Forum menu
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/19/saudi-arabia-judge-paralyse-convict ]Judge asks hospitals to paralyse a man[/url] 😯
Some will say barbaric, yet surely it would discourage crime if the punishment was matched.
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. The headless body can then be crucified in a
public place as a way to set an example,
according to the kingdom's strict interpretation of
Islam.
😯
This is the third thread about this in 24 hours.
Some will say barbaric, yet surely it would discourage crime if the punishment was matched
Except it doesnt! We see this from crime rates in countries that still use capital punishment.
This is barbaric and primative.
Surprised there are any daily mail readers left in the UK, you would think they would all have emigrated to saudi by now to live under the fair and just rule of that nation.
It's interesting if I were paralysed by some chap with a knife I'd be very bitter and feel it fair to inflict the same on him, from an outside point of view I'm amazed you would render your citizens unable to work and live a normal life.
Except it doesnt! We see this from crime rates in countries that still use capital punishment.
The risk of death for a crime or the risk of being paralysed?
Surely being paralysed would be worse than death.
One is over and done with, the other goes on.
Some will say barbaric, yet surely it would discourage crime if the punishment was matched.
Except that the convicted knows about the laws of his country and the possible consequences of his actions and still went ahead and did it anyway.
Surprised there are any daily mail readers left in the UK, you would think they would all have emigrated to saudi by now to live under the fair and just rule of that nation
The only link I read was the Guardian
Eye for an eye, perhaps if I was the victim, I also believe paedophiles should be castrated locked up an throw away the key!
Except that the convicted knows about the laws of his country and the possible consequences of his actions and still went ahead and did it anyway.
And now he is going to be paralysed for it. Or should he be rehabilitated for his crime so he doesn't do it again. Much like the other man can be rehabilitated for being paralysed
and if a miscarriage of justice was confirmed later on then we could always ... oh, hang on!
As long as the bearded sky fairy is happy!
It's not an eye for an eye though. It's the state - or a judge - taking an eye (or in this case a man's mobility) on behalf of someone who will now have to come to terms with the fact that doctors have been forced to mutilate a person's spinal chord to avenge his own injuries.
So whose eye does the accused seek? Because it's not the original victim that's meting out the revenge. And what about the doctors forced to carry out what is effectively an assault, and a complete breech of their Hypocratic oath?
Animals.
Chemically paralyse him then for the duration of his life and if it turns out he's not guilty then it can be undone.