perils behind it. I also understand the perils of the system i'm more familiar with that usualy DOES allow these men walk free. I've lived in that country and seen what problems its created because the real guilty people never get what they deserve.

Ok, then how do you want to see this move forward? bABA already said there are actually no laws against ordering a woman being gang rpaed. So, uh, technically they're not even being illegal right? I'm sprry but I want to hear exactly what the court is argueing was the point of unfair trial. Pressure from an international community to see people punished is true, but what in the ruling itself is being revisited? Or are they just re-opening it for a change of sentiment. Unless someone can actually produce inconsistencies for the arguement of retrial what's the "legal" reopening for this? I'll take it at bABA's word that there is minimal accountablitity under "the law" there right now, so how do you use this case to establich that. If there are no laws against a village gang raping a woman? What if there was a law, say, claiming a black man was 3/5 of a white one (sound familiar) than actually, the court would just enforce that legal claim. I think it was changed outside of the court due to a settler in Montana that was an escaped slave (I forget). Anyways, the point is if their are no rules in the book, its very hard to hold a trial by that book and call it legal and fair.

That's why this had better be handled very carefully and lead to large systematic changes, because if it just becoes about this one case, and cases are only dealt in isolation, than this is going to keep being common practice. Which is just plain wrong.

baba, I understand your concerns, but the bottom line is this: more innocent people were harmed by corrupt governments than by criminals. It was true in the USSR, it was true in Iraq, in China, Holy Roman Empire, Afghanistan, Korea, United States, United Kingdom, Germany - pretty much everywhere. We be outraged by the crimes these people commited, but I contend that even the streets are a hundred times better at serving justice than a corrupt government.

Well, that's what I refer to as "corrupt governments" - the governments who pass laws that equate a black man to a 3/5 of a white man or the one who sees nothing wrong with raping a woman.

How I would like to see things happen here? Give these men a real trial - one where their innocence is presumed; one where the burden of proof is actually on the state; one where the judges aren't bullied by the government or the international community, etc. They'll still be found guilty. Then give them the appropriate punishment.