• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report: Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment

Apocalypse said:
I was speaking hypothetically in the case when the guilty is indeed guilty.

Besides that, it's not like innocent people don't get convicted anyway in our law systems, I understand there are irreversible punishments and even more irreversible punishments.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got that. But sometimes people think enthusiastically about these sorts of punishments without thinking of real world consequences. And I know that innocent people get caught up in our law system, that's why I said that it happens. It's even more to the point of restricting the types of punishments handed out by the courts. You kill someone or paralyze someone; it's kinda hard to undo that if it turns out they were innocent.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, I got that. But sometimes people think enthusiastically about these sorts of punishments without thinking of real world consequences. And I know that innocent people get caught up in our law system, that's why I said that it happens. It's even more to the point of restricting the types of punishments handed out by the courts. You kill someone or paralyze someone; it's kinda hard to undo that if it turns out they were innocent.
Click to expand...

It's not so easy to undo 15 years in jail for a false rape charge either, but I get your point, I'm not for such law system as I've already stated.
 
Apocalypse said:
It's not so easy to undo 15 years in jail for a false rape charge either, but I get your point, I'm not for such law system as I've already stated.
Click to expand...

Yup. I personally think that the government has WAY too much power these days in court systems. They have laws for everything, and huge ass punishments. That way they can bring people up on big charges and say "oh you can plea deal to blah"; with blah having a lot better terms. But if you didn't do anything, you either have to spend a lot of money to defend yourself and perhaps still get that huge punishment or you take the plea and admit to something you didn't really do. But that's another thread topic I suppose.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Only by someone with absolutely no regard for the concept of civilized society. If someone does not deserve society's protection, kill them or exile them; maiming and torturing them is perverse.
Click to expand...

Didn't say that, I'm saying that NOT EVERYONE, shares such a view of the value of human life. And offered a different perspective. What you call perverse they call justice, what you claim "civilized society" is a weak society that allows such crimes to flourish.
 
MrVicchio said:
what you claim "civilized society" is a weak society that allows such crimes to flourish.
Click to expand...

That, or a society based on the rights and liberties of the individual. You know, either or.
 
MrVicchio said:
Didn't say that, I'm saying that NOT EVERYONE, shares such a view of the value of human life. And offered a different perspective.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. As my original comment implied, I can understand the logic behind this. I have no emotional investment in what the government of Saudi Arabia does to its own citizens.

MrVicchio said:
What you call perverse they call justice, what you claim "civilized society" is a weak society that allows such crimes to flourish.
Click to expand...

And I am certain that they would express strong moral disapproval for my attitude, as well. I am comfortable with that. It doesn't influence my position on this.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Fair enough. As my original comment implied, I can understand the logic behind this. I have no emotional investment in what the government of Saudi Arabia does to its own citizens.



And I am certain that they would express strong moral disapproval for my attitude, as well. I am comfortable with that. It doesn't influence my position on this.
Click to expand...

I see their position, and I think there is merit to it, however such would never fly in Western Society so it's really a moot point.
 
Maiming criminals does not serve any constructive purpose. It is nothing more than petty revenge, and revenge has no place in a civilized legal system.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Maiming criminals does not serve any constructive purpose. It is nothing more than petty revenge, and revenge has no place in a civilized legal system.
Click to expand...

Okay. That's fine. I think there is a lot to be said for punishment that actually deters the crime. Because while our current system may make you feel all nice and wonderful you have to admit there ARE problems with our feel nice system.
 
Apocalypse said:
Same here.
It's barbaric, it's backwards, it's primitive, it should never be implemented in a moral and civilized society - but the criminal deserves it.
Click to expand...

Whether or not he deserves it is irrelevent. This is why I refer to the Saudi government as a bunch of backwards barbarians. Their government is a shining example of what happens when religion is allowed to interfere in govenment. It's shameful, and the Saudi government, should be internationally condemned for even CONSIDERING it.

Backwards assholes.
 
Vader said:
Whether or not he deserves it is irrelevent. This is why I refer to the Saudi government as a bunch of backwards barbarians. Their government is a shining example of what happens when religion is allowed to interfere in govenment. It's shameful, and the Saudi government, should be internationally condemned for even CONSIDERING it.

Backwards assholes.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the guy who cries for everyone who does anything you think is bad to be "removed" or killed?
 
RightinNYC said:
Aren't you the guy who cries for everyone who does anything you think is bad to be "removed" or killed?
Click to expand...

No, that would make me a republican. I just call them I see them. Also ... the Saudis ARE a bunch of backwards assholes. There is no denying this fact.
 
The punishment does fit the crime. He attacked a man with a cleaver, paralyzed him so he gets the same punishment.

Whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant. It's their country.
 
It just seems unnecessary. All it does is take one cruel punishment and repeat it to someone else, and the net effect is two people whose lives have been destroyed. Nothing gets solved really. There is no catharsis, no reparation, and no restorative justice there. It's just two people getting completely ****ed.

It's true that the person could be innocent, but I don't think that kind of excuse is even needed. The act itself is impractical and not productive, regardless if the convicted person is truly guilty or not.

I would also hate to be the doctor who has to do that surgery to paralyze a man. I know I wouldn't do it, but maybe things would be different if it were the Saudis putting pressure on me.
 
Yeah, the guy should get life in prison or death. I doubt a doctor would want to do such a thing. Who knows?
 
Andalublue said:
It's certainly no less logical than a life for a life.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is. A life for a life means the criminal can't kill again. A man paralyzed from the waist down can still hurt other people.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Actually, it is. A life for a life means the criminal can't kill again. A man paralyzed from the waist down can still hurt other people.
Click to expand...

The original report does not mention "from the waist down", but says:

"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..."

It does not specifiy the extent of his paralysis, why are you assuming it's just from the waist down? In any case, the logical principle of like-for-like punishment is the same.
 
Ikari said:
When it first came up, it was a good policy because eye for an eye was originally instituted to curtail punishment given to a criminal. However, we're now even further from that point now and eye for and eye is a very simplistic and at times barbaric practice. Base everything on the rights and liberties of the indivudal and you'll be much better off for it.
Click to expand...

You're quite right about this Ikari, and by the same principle we've blessedly moved beyond the barbaric theory of individual "liberties," which became barbarically antiquated notions something at the end of the nineteenth century, into the modern era where fundamental human rights and recognizes that infringement on the abstract concept of "individual liberty" is often necessary to meet overarching obligations to preserve human dignity and the common rights on mankind. Even better than the individual rights model, base everything on interconnected human rights and overarching duty to humanity as a whole, and you'll be even better for it. Yes, you might just be onto something here, Ikari. Why does certain groups persist in adhering to obsolete models of morality like "eye for an eye" or "free market" when the more advanced morality of modernity is available to us? Dogmatism, I suppose, is at the root of it.
 
Johnny said:
The punishment does fit the crime. He attacked a man with a cleaver, paralyzed him so he gets the same punishment.

Whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant. It's their country.
Click to expand...

They are still a bunch of backwards assholes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom