An Eye for an Eye?
Discussion
I searched before i posted, but it will probably be a repost anyway.
Has anyone seen this?
Saudi man 'faces spine-op punishment'
Map locator
Amnesty International has urged Saudi authorities to stop any attempt to medically paralyse a man as a judicial punishment.
A Saudi judge is reported to have asked hospitals if it is possible to cut the spinal cord of the man, found guilty of paralysing another man in a fight.
Amnesty said intentionally paralysing someone would constitute torture.
Under Islamic law in Saudi Arabia, retribution sentences can include eye-gouging and, for murder, beheading.
"We urge the Saudi Arabian authorities not to carry out such a punishment, which amounts to nothing less than torture," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, of Amnesty International.
"While those guilty of a crime should be held accountable, intentionally paralysing a man in this way would constitute torture and be a breach of its international human rights obligations."
The UK-based human rights group quoted reports that a court in the north-western town of Tabuk had approached a number of hospitals enquiring about a spinal operation.
The man in question has already been sentenced to seven months' imprisonment for the offence, which happened more than two years ago, Amnesty said.
The brother of the victim told the Associated Press news agency that the injuries had been caused in a fight involving a meat cleaver.
He said his brother, who was left paralysed and later lost a foot, had asked a judge in Tabuk to impose an equivalent punishment on his attacker under Islamic law.
Correspondents say the case highlights attempts by Saudi Arabia to balance religious traditions with a push to modernise the country.Thats really quite sick.
Has anyone seen this?
BBC News says said:
Saudi man 'faces spine-op punishment'
Map locator
Amnesty International has urged Saudi authorities to stop any attempt to medically paralyse a man as a judicial punishment.
A Saudi judge is reported to have asked hospitals if it is possible to cut the spinal cord of the man, found guilty of paralysing another man in a fight.
Amnesty said intentionally paralysing someone would constitute torture.
Under Islamic law in Saudi Arabia, retribution sentences can include eye-gouging and, for murder, beheading.
"We urge the Saudi Arabian authorities not to carry out such a punishment, which amounts to nothing less than torture," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, of Amnesty International.
"While those guilty of a crime should be held accountable, intentionally paralysing a man in this way would constitute torture and be a breach of its international human rights obligations."
The UK-based human rights group quoted reports that a court in the north-western town of Tabuk had approached a number of hospitals enquiring about a spinal operation.
The man in question has already been sentenced to seven months' imprisonment for the offence, which happened more than two years ago, Amnesty said.
The brother of the victim told the Associated Press news agency that the injuries had been caused in a fight involving a meat cleaver.
He said his brother, who was left paralysed and later lost a foot, had asked a judge in Tabuk to impose an equivalent punishment on his attacker under Islamic law.
Correspondents say the case highlights attempts by Saudi Arabia to balance religious traditions with a push to modernise the country.
deevlash said:
Whilst not knowing the full details that would seem quite a fitting punishment, at least he gets to keep his foot. To look at.
No, whether this is a fitting punishment or not it is repulsive.And to think some deviates want such a legal system introduced in the UK repels me.
perdu said:
deevlash said:
Whilst not knowing the full details that would seem quite a fitting punishment, at least he gets to keep his foot. To look at.
No, whether this is a fitting punishment or not it is repulsive.And to think some deviates want such a legal system introduced in the UK repels me.
perdu said:
deevlash said:
Whilst not knowing the full details that would seem quite a fitting punishment, at least he gets to keep his foot. To look at.
No, whether this is a fitting punishment or not it is repulsive.And to think some deviates want such a legal system introduced in the UK repels me.
Huff said:
Er, because that's a totally disproportionate response..?
Why?Edited by Huff on Sunday 22 August 00:49
Anyone breaks into my home or attacks me or my family with no provocation has abrogated all their 'human rights' in my opinion.
If I killed a burglar or mugger I wouldn't give a s
te, except for the likely negative effects on me - the original victim.Huff said:
Er, because that's a totally disproportionate response..?
So are you saying :Edited by Huff on Sunday 22 August 00:49
Paralysing man for life with meat cleaver = 7 months jail ?
Also, heaven forbid we take the victims wishes into account too.
Edited by thehawk on Sunday 22 August 01:27
Looking at it from a neutral perspective it seems totally sick. However, if I was to put myself in the victims shoes, I know that if somebody had as terrible as that to me done that to me, than I would want the same done to them.
I also feel that if they were to do it, then it would set a very harsh example to others, and therefore could potentially reduce a lot of extremely violent crimes.
However, the offenders history should also be taken into consideration. If they don't have a criminal record and the crime was an act of passion, done in the heat of the moment, then I think that the punishment is unnecessary.
I also feel that if they were to do it, then it would set a very harsh example to others, and therefore could potentially reduce a lot of extremely violent crimes.
