Interesting Eye for an Eye law
 

Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment


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, the brother of the victim said Thursday.
Abdul-Aziz al-Mutairi, 22, was left paralyzed and subsequently lost a foot after a fight more than two years ago. He asked a judge in northwestern Tabuk province to impose an equivalent punishment on his attacker under Islamic law, his brother Khaled al-Mutairi told The Associated Press by telephone from there.
He said one of the hospitals, located in Tabuk, responded that it is possible to damage the spinal cord, but it added that the operation would have to be done at another more specialized facility. Saudi newspapers reported that a second hospital in the capital Riyadh declined, saying it could not inflict such harm.
Administrative offices of two of the hospitals and the court in Tabuk were closed for the Saudi weekend beginning Thursday and could not be reached for comment.
A copy of the medical report from the King Khaled Hospital in Tabuk province obtained by the AP said the same injury al-Mutairi suffers from can be inflicted on his attacker using a nerve stimulant, and inducing the same injuries in the same locations. The report was dated six months ago.
Saudi Arabia enforces strict Islamic law and occasionally doles out punishments based on the ancient legal code of an eye-for-an-eye. However, King Abdullah has been trying to clamp down on extremist ideology, including unauthorized clerics issuing odd religious decrees.
The query by the court, among the most unusual and extreme to have been made public in the kingdom, highlights the delicate attempt in Saudi Arabia to balance a push to modernize the country with interpretations of religious traditions that critics say are out of sync with a modern society.
The Saudi newspaper Okaz identified the judge as Saoud bin Suleiman al-Youssef.
The brother said the judge asked at least two hospitals for a medical opinion on whether surgeons could render the attacker's spinal cord nonfunctional. He and Saudi newspaper reports did not identify the attacker
Khaled al-Mutairi, 27, said the assailant was sentenced to 14 months in prison for the attack that paralyzed his younger brother, but he was released after seven months in an amnesty. He said the attacker then got a job as a school teacher .
"We are asking for our legal right under Islamic law," the brother said. "There is no better word than God's word — an eye for an eye."
A Saudi newspaper 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.
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.
Khaled al-Mutairi said his family is not interested in blood money, and would be ready to send the attacker abroad to perform the operation if it were not possible in the kingdom.
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 group 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."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/..._saudi_justice

that is brutal..

Yes, brutal, but if you take a step back, this is a view on christian morals vs islamic morals. You are clearly raised with Christian/Western expectations.


Eye for Eye, or punishments like in Singapore.
That's the Islamic moral code.

This is compared to Christian morals where it's an issue between other guy and God.
In our system, God judges the guilty party.
That's why we don't punish, only detain to prevent further damage to the innocents.


I don't think it's quite a fair accusation of how "brutal" it is when here in North America, we grew up from Christian-evolved morals and justice system.



Yes, I'm Christian.
Yes, I think it's brutal too.
Yes, I sometimes would welcome punishments like that here too.

But I just thought this thread could use some perspective before it goes too far out of bounds.

I'd rather have TWO eyes for an eye.
The West brags about its freedoms, yet cries when repeat offenders cause the majority of crime, and hence prison resources.
If penalties were harsh i.e death, poor or desperate people would be far less willing to risk their lives than break the law.

We need laws like that in Canada.

^Your profile pic looks like kira from Deathnote.

Anyways, Canadian laws = rehabilitation rather than punishment in hopes that the convict will be a contributing member of society. I understand more relaxed is reasonable for 1st time offenders. But chronic repeaters should face eye with eye punishment. Just my thoughts.

I like it.

I enjoy the freedoms set forth and guarded by the Canadian government, but it'd be nice if the government showed some fangs when it comes to justice.

It is Kira from Deathnote ;)

I think we just focus on these types of punishment more because of:

A) our common-law courts usually try to keep sentences consistent and not set harsh precedents. In other words, people get let off easy.
B) the prevalence of repeat offenders due to our inability to set harsh precedents
C) the fact that we do not have harsh sentences to deter future crimes. How many times do we hear about "20 year old purse snatcher KNOWN to police" what kind of shit is that?

For every 1000 people accused of serious crime, how many become repeat offenders? how many come out of prison to become a contributing part of society?

