saudi - sentencing a man to paralysis as "justice"

[Dakhur]

You're all confusing "revenge" with "retribution".

Revenge: to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit.

Retribution: requital according to merits or deserts, especially for evil.

For example: You push your mate out of a tree and break his leg. Revenge would be your mate pushing you out of a tree, breaking your leg, waiting for it to heal, and then doing it again and again. Retribution is your mate pushing you out of a tree once, breaking your leg -- and then that's it. Over. Done.

10 years in gaol does NOT equal someone spending their life paralysed, and that's what retribution is about. You having the same consequences as the one you injured.

[Panacea]

Neither one is justice IMHO. It does nothing to heal the spirit. You just have two broken bodies instead of one.

I do think that when you maim someone, you have an obligation to help support that person until they can either do so on their own, or for life if need be.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

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.

And if the criminal thus freed were to commit another crime...an innocent is punished. This time by being the victim.

The problem that I see with the legal system (any legal system) is that the people expect there to be a perfect system of justice when the only people who can run said systems are flawed, imperfect human beings.

It's a sad fact of life but there it is. We all want the guilty punished, the innocent set free...but until we can get God (or some other omnipotent, incorruptible entity) to schelp on down and run the system...we have to make do with a system that catches most of the guilty and sets free most of the innocent.

The only other option is to say "fuck it" and disband the legal system and slip into anarchy. Not an appealing prospect.

[Andara Bledin]

And if the criminal thus freed were to commit another crime...

And if the criminal thus freed were to save another person's life...

You could play the "what if?" game until your blue in the face and it'll be worth as little then as it is now.

Also, the issue is with not putting those found guilty to death, not just letting them walk, so your hyperbole is doubly irrelevant.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

And if the criminal thus freed were to save another person's life...

You could play the "what if?" game until your blue in the face and it'll be worth as little then as it is now.

Also, the issue is with not putting those found guilty to death, not just letting them walk, so your hyperbole is doubly irrelevant.

The relevance of my hyperbole in of itself is not relevant.

I played the "What if" card as a lead in to my real point. That everyone wants there to be perfect justice. That everyone wants a utopian society where the criminals are punished and the innocent are set free. And that since the various legal systems of the world are run by flawed, fallible, and imperfect humans...what we want is not possible.

That's the point I was making. Saying "What if" as a counter to another "What if" was the lead in.

You are right. There are many ways to "What if" this to death. What if the innocent was planning to kill their spouse? What if the innocent was destined to save a life? What if the guilty were to kill again, what if they were to save a life? What if the guilty was scared into never committing another crime? What if the innocent was driven to crime as a result of his incarceration?

This can be argued many different ways from many different angles and can be spun as the focal point of any argument you want to make for or against the current legal systems of the world.

But the real point is that we are humans and that humans make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are a misunderstanding of the evidence, sometimes it's making a judgement based on incomplete evidence, sometimes that mistake is a mistake in judgement leading someone to corrupt. sometimes that mistake is submitting to the overwhelming court of public opinion.

So unless we can manage to find enough perfect people to be the police, to be the crime scene investigators, to be the judges, the juries, the forensic techs, the lawyers...we're never going to have a perfect system. The best we can hope for is to have a system where the most of the criminals are imprisoned and where most of the innocent go free.

And frankly we have far too many problems with our legal systems at home than to worry about someone else's...as barbaric as they may seem to be to us.

[Panacea]

I played the "What if" card as a lead in to my real point. That everyone wants there to be perfect justice. That everyone wants a utopian society where the criminals are punished and the innocent are set free. And that since the various legal systems of the world are run by flawed, fallible, and imperfect humans...what we want is not possible.

So what you're really saying is it doesn't matter who gets hurt along the way as long as we punish the people we see as guilty, while doing everything we can to protect the innocent. Because that's what I'm hearing.

You see, this is the problem I have with the death penalty, and with maiming penalties in places like Saudi Arabia: in the rush to justice we may impose a penalty that is unjust or unwarranted. We're releasing too many people convicted of murder and rape based on DNA evidence that shows they were not the perpetrator. We've executed people based on outdated and discredited methodology in arson investigations.

I'll agree we can't have a perfect justice system. So it behooves us to have one with checks and balances, that doesn't impose a punishment that is irreversible because you just might find out later the justice system made a mistake. Oops, sorry won't cut it for the poor man executed for burning his house down and killing his kids . . . when in fact he did no such thing.

And frankly we have far too many problems with our legal systems at home than to worry about someone else's...as barbaric as they may seem to be to us.

Let's face facts: paralyzing someone on purpose is pretty barbaric. We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore, something Saudi seems determined to continue doing.