However, the offenders history should also be taken into consideration. If they don't have a criminal record and the crime was an act of passion, done in the heat of the moment, then I think that the punishment is unnecessary.
Looking at it from a neutral perspective it seems totally sick. However, if I was to put myself in the victims shoes, I know that if somebody had as terrible as that to me done that to me, than I would want the same done to them.
I also feel that if they were to do it, then it would set a very harsh example to others, and therefore could potentially reduce a lot of extremely violent crimes.
However, the offenders history should also be taken into consideration. If they don't have a criminal record and the crime was an act of passion, done in the heat of the moment, then I think that the punishment is unnecessary.
I also feel that if they were to do it, then it would set a very harsh example to others, and therefore could potentially reduce a lot of extremely violent crimes.
However, the offenders history should also be taken into consideration. If they don't have a criminal record and the crime was an act of passion, done in the heat of the moment, then I think that the punishment is unnecessary.
Looking at it from a neutral perspective it seems totally sick. However, if I was to put myself in the victims shoes, I know that if somebody had as terrible as that to me done that to me, than I would want the same done to them.
I also feel that if they were to do it, then it would set a very harsh example to others, and therefore could potentially reduce a lot of extremely violent crimes.
However, the offenders history should also be taken into consideration. If they don't have a criminal record and the crime was an act of passion, done in the heat of the moment, then I think that the punishment is unnecessary.
I also feel that if they were to do it, then it would set a very harsh example to others, and therefore could potentially reduce a lot of extremely violent crimes.
However, the offenders history should also be taken into consideration. If they don't have a criminal record and the crime was an act of passion, done in the heat of the moment, then I think that the punishment is unnecessary.
This country moved from a system that punished the body, to a system that punishes the mind, a very long time ago. The British public were so repulsed and disgusted at early 19th-century beheadings that the procedure was eventually abolished. Even hangings, long features of daily public life, were moved behind the walls of prisons, out of public view.
If only the Saudi justice system was so enlightened.
If only the Saudi justice system was so enlightened.
Parrot of Doom said:
This country moved from a system that punished the body, to a system that punishes the mind, a very long time ago. The British public were so repulsed and disgusted at early 19th-century beheadings that the procedure was eventually abolished. Even hangings, long features of daily public life, were moved behind the walls of prisons, out of public view.
If only the Saudi justice system was so enlightened.
It will be when it moves out of the stone age.If only the Saudi justice system was so enlightened.
I think people forget that only 3 generations ago most of the Middle East was still fully tribal and living as nomads as they had been for thousands of years before.
If Islam was the one 'set of rules' to start living their lives by then we're 600+ years ahead if we take Christianity as setting our 'rules'. Think what the so called developed world was doing around the 1500's and then compare.
Not trying to make any excuses for them, I live in the Middle East and have to deal with the idiosyncrasies on a daily basis, but there is some context.
Regarding the KSA crime - I can see the basic 'logic' of the punishment but I'd be more suspect about why the fight started in the first place. Who ever has the most 'wasta' or influence will get 'justice' - has nothing to do with who is right or wrong.
Edited by Asterix on Sunday 22 August 09:46
Asterix said:
It will be when it moves out of the stone age.
I think people forget that only 3 generations ago most of the Middle East was still fully tribal and living as nomads as they had been for thousands of years before.
If Islam was the one 'set of rules' to start living their lives by then we're 600+ years ahead if we take Christianity as setting our 'rules'. Think what the so called developed world was doing around the 1500's and then compare.
Not trying to make any excuses for them, I live in the Middle East and have to deal with the idiosyncrasies on a daily basis, but there is some context.
Regarding the KSA crime - I can see the basic 'logic' of the punishment but I'd be more suspect about why the fight started in the first place. Who ever has the most 'wasta' or influence will get 'justice' - has nothing to do with who is right or wrong.
Best justice money can buy, eh?I think people forget that only 3 generations ago most of the Middle East was still fully tribal and living as nomads as they had been for thousands of years before.
If Islam was the one 'set of rules' to start living their lives by then we're 600+ years ahead if we take Christianity as setting our 'rules'. Think what the so called developed world was doing around the 1500's and then compare.
Not trying to make any excuses for them, I live in the Middle East and have to deal with the idiosyncrasies on a daily basis, but there is some context.
Regarding the KSA crime - I can see the basic 'logic' of the punishment but I'd be more suspect about why the fight started in the first place. Who ever has the most 'wasta' or influence will get 'justice' - has nothing to do with who is right or wrong.
Edited by Asterix on Sunday 22 August 09:46
[pedant]19th century would be Industrial Age, not Stone Age, right?[/pedant]
thehawk said:
Huff said:
Er, because that's a totally disproportionate response..?
So are you saying :Edited by Huff on Sunday 22 August 00:49
Paralysing man for life with meat cleaver = 7 months jail ?
Also, heaven forbid we take the victims wishes into account too.
Edited by thehawk on Sunday 22 August 01:27
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff