Aa
Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment
Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment
By SALAH NASRAWI Associated Press Writer The Associated Press
Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:19 PM EDT
CAIRO (AP) — 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."
————
Associated Press Writer Sarah El Deeb contributed to this report from Cairo.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Original Article can be found at:
http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=16495448&ps=1018&cat=&cps=0&lang=en
© 2010 Charter. All Rights Reserved
By SALAH NASRAWI Associated Press Writer The Associated Press
Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:19 PM EDT
CAIRO (AP) — 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."
————
Associated Press Writer Sarah El Deeb contributed to this report from Cairo.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Original Article can be found at:
http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=16495448&ps=1018&cat=&cps=0&lang=en
© 2010 Charter. All Rights Reserved
The United States has been too friendly with Saudi Arabia for a long time because of the influence of the oil industry. Because of the concern of retaliatory action it might be unwise to take any action against them but the United States should certainly cut off diplomatic relations with them and any country that uses a barbaric legal system like that. That would include taking action in any country where a county of the country has declared Sharia law and tried to take over the country and often does. Justice is based on a court trial and a settlement and is not based on hatred. Not only is the punishment barbaric, the motive is wrong to begin with as well as the entire mindset behind it.
The difference is evolution. Some in the world have evolved from ancient punishments such as stoning and others have not. Although I sometimes think public humiliation such as the stocks wouldn't be such a bad idea sometimes. Especially for those crooks who defraud others of the their life savings and other such horrendous crimes. Just going to prison is too easy.
Stoning, cutting off body parts, etc. . I'll stick with our system here in Texas. For those who kill here, we put in an express lane to the needle just for them!!!
Stoning, cutting off body parts, etc. . I'll stick with our system here in Texas. For those who kill here, we put in an express lane to the needle just for them!!!
Sounds like many want sharia law......
Although our Justice system could use some work, I still think it's the best there is. I still believe it's better to let a couple of guilty go free than to convict an innocent person. Yes, some murderers sit in prison for years before being executed, filling appeals etc., living off our tax dollars. But what if this person IS actually innocent? Many have been proven innocent since DNA came on the scene. How many innocent people have gone to their death before that? And if we were to cut off thieves hands or pluck out eyes and let them out of prison, well, they'd end up on Welfare anyway. I'd would like to see much more serious prison terms for child abusers, rapists etc and animal abusers, but all an all, I still think our system is the best.
Now that I've been babbling away....What was the original question?
Now that I've been babbling away....What was the original question?
In my opinion, it is a tad barbaric and also think that it is taking the "word" a bit too seriously. But as I wrote that I couldnt help but think perhaps "an eye for an eye" might be better alternative over inprisionment in some cases.
Im playing the part of the devil's advocate perhaps. Think of the prosecuted murderer. Hes been tried and convicted of pre-meditated murder. He is sentenced to death. Instead of keeping him incarcerated for 10-20 years and allowing numerous appeals, incurring all kinds of extra expenses of housing, feeding, clothing, and medical and recurring court expenses...... give him a few days and them walk him in front of the firing line.
I dont know, seems a bit barbaric but there has to be a better deterrent to inprisonment than there already is. Some people make a living out of being inprisoned, and actually enjoy it there. Truth be told, if a guy is in prison for life, what is the deterrent for this person to not committ other crimes while incarcerated??? No T.V. time? I'm relatively sure we can do better than that.
Im playing the part of the devil's advocate perhaps. Think of the prosecuted murderer. Hes been tried and convicted of pre-meditated murder. He is sentenced to death. Instead of keeping him incarcerated for 10-20 years and allowing numerous appeals, incurring all kinds of extra expenses of housing, feeding, clothing, and medical and recurring court expenses...... give him a few days and them walk him in front of the firing line.
I dont know, seems a bit barbaric but there has to be a better deterrent to inprisonment than there already is. Some people make a living out of being inprisoned, and actually enjoy it there. Truth be told, if a guy is in prison for life, what is the deterrent for this person to not committ other crimes while incarcerated??? No T.V. time? I'm relatively sure we can do better than that.
I agree, but it would seem that these people are taking the word of the book literally. It states in the bible that if your hand offends you cut it off and if your eye offends you, pluck it out. So tho none of us agree with these practices, no I dont either, it is barbaric literally, but these things can be found in the bible. Under the old law. I am wondering if they believe that Jesus died on the cross and thus created the new law, making all this barbaric stuff obsolete? Sharia law from what little of it I understand is basically their rules of day to day living much like the 10 commandments are ours? Thinking out loud here.
Setting aside the fact these laws are barbaric, I question the logic in how they're figuring an eye for an eye. Why would taking the hand of a thief be equal to the crime? Wouldn't taking one of the thieves possessions be more equal? How is stoning to death equal to the crime of infidelity? These people are nuts!
Scary part??? The Imam who is in the middle of the Mosque near Ground Zero along with some presidential advisers would like to set up Sharia law courts here in the USA. These would work much as they do in Great Britain and Canada.
Put me down for a great big NO WAY!!
Put me down for a great big NO WAY!!
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
