Saudi Arabian paralysis sentence 'grotesque', says Foreign Office

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Guardian

The reported sentencing to paralysis for a Saudi man for a crime he committed as a 14-year-old has been condemned as "grotesque" by the Foreign Office.

The punishment, which was reportedly handed down to 24-year-old Ali al-Khawahir for stabbing his friend in the back 10 years ago, should not be carried out, the FCO said.

Khawahir will be paralysed from the waist down unless he pays 1m Saudi riyals (£177,000) in compensation to the victim, according to Amnesty International, who quoted reports in Saudi Arabian media.

An FCO spokesman said: "We are deeply concerned by reports that a Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a man to be paralysed in retribution for causing the paralysis of a friend when he was 14 years old.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/04/saudi-arabian-paralysis-sentence-grotesque

[papa3times]

1. This is what religion

gives us. This kind of justice is cruel and unusual by any measure and is the result of fanatical religious belief aka insanity!

[demosincebirth]

18. come on, what other religion does this kind of punishment? Not talking about 500 years ago, either.

Talk about a statement with wide brush..

[awoke_in_2003]

42. the problem is...

if you come right out and point your finger at Islam, you will get slammed, too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[840high]

33. Name any other religion that does this.

[SCantiGOP]

45. the Catholic Church

The Inquisition. Protestant Church - the Salem Witch Trials, etc etc

[demosincebirth]

54. I think he/she may mean within modern times?

[840high]

66. Yes. Thank you.

[840high]

65. You darn well know I

meant in today's world.

[24601]

70. "Does" isn't the same thing as "did". Didn't Bill Clinton teach us about present tense "is" as

to past tense?

So the question remains, who else does this?

And for comparison, what "justice" do the enlightened states of China and North Korea hand out these days? The last time I looked, these atheist nations aren't all that bothered about capital punishment.

[xtraxritical]

48. "An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth"...

[demosincebirth]

55. That's what Islam goes by. What other religion chops off heads, hands, feet and

paralyses a human being?

[xtraxritical]

73. It's in there.

[Scootaloo]

76. So this is common practice in every Muslim nation and society?

Of course it's not.

This is the product of an authoritarian, monarchal regime with absolute power over a small population.

Power that you subsidize, by the way.

[valerief]

34. +1

[snagglepuss]

36. What other religion?

[idwiyo]

64. +2

[Union Scribe]

100. Lol, 1st reply.

Thanks for coming out of your DU slumber to participate in its self-parody feature.

[tabasco]

2. Demented culture

Demented by religion.

[leftynyc]

3. WTF is wrong with this place?

This is so disgusting, so heinous - the only words I could use would surely get me banned. That probably wont stop the moral relativists from explaining how the US is just as bad or worse (spit!!).

[drm604]

4. Barbaric.

Totally barbaric. How can anyone in good conscience participate in something like this?

[happyslug]

15. What Barbaric about forcing someone to pay £177,000 in damages????

Remember, if the defendant comes up with £177,000, he walks. He is only paralysis if he fails to come up with that money. If you think make him paralysis, donate some money, or is the payment of money you are objecting to?

By agreeing to a set fee, the family has said they can be bought off, under Arabic Law that is permitted, but the money MUST BE PAID.

[leftynyc]

19. I hope you're being tongue in cheek

and not supporting the penalty of not being able to pay a fine having a fucking doctor paralyze you. Fucking uncivilized cretins.

[happyslug]

71. How do you want to force his family to pay the bill?

Remember the money is NOT a fine, it is COMPENSATION TO THE VICTIM FOR WHAT THE DEFENDANT DID TO HIM. Do you want the victim's family NOT to be Compensated? Remember we are talking about Arabia here, the only way to force the extended family to pay compensation is to state that the extended family has two choices, either pay the victim's family so that family does NOT have to bare the cost of carrying for the victim alone OR the Defendant's extended family will have to bare the same cost when the Defendant is put into the same position the victim was put in by the Defendant.

This is a traditional way for people to force the "Network" of friends and relatives of a Defendant to pay Compensation for a wrong done to them. It has worked for thousands of years, with most people paying. In fact I think this whole big show is one last attempt by the court to get the Defendant's family to pay up. I suspect the court has decided 10 years is long enough and thus decided to force the defendant's family to pay up.