Dehumanizing behaviors can easily translate home to our own behavior. We were very quick to abandon our principles to use torture after 9/11. Keeping human rights in the forefront here at home and abroad helps remind us how easily we can slip back into darkness, and shines sunshine into justice practices in the hopes they can change for the better.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

So what you're really saying is it doesn't matter who gets hurt along the way as long as we punish the people we see as guilty, while doing everything we can to protect the innocent. Because that's what I'm hearing.

Not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying that society wants something that it can not have. Take the death penalty out of the US equation and you still have innocent people having their lives damaged or destroyed. Either as a victim of a released criminal, or as someone who has been in prison for years or (in the more newsworthy cases) decades.

You see, this is the problem I have with the death penalty, and with maiming penalties in places like Saudi Arabia: in the rush to justice we may impose a penalty that is unjust or unwarranted. We're releasing too many people convicted of murder and rape based on DNA evidence that shows they were not the perpetrator. We've executed people based on outdated and discredited methodology in arson investigations.

And here's a shock. I agree with you. The death penalty in America does not work. It is not a deterrent to crime as people keep committing capital-level crimes in this country. And there are many studies that indicate that it's more costly to have someone on death row than to keep them locked up for life.

Usually as a result of the multitude of appeals that a condemned criminal can make up until he eventually snuffs it or is commuted to a life sentence when the state repeals the death penalty.

And I totally agree that the maiming practices of other countries are barbaric as all hell. But what are we to do about it? Invade them? Storm in and force them to act like civilized society? Funny thing...they think WE are the uncivilized ones because we don't whack off the hand of a thief. That would fly about as far as them coming to the US or the EU and doing that would.

I'll agree we can't have a perfect justice system. So it behooves us to have one with checks and balances, that doesn't impose a punishment that is irreversible because you just might find out later the justice system made a mistake. Oops, sorry won't cut it for the poor man executed for burning his house down and killing his kids . . . when in fact he did no such thing.

And "Oops, sorry for locking you up at the age of 20 and keeping you wrongly imprisoned for 30 years and only finally releasing you when you're too old to get any job other than a minimal wage job that won't pay for a house or allow you to save for your rapidly approaching retirement, too old to start a family and have children and generally taking away three decades of your life" doesn't help matters much either.

I've seen the follow up interviews with some of these people. A lot of them have expressed the feelings that it would have been better if they had died on death row.

Let's face facts: paralyzing someone on purpose is pretty barbaric. We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore, something Saudi seems determined to continue doing.

And again what do we in civilized society do about it? Shed our civility, bomb them back into the stone ages, send in the bible thumpers and pound some good fashioned Judeo-Christian values into their heads at gunpoint?

Yes it's horrible, but if this is how their society wants to live then who are we to tell them otherwise?

Keeping human rights in the forefront here at home and abroad helps remind us how easily we can slip back into darkness, and shines sunshine into justice practices in the hopes they can change for the better.

Yeah, and anyone who protests too much gets branded an enemy of the state. We've been in the darkness since 9/11 and groups like Homeland Security and the TSA were formed and the existing organizations were given more power than they should.

[linguist]

And "Oops, sorry for locking you up at the age of 20 and keeping you wrongly imprisoned for 30 years and only finally releasing you when you're too old to get any job other than a minimal wage job that won't pay for a house or allow you to save for your rapidly approaching retirement, too old to start a family and have children and generally taking away three decades of your life" doesn't help matters much either.

Most states actually realize that they've stolen a large portion of these people's lives and have some sort of compensatory measures for those wrongfully convicted. For example, in Texas the wrongfully convicted are awarded $80000 per year of incarceration, plus housing and reassimilation assistance.

This, of course, doesn't negate the damage caused to relationships with family or friends, but it does at least relieve some of the financial burden.

[Panacea]

Not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying that society wants something that it can not have. Take the death penalty out of the US equation and you still have innocent people having their lives damaged or destroyed. Either as a victim of a released criminal, or as someone who has been in prison for years or (in the more newsworthy cases) decades.

It's a process. We've come a long way in terms of how we view criminal behavior and how to deal with it. However, thinking that perfect justice is beyond our reach does not encourage us to strive to do better.

I used to work in corrections; I'll be the first to acknowledge that innocent people are in prison. However most if not all states do have compensation for the wrongfully convicted, which is a start.

And I totally agree that the maiming practices of other countries are barbaric as all hell. But what are we to do about it? Invade them? Storm in and force them to act like civilized society? Funny thing...they think WE are the uncivilized ones because we don't whack off the hand of a thief. That would fly about as far as them coming to the US or the EU and doing that would.

Given that these justice practices are somewhat arbitrarily enforced, I wouldn't be quick to assume folks in those countries don't want something better.

