Saudi Criminal 'Sentenced To Be Paralysed'

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Saudi Criminal 'Sentenced To Be Paralysed'


news.sky.com

A man in Saudi Arabia is waiting to be forcibly paralysed in punishment for a crime which left his victim in a wheelchair, it has emerged.

When he was 14, Ali al Khawaher stabbed a friend in the spine, paralysing him from the waist down, Amnesty International said.

The London-based human rights group said Mr al Khawaher, now 24, has spent 10 years in jail waiting to be paralysed surgically unless his family pays one million Saudi riyals (£180,000) to the victim.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Just found this on Sky News, thought it might be interesting to get the views of other members.

Right now I am working on a couple of other threads but I know that there will be quite a few of you with some interesting views on this so I thought it might be worth posting. Like I say am working on a couple of other threads so I don’t know how much I will be able to contribute to this thread.

Anyway this guy when he was 14 stabbed another dude in the back and has spent the last 10 years in prions awaiting to be “surgically paralyzed” unless he pays his victim compensation. I personally don’t agree with this kind of punishment I think it is barbaric and wrong as two wrongs don’t make a right in my view, cliché I know.


news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
So, the lesson seems to be, if you don't want the Saudi govt going medieval on yo ass, you'd better be able to afford to compensate any victim of a crime you are convicted for.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I wonder what the punishment would have been had the kid who committed the crime was in a wheelchair before he stabbed his friend and put him into one? Eye for an doesn't make sense of the criminal already has no eyes!

This is not a wise punishment at all, actually pretty creepy.
edit on 4-4-2013 by Biigs because: (no reason given)


+10 more 
posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
He put a person in a wheelchair for life he should face the same penalty. And 180K is a small price to pay for what he did.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
for a moment there I thought...ok....quid pro quo...a fair judgment if he did intentionally...but then I read:



unless his family pays one million Saudi riyals


No crime is severe enough that money and power can't get you out off.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


If he'd also bit his victim's nose off, would you be insisting that was done to him also? Where exactly would you draw the line for this "like for like" version of justice? Do you want rapists to receive the same punishment too?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Straight out of the Bible - an eye for an eye...

This is a good example of why religious fanaticism has no place in any government. There's no real justice here.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by buster2010
 


If he'd also bit his victim's nose off, would you be insisting that was done to him also? Where exactly would you draw the line for this "like for like" version of justice? Do you want rapists to receive the same punishment too?




If crime is intentional...and without socially acceptable reason (like stealing money 'cos you're poor)...I see no reason why we shouldn't go like for like....I think it would have much more effect on the population in the long run. You would think twice before hurting anyone.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 
If this story is true then I guess the Saudis have written a new chapter in the book of "Let the punishment fit the crime". It seems they have taken that old adage quite literally, more than likely to set an example to deter similar crimes in the future. Can't say I agree with it, but I wonder if it might have a much deeper effect than our system of just locking someone away and feeding them as a deterrent to others.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
sorry if this is thread hijacking...but, since we're at the subject of "an eye for an eye"...why would that be a bad policy ?

Granted...it does sound a bit medieval...but...

If a crime is committed...willingly...with such a dire consequences (like getting a boy paralysed)...wouldn't it be fair to put the criminal through the same process that he put through his victim. Wouldn't that be a just punishment ?

And why isn't it a good idea ?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by buster2010
 


If he'd also bit his victim's nose off, would you be insisting that was done to him also? Where exactly would you draw the line for this "like for like" version of justice? Do you want rapists to receive the same punishment too?




If crime is intentional...and without socially acceptable reason (like stealing money 'cos you're poor)...I see no reason why we shouldn't go like for like....I think it would have much more effect on the population in the long run. You would think twice before hurting anyone.


You think this, but what evidence are you basing such conclusions on?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


See my post.

Eye for an eye presumes the criminal has an eye to care about losing for the punishment to be considered a punishment.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 

Remind me again how you punish a male rapist.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 

Remind me again how you punish a male rapist.



You strap him down. Bring in a couple of inmates that love this sort of stuff, and do a marrygoround on his ass...while being beaten in the process.

You are mistaken if you think that criminals (or rapists) have no fear of pain. We all do...he just thinks he won't get caught...or that he will buy his way out of it...as many do.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 

Remind me again how you punish a male rapist.



or a broke thief

2nd



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


See my post.

Eye for an eye presumes the criminal has an eye to care about losing for the punishment to be considered a punishment.



again...I think you have a misconcieved notion of criminals. Somehow you think...they feel no pain, or have no fear...you are mistaken.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 

Remind me again how you punish a male rapist.



or a broke thief

2nd



that is out of the category...as I said...if the crime is victimless...than it makes no sense to go for the eye. Everything else can be compensated...but injuries, emotional scaring...money hardly compensates for the lifetime of nightmares...



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
He put a person in a wheelchair for life he should face the same penalty. And 180K is a small price to pay for what he did.


so by that logic, since it was supposed to be muslem terrorists that crashed 2 aircraft into the world trade center. then just punishment would then be to crash 2 aircraft into say mecca and medina? an eye for an eye and all?
unless of course there was to be a payoff of say a few billion bucks. doesn't sound so good does it?

personally this case does not sound like punishment but more like a BRIBE, "pay up or we will paralyze you". i'll give you that is one hell of an incentive to get the cash by any and all means available like say bank robberies.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I think it could be viewed as some sort of (I don't know) "pure" justice if it weren't for the optional buyout option which I imagine would just let the wealthy do whatever they please. Despite any other considerations it remains barbaric. I think a good idea would be for the government to pay the ransom and then for the man to have to work off the debt. At least that would benefit the victim while giving the assailant some hope for a future. It seems the Koran in this case doesn't really demand punishment for punishment's sake but rather the satisfaction of the victim (as the option of the victim to forgive the injury outright exists). Of course I can't know for sure, not being in the man's situation, but I don't think I would desire this magnitude of punishment.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join