[snagglepuss]

37. So you think its acceptable that people with money go fr? That is disgusting.

[happyslug]

69. That's Islamic Tradition, if you can pay off the victim and the victim is satisfied, that's Justice

AND in many ways that is the basis of Civil Law Suits even in our society. In fact, not that long ago, it was the norm even in Western Europe (for example, during the Colonial period, if you were accused of a crime AND wanted to avoid trial, you could get the victim, or if the victim is dead a minor or incompetent, the victim's family, to agree NOT to press the charges in exchange for getting the proceeds of selling yourself into indentual servitude in the Colonies. The Victim was compensated for the loss due to the criminal act, the Criminal was "Punished" by being sent to the Colonies. Everybody was happier then if the criminal was executed.

In my home state of Pennsylvania, till the 1980s if you were accused of committing the crime of "Bastardy" (i.e. fathering a child out of wedlock), you could make an arrangement with the Mother, that in exchange for a lump sum of money, she would permit the state to drop the charge. In the 1980s, the law was declared unconstitutional, on the grounds the Mother had to bring the charge within seven years of the child's birth, and the US Supreme Court said that violated the right of the Child to bring support, if the child was a teenager, i.e. the Court strike down the law NOT because of it option of paying off the mother, but the seven year time limit).

Side note: The most famous person to be charged in Pennsylvania with "Bastardy" was George Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion. He did NOT deny he fathered the child, but he did pay her off (There appears to be some merit to the claim against George Washington, but since he just paid the woman we will never know for sure).

Now, in the 1700s it was found that a lot of people did not have the money to pay off the crimes they did. Thus Criminal punishment became more and more the norm in Western Societies (and this increased as we neared the French Revolution, the crimes the powers that be wanted punished was those of rebellion, and they were NOT about to permit peasants to buy they way out of being killed for rebelling). This tendency to use Criminal law to keep people down, had NOT been the norm in the Middle ages, but became more and more the norm with the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Industrial Revolution.

Even with the State adopting the role of the person seeking punishment of crime, it is still common for people to buy they way out of a minor criminal charge by having the victim drop the criminal charges in exchange for money. It is either done informally, or done formerly when a fine is imposed.

Yes, in the West we generally do NOT permit Victims to by bought off by the criminal who did them harm, but that was the norm till recent times even in the West. In the Middle East it has NEVER gone away, and thus the ten year delay in this punishment. The victim had ten years to come up with 1 million Saudi riyals and he had failed to do so. The threat of the punishment is to get him and his family to raise the money. If the victim's family is unwilling to raise the money, then they knew for ten years what would happen.

Side Note: One of the ways Western Europe is different from the rest of the World, is that the traditional reliance on the extended family to supply a "safety net". This means you help your cousins and even second or third cousins, on the grounds they will help you in times of need. Arabia is still such a Country with such a tradition. Thus this punishment is NOT aimed at the victim, but his family. The Arabian Court is telling the extended family that you can NOT count on this person's assistance for we will put his family in the same position as the victim's family, a person they have to support as oppose a young male that can support the rest of the family. That is the tradition behind this Judicial ruling, it is telling the extended family of the defendant to come up with the money or you will be put in the same position as the defendant put the extended family of the victim.

[awoke_in_2003]

43. WTFF?

[840high]

67. You can't be serious.

[happyslug]

72. Yes, I am serious, the Defendant should pay the One Million Riyals to the Victim's family

I suspect the Defendant's family has been slow to pay the bill, hoping to work out a smaller payment. I suspect the Victim's family said enough is enough, pay the One Million Riyals or we will do what Arabic law had permitted the Victim's Family for thousands of years.

[Socal31]

75. What other barbaric traditions do you support?

Longevity is the measuring stick I take it?

Stoning rape victims has been around for ages, and still goes on today. What are your thoughts?

[happyslug]

77. I think people should PAY for the harm they did

So what is wrong with paying one Million Riyals for paralysis someone else? Remember this has been gong on for ten years. The threat is just that, pay up one way or another.

As mentioned in my first response, if people object to this threat, give them money. Remember the Victim and his family has said they will take one million riyals as full compensation. Thus if you think this is barbaric, come up with the money, or otherwise you just want the VICTIM to bare the SOLE cost of the harm done to him. Is that what you want? i.e. the VICTIM and his family have to deal with him being paralysis, while the PERPETRATOR gets to walk the streets as if he did nothing?

Please, remember the THREAT of being paralysis is just that, it is a threat IF the victim is NOT bought off. This has been the rule in most of the world for thousands of years. In the west, we moved away from the concept, but it still remains in our laws regarding the right to sue for damages AND the insistence that people have insurance to pay for such damages. The problem is how do you get people to pay for damages they incurred. In the US, in such an incident, the victim would have been sued and he would have that follow him for the rest of his life, he paid it off, or he dies.