No, I'm not suggesting invading them. I'm suggesting working with these governments to make improvements. Saudi Arabia, and some of these other counties, are making slow improvements to womens rights, for example working to stop the practice of marrying young girls to older men. Granted, it still happens and there is a long way to go to overcome centuries of engrained practices. But dialouge works. Genital mutilation is also being slowly resolved in many countries by using political and diplomatic pressure; a carrot approach as opposed to the stick.

Yes it's horrible, but if this is how their society wants to live then who are we to tell them otherwise?

That's a cop out. We live in an increasingly global society; the rules are going to have to change in order for everyone to get along, which means greater rights and opportunities. Turkey desperately wants to be in the EU, but they have the death penalty. Well guess what? No EU membership until they abolish it. Turkey has refused thus far, and so they miss out on the benefits of being a member. That's on them.

Yeah, and anyone who protests too much gets branded an enemy of the state. We've been in the darkness since 9/11 and groups like Homeland Security and the TSA were formed and the existing organizations were given more power than they should.

You're moving the goal posts on that one. There's no question we have problems here to fix at home and that affects our credibility; that doesn't mean we should ignore the rest of the world.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Given that these justice practices are somewhat arbitrarily enforced, I wouldn't be quick to assume folks in those countries don't want something better.

Then that's something that *they* need to work on. Not us. It's not our responsibility to force changes of policy on the governments of other nations.

No, I'm not suggesting invading them. I'm suggesting working with these governments to make improvements...a carrot approach as opposed to the stick.

That's all well and good with Saudi Arabia and other similarly minded countries that are willing to make changes (albeit slowly) but what about the countries that don't want to have anything to do with us? What about the ones that allowed the Taliban to gain power and who would love to see "the decadent west" fall?

How do you do the carrot approach with someone who only believes in the stick?

That's a cop out. We live in an increasingly global society; the rules are going to have to change in order for everyone to get along, which means greater rights and opportunities. Turkey desperately wants to be in the EU, but they have the death penalty. Well guess what? No EU membership until they abolish it. Turkey has refused thus far, and so they miss out on the benefits of being a member. That's on them.

This one puzzles me. On one hand you're advocating trying to lean on others to make changes, to get everyone in the global society on the same page...yet you're happy to let them be them. They can't join if they don't play nice so they can sit in a corner until they do decide to.

What do you do if they never decide to play nice? What do you do if they want to keep killing and maiming in the name of their ideals of justice?

You're moving the goal posts on that one. There's no question we have problems here to fix at home and that affects our credibility; that doesn't mean we should ignore the rest of the world.

In many ways I think we should do just that, but that's a topic worthy of its own thread.

[s_stabeler]

the idea is to use both carrot and stick, not just stick. And use the correct size of stick. Invading a country is risky, and is an extreme measure. ( oh, and if "the decadent west" view is truly popular in a country, there's little point- that'll only set up an insurgency) Wheras there are more minor sticks thta can work. ( for example, economic sanctions can bite. Iran has several economic issues that are at least partly due to US sanctions. (for exmaple, their refineries are all but useless, so they need to import the products of refineries. Needless to say, that's quite difficult under US sanctions. They keep threatening to cloe the Strait of Hormuz. They don't actually do it because it would provoke miitary action, wiht the support of basically every developed nation. ( strictly speaking they can legally do it, snce the Strait is in their terratorial waters. In practice, the Strait is so vital to international trade that no contry would defend them))

[Panacea]

Then that's something that *they* need to work on. Not us. It's not our responsibility to force changes of policy on the governments of other nations.

I never said force. I say encourage; NGO's play a good role here, as well as diplomatic and trade efforts.

That's all well and good with Saudi Arabia and other similarly minded countries that are willing to make changes (albeit slowly) but what about the countries that don't want to have anything to do with us? What about the ones that allowed the Taliban to gain power and who would love to see "the decadent west" fall?

The key to dealing with repressive governments is a combination of education (which is why the Taliban target schools) and economic incentives. It worked in Burma. It hasn't worked in places like North Korea . . . but only because it has the support of other countries who gain from having the "buffer." There is no perfect solution . . only a continued willingness to work towards better solutions.

How do you do the carrot approach with someone who only believes in the stick?

By using both stick and carrot: offer incentives for going along, and consequences for not going along. Problem is, our government prefers the stick to the carrot.

This one puzzles me. On one hand you're advocating trying to lean on others to make changes, to get everyone in the global society on the same page...yet you're happy to let them be them. They can't join if they don't play nice so they can sit in a corner until they do decide to.

Not at all. My example is one of how the carrot can work. The Turks had made great progress towards the conditions of the EU for membership until an Islamist government won elections. We can't predict every outcome . . . improvements in democracy meant that we have to live with the results.

What do you do if they never decide to play nice? What do you do if they want to keep killing and maiming in the name of their ideals of justice?

Every government changes in some way eventually. You don't give up and walk away. You keep trying.[/QUOTE]