Our country shouldn't treat prisoners with much respect. We pay lots of taxes to keep criminals well fed, educated, entertained, healthy etc, whereas many of us common folks endure the hard life of making ends meet. Personally, sometimes i wish our country would have capital punishment, so people like Robert Pickton and Clifford Olson should get what they deserve. They should also not continue being a drain to our society.

^ I for one agree with capital punishment for the VERY SERIOUS offenders.

But I dissagree on what I call "petty crimes".

There are those who were born not to succeed, say I was to born to a teenage mom whose a crack addict and an alcholic dad who abuses me and my mother everyday and all my friends are low-lives. .which increases the probability of me being a low-life. I live in poverty and I start using drugs and start stealing to feed my addiction. Get probation (our jails are way too over crowded btw). get caught stealing again. go to jail, come out. get caught for drug posession cause I cant come clean. No one ever taught me how to live a normal life because my parents were too fucked and the educational system fucked me and kids picked and bullied me in school.

I dont think I believe these individuals deserve the death penalty or life sentences. . . . society (and their parents) failed them. Unless you've grown up in this type of atmosphere and culture, it's hard to relate - especially to many here who have parents that buy them BMWs and pay for their school and shiet.

Basically my view is harsh crimes for serial killers and drunk drivers and people that commit harsh crimes. But implement a more preventative measure to lesson the petty crimes.
Ideas include.. . .

- allowing abortion (where this is morally correct or wrong is a different subject) - so there are less teenage mothers with no support system giving birth.
- better educational system. school doesn't teach you how to be financially sound or other life tricks. Why are we learning about bio chemistry when kids cant learn proper life skills? and for some kids, their parents are awful awful teachers/mentors. . .. some parents need to learn how to properly discipline their kids too.
- a society that doesnt just expect everything to be handed to them. Many expect to all be rich and successful without working hard. . . .

I could go on .. just one man's thoughts - could be right, could be wrong. .. . but -- dinner time!!

You've just disobeyed a forum rule by taking this thread off topic. What's the URL of your forum board? If you don't have your own forum board, then alternatively you must invite me to your next family gathering and ask me to speak about something relevant to your life, in which I'll take the speech off topic. Eye for an eye

Better yet, post your picture and state your full name. It's for umm... statistical purposes only ;)

Would a doctor actually go through with this?

The Code of Hammurabi. It's quite interesting and generally follows the whole "Eye for an eye" approach. It was very advanced for it's time (~1800BC) and many of it's laws can still be seen in many countries around the world, such as Saudi. Some where a bit over the top (ie: If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser), but it'd be nice if some others were still in practice (ie: If anyone commits a robbery and is caught, he shall be put to death).

Wow, so many misinformed people here.

The LAST thing you'd want is an "eye of an eye" approach. It has been shown that stiff penalties for crime does NOT drastically reduce crim rates. The US has one of the harshest penalties from crimes, but also a high rate of serious crime. Canada in comparison has much more lenient penalties, but the crime rate is much lower.

The European countries are generally more relaxed for their penalties, and the crime rate is one of the lowest. I'm not saying that relaxed laws = less crime, but tough penalties does NOT equal less crime. It's more likely to do with the societal strucvture within the country.

Not to mention that "eye for an eye" totally fucks up the appeal process and people that were wrongfully accused. Good luck having your spinal cord broken and then being found you weren't guilty. This is also one of the reasons why Canada discontinued the death penalty, aside from it being inhumane and condemned by many human rights groups.

Eye for an eye and the world goes blind....

Do what china does if you commit a crime u are shot dead and your body parts are sold to people who need it.

It have more effect of people who are thinking of committing crimes and also the body parts that sold will increase government revenue.

As appealing as it first seems, I find it barbaric and too extreme. What if someone kills another person's family? Is it still an eye for an eye? Does the court order the convicted offenders family be lined up and shot?

What if a drunk driver hits a persons child and paralyzes her? Does the court order the convicted persons child be surgically paralyzed as well? Where do you draw the line?

For justice to be effective, it has to be consistent and predictable.

Yeah, and good luck winning your show trials.