PDA

View Full Version : Report: Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment



Phoenix
19th August 2010, 04:52 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_saudi_justice


Report: Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment

By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer

CAIRO – A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals in the country whether they could damage a man's spinal cord as punishment after he was convicted of attacking another man with a cleaver and paralyzing him, local newspapers reported on Thursday.

Saudi Arabia enforces strict Islamic law and occasionally metes out punishments based on the ancient legal code of an eye-for-an-eye. However, Saudi King Abdullah has been trying to clamp down on extremist ideology.

The reports said Abdul-Aziz al-Mutairi, 22, was left paralyzed after a fight more than two years ago and asked a judge to impose an equivalent punishment on his attacker under Islamic law.

The newspaper Okaz said the judge in northwestern Tabuk province, identified as Saoud bin Suleiman al-Youssef, asked at least two hospitals for a medical opinion on whether surgeons could render the attacker's spinal cord nonfunctional. The attacker, who was not identified in the reports, has spent seven months in jail.

The reports cited the letter of response from one of the hospitals and the victim al-Mutairi.

Two of the hospitals involved and the court were closed for the Saudi weekend beginning Thursday and could not be reached for comment.

Okaz reported that a leading hospital in Riyadh — King Faisal Specialist Hospital — responded that it could not do the operation. It quoted a letter from the hospital saying "inflicting such harm is not possible," apparently refusing on ethical grounds.

The papers did not carry any response from a second hospital that reportedly received the request, King Khaled Hospital in Tabuk province.

The story was also carried by Saudi English-language paper Arab News.

Islamic law applied in Saudi Arabia allows defendants to ask for a similar punishment for harms inflicted on them. Cutting off the hands of thieves, for example, is common.

Under the law, the victim can receive a blood money to settle the case.

Human rights group say trials in Saudi Arabia fall far below international standards. They usually take place behind closed doors and without adequate legal representation.

Those who are sentenced to death are often not informed of the progress of legal proceedings against them or of the date of execution until the morning on which they are taken out and beheaded.

Crucifying the headless body in a public place is a way to set an example, according to the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islam.

Amnesty International expressed concerns over the reports and said the rights groups was contacting Saudi authorities for details.

"We are very concerned and we will appeal to the authorities not to carry out such a punishment," said Lamri Chirouf, the group's researcher on Saudi Arabia. Such measures are against international conventions against torture and international standards on human rights.

Chirouf said this was the first time Amnesty had heard of a punishment involving the damaging of a spinal cord.

"But it's hard to follow details of the Saudi justice system. People are sentenced in closed trials with no access to the public and no lawyers," he said.

According to Amnesty, in 2005, a convict in the kingdom had his teeth pulled out by a dentist because he had smashed another man's teeth out in a fight.

"We have also had cases of people sentenced to blindness because they have caused the blindness of another person," Chirouf said. "But never anything involving a spinal cord."

Fortyone
20th August 2010, 03:46 AM
And this is the system so many here defend? Id say execute the criminal,but this is a bit much.

Phoenix
20th August 2010, 12:42 PM
And this is the system so many here defend? Id say execute the criminal,but this is a bit much.


My wife's solution is best for everyone: make him work to take care of the crippled victim.

DMac
20th August 2010, 12:50 PM
And this is the system so many here defend? Id say execute the criminal,but this is a bit much.


I've yet to hear anyone defend the ruling class of Saudi Arabia. They are one of the most corrupted nations on the planet.

Phoenix
20th August 2010, 12:59 PM
And this is the system so many here defend? Id say execute the criminal,but this is a bit much.


I've yet to hear anyone defend the ruling class of Saudi Arabia. They are one of the most corrupted nations on the planet.


The "ruling class of Saudi Arabia" implement Quran-correct Islam. That is defended daily around here.

dead precedent
20th August 2010, 01:10 PM
And this is the system so many here defend? Id say execute the criminal,but this is a bit much.


My wife's solution is best for everyone: make him work to take care of the crippled victim.




In the meantime he still gets to bang his wife,go fishing and whatever else his heart desires...I dont think so.

Phoenix
20th August 2010, 01:15 PM
And this is the system so many here defend? Id say execute the criminal,but this is a bit much.


My wife's solution is best for everyone: make him work to take care of the crippled victim.




In the meantime he still gets to bang his wife,go fishing and whatever else his heart desires...I dont think so.


Not necessarily. Not if he is a slave.

Ash_Williams
20th August 2010, 01:53 PM
I'm not a fan of the Saudis but there's a certain appeal to the idea. If someone left me paralyzed I'd be sure to put them in a wheelchair too before I died.

horseshoe3
20th August 2010, 02:28 PM
The article says it was a fight. That means two or more people were performing violence on each other. One of them was better at it than the other.

In an unprovoked attack or ambush, I could see it. But in a fight, tough luck.

Spectrism
20th August 2010, 02:54 PM
So was it a fight or was he an attacker. The article says both.

If it was a fight, and I was the judge....

the paralyzed guy tells me he wants the other one crippled.

I ask: " Would you like to do it to him yourself?"

He answers: "yeah"

So here is my judgment: "You want to do the same harm to another that was done to you. You will have the chance to cripple the one you hold a grudge against although you both engaged in a fight with intent to harm each other. You will both be sealed in a room alone. You will both be armed with knives and may continue your fight for as much as 24 hours. You will have your chance at vengeance and you will pay the cost too."

chad
20th August 2010, 03:39 PM
i'm a big fan of taking criminals and hooking them up to the "conan wheel" for life.
http://www.andrewlove.org/blog/blogpics/conanpain.jpg

horseshoe3
20th August 2010, 03:39 PM
You're right it does say both. I guess I missed that.

zap
20th August 2010, 04:02 PM
Since the first guy attacked the second guy with a cleaver, maybe they should just kill him, instead of giving him surgery to make him paralyzed too, then you have two to take care of.

I think it is sick that they would even think of that, two wrongs don't make it alright.

Spectrism
20th August 2010, 04:18 PM
Since the first guy attacked the second guy with a cleaver, maybe they should just kill him, instead of giving him surgery to make him paralyzed too, then you have two to take care of.

I think it is sick that they would even think of that, two wrongs don't make it alright.


We have a few facts but I am sure there is much more to the story.

I think it is dangerous to make conclusions based on a lack of knowledge.

Fortyone
20th August 2010, 07:42 PM
Since the first guy attacked the second guy with a cleaver, maybe they should just kill him, instead of giving him surgery to make him paralyzed too, then you have two to take care of.

I think it is sick that they would even think of that, two wrongs don't make it alright.


We have a few facts but I am sure there is much more to the story.

I think it is dangerous to make conclusions based on a lack of knowledge.



Now that i think about it, Who cares?, two animals of a pedophile religion having at one another is a good start, fuk em

Serpo
20th August 2010, 10:52 PM
an eye for an eye

and a


spine for a spine

Serpo
20th August 2010, 10:55 PM
Okaz reported that a leading hospital in Riyadh — King Faisal Specialist Hospital — responded that it could not do the operation. It quoted a letter from the hospital saying "inflicting such harm is not possible," apparently refusing on ethical grounds.

Does this mean the judge has no ethics........you bet