Furthermore, in most of the world, your extended family is your insurance and safety net. This tradition means in this type of situation, the victim's family has to bear the cost of taking care of the Victim. On the other hand, the perpetrator's family can depend on the perpetrator being healthy to support the rest of the extended family. The Law you are objecting to is a method permitted by traditional law to force the extended family of the perpetrator of the harm to pay the victim's family. This threat has worked for thousand's of years.

How would you force the extended family of the perpetrator to pay for his crime? That is how TRADITIONAL societies address the problems of spreading out the cost incurred by the victim's family to the perpetrator's family? That is the issue here, do you want the victim's family to incur all of the costs of due to the victim's condition AND the perpetrator and his family NOT sharing that cost AND still have access to the perpetrator to assist them?

In many ways, we leave the victim's family incur these costs and leave the perpetrator's family without having to incur any costs AND retain access to the income of the perpetrator. How do you want the victim's family to be compensated? I notice no one has tried to address that, instead people just reject the use of the threat of an "eye for an eye" for what it has been used for thousands of years, to force the perpetrator and his or her family to pay up.

[happyslug]

78. How else do you get the Criminal and Criminal's family to pay????

Or do you prefer the solution, coming back in vogue in many states, of imprisoning people who own money till they pay up?

Do you like taking someone's property, their car, their home, any bank accounts, and savings, all the items in their home? That is what we do in the US today, how less barbaric is stoning when compared to kicking people out in the cold with only the clothes on their back?

In Washington DC, for example, while arrest for debt is not done, creditors can take anything the debtor owns, including the clothes on his or her back.

In many states, (Ohio for example), you can be arrested for debt AND HELD IN JAIL TILL YOU MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO PAY THE DEBT.

With Stoning, you have to have the support of the community, with the above all you need is a Judge's signature (Who does not even have to read what he or she is signing, as long as it is a standard form, which includes selling EVERYTHING the debtor has OR throwing the Debtor in prison). I can make the argument that stoning is more humane, for with stoning, the community has to approve of the punishment of the debtor, not just stand back and away from the "Law enforcement Officers" who enforces the punishment as in the Case in the US when it comes to execution of a Judgement.

[Iggo]

16. ^^^ That's how.

[titanicdave]

5. These idiots

are still living in the 11th century........and they do NOT want to wake up to the 21st century........total and complete stupidity and they place no value on human life whatsoever

[idwiyo]

6. I can see our own RW ultra religious freaks salivating at the prospect of implementing

"Eye for an eye" type of justice. Oh, wait! They already do when they murder abortion providers.

[leftynyc]

13. Really?

A judge brought this sentence down on this man. A criminal killed Dr. Tiller (who was sentence to life without possibility of parole for 50 years). How are they the same or even remotely in the same ballpark? I'll be banned before I let moral relativists free reign on this thread.

[iandhr]

14. Thank you for talking sense.

[idwiyo]

20. Why, thank you! Without you pointing it to me I wouldn't have noticed that US justice system is

mainly based on the set of values other than "eye for and eye" concept.*



Now would you please explain to me what does it have to do with "eye for and eye" judgment ultra-religious RW freacks apply to abortion providers and would love to enforce on any woman who had and abortion or seeks to have one?


*death penalty IS "eye for an eye" concept as far as I am concerned.

[leftynyc]

22. How about some proof

that any right wing lawmaker has called for the death penalty for any abortion provider. I can't believe I'm being put in the position to defend right wingers by someone who who can't bring themselves to call a backwards society uncivilized without shitting on the US at the same time. You made the comparison - back it up.

[idwiyo]

27. First, you should stop assuming that everyone who posts on DU is American or lives in US.

Second, "ultra-religious RW freaks" subset of population includes more people than just elected RW lawmakers in US. That subset also include freaks in other countries.

Third, US doesn't hold total monopoly on RW ultra-religious freaks who applied or tried to apply "eye for an eye" concept to abortion providers.
Your neighbour to the North had at least 3 instances of attempted murder. Thankfully those doctors are still alive today.

What's up with knee jerk reaction anyway? Or shall I assume this thread is only for people who condemn Islamic ultra-religious freaks?

[leftynyc]

29. I'm comparing apples to apples

and you want to compare what some right wing freak who has no power can do. There are freaks everywhere and it no way has any bearing on whether a judge can apply this kind of disgusting sentence. You want to rail against some generic right wing asshole, knock yourself out - I'm talking about this version of saudi justice (which you seem to want to ignore).

[idwiyo]

32. You are more than welcome to talk about whