saudi - sentencing a man to paralysis as "justice"

[PepperElf]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22029881

http://ktla.com/2013/04/05/saudi-man...#axzz2PuuPuv9l

case background: he stabbed a friend in the back 10 years ago (he was 14) and has been in prison since.

the judge has decided that he needs to pay the man about 250K (pounds) / $266,000 in compensation. if he doesn't pay he will be paralyzed from the waist down.



this makes my soul want to vomit.

[s_stabeler]

this, by the way, is where "an eye for an eye" leads to. ( As a matter of fact, judging by what the BBC article says, the victim can choose compensation, or the criminal receiving the same injury that was dealt to the victim. I don't know how the judge got from that to if the criminal can't pay, he gets the injury punishment. I would also argue that the 10 years in prison he has already served is probably punishment enough.)

having said that, this is disgusting.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Well technically since he's been in prison for 10 years in addition to the paralysis, it was more than an eye for an eye.

[Rageaholic]

You see, this is why I don't buy into that "You have to understand teh culture" bullshit. They use it to excuse evil like this.

Fuck political correctness, these guys are barbarians.

[smileyeagle1021]

You know, there are situations where I could see paralysis as an effective form of criminal justice... say if the person was a repeat offender and clearly beyond rehabilitation and the only way to stop them from commiting more crimes (even against those in prison who are rehabilitatable) is to physically handicap them (yeah, to hell with political correctness, I'm all about effectiveness)... but this isn't justice, this is state sanctioned revenge pure and simple.

[Nyoibo]

I seem to remember s imilar case a few years ago where a woman was blinded in an acid attack, the sentence was that she would be able to blind him in the same manner.

[Rapscallion]

I'll have to start with the whole 'hear me out' part here, so guess what's coming?

So what?

Is this truly barbaric? How often have you heard in the Western world, "My baby/relative/spouse is dead/crippled/traumatised, and he/she gets out after a few years. Where's the justice?" How often do you see relatively minor sentences and wonder why the justice system bothered?

Is it so different from the death sentence that is applied in several states of the US?

Why the outrage when someone applies an equal punishment back to the perpetrator?

Some of the shit that goes on in the Middle East is worth protesting. The way women's rights are trampled on in the courts there is appalling. However, this isn't one of those cases. The guy wrecked someone else's life.

I don't know if he intended to do this or if it was an accident, and if it had been an accident I could see some sort of appeal for clemency being reasonable, but if it were deliberate act then it's possible to view it as a reasonable response.

Just because a different culture deals with its crime in a different way doesn't mean it's automatically bad. I can see that this system is more victim-based for decisions about punishment, rather than state and statute-based. Is that actually so bad?

I don't think it's a better way - just a different way. Would more capital punishment reduce crime rates? I have my doubts as most criminals commit crimes not expecting to be caught.

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

So what?

It's the overkill here. Granted, we don't know all the details of the original crime, but we do know that this guy has been in prison for 10 years.

The article doesn't say he's due to be released, just that this punishment has come up.

So basically, you can be given a punishment and then, just because someone thinks you haven't been punished enough, be given a further punishment.

That, IMO, is an abuse of justice. Fair enough if that was your punishment to begin with (although, I will admit, I'm not a fan of eye-for-eye punishment, including the death penalty), but you don't get to back after giving a punishment and make it worse.

It'd be like your mom giving you a time out that you've set through patiently, only to have her suddenly storm in and give you a spanking. Confuses the lesson you're supposed to learn about why you're being punished.

That's why I'm bothered with this story, at least.

ETA: Looks like the Saudis are backing down on it anyway

[PepperElf]

So basically, you can be given a punishment and then, just because someone thinks you haven't been punished enough, be given a further punishment.

This is how I saw it.

As repeated punishments, and as revenge rather than "justice".

[Rapscallion]

What repeated punishments?

If you're talking about imprisonment and then capital punishment, then certain states of the US imprison those who are slated for execution. It has to go through due process. I don't know if the length of time in this case is down to due process or inefficiency, but that's no different. Is it actually double punishment - jail and then

I agree, though - I'd like more details on this. I don't know enough about the justice system over there. It has aspects I'm not comfortable with, but I won't condemn the entire system for those.

So, what's wrong with an eye for an eye? Is it morally justifiable to cost someone ten years of their life and then they walk free? I know it's not as simple as that, but that's the essence of what they do in that country.

The Saudi courts work on different principles to those in the western world. As before I'm not saying it has a better system, but it has a certain simplicity and balance to it.

Rapscallion

[PepperElf]

repeated punishments - as in more than one. if it works better, use "additional" vs "repeated".


and if this was really eye for an eye there would only be one punishment done - paralysis. not paralysis and a jail term.

combined that would be more like two eyes for an eye. or an eye and a leg for an eye.

[Kheldarson]

What repeated punishments?

If you're talking about imprisonment and then capital punishment, then certain states of the US imprison those who are slated for execution. It has to go through due process....

So, what's wrong with an eye for an eye? Is it morally justifiable to cost someone ten years of their life and then they walk free? I know it's not as simple as that, but that's the essence of what they do in that country.

The Saudi courts work on different principles to those in the western world. As before I'm not saying it has a better system, but it has a certain simplicity and balance to it.

Rapscallion

The repeated or additional is the fact that, by the way the article was written, this seems to have come up after he was given a punishment and then served or was serving it. So he's being punished twice.

It's a little different from the death penalty where you're sentenced to death and then held until your sentence. (Gives time for appeals, finding God, whatever. Also prevents you from repeating the crime.) In that situation, you already know what's coming. There's no indication that the prisoner here knew that this was coming or could possibly fight it.

As for an eye for an eye...well, that'll make the world blink, won't it? But seriously, the kind of point (I say kind of because it's an ideal and we know humanity as a whole) of the Western legal system is to punish and rehabilitate. Give you the time by which to repent of your crime and then "go forth and sin no more" basically. Kinda can't do that if now you're crippled. You can't go on and be better because you're always marked.

[SkullKing]

My objection to this are on two grounds.

The repeated punishment, he was already sentenced and served his sentenced.

Like death penalty, it is specially irreversible and I am not keen on the state doing so since the justice system can make mistakes, and I would rather a criminal walks away than an innocent being punished.

I am perfectly OK with the basic idea of paralyzing a man after he has back-stabbed another and paralyzed him, but the nuances don´t make me comfortable with the execution of the idea

[Panacea]

It's cruel on its face. It does nothing to fix the original harm.

A better solution would be for the man to support the victim's medical expenses for the remainder of the victim's life.

[HYHYBT]

That would be a great solution, except that, unless I've missed something, the reason they're going with the paralysis punishment in the first place is that he cannot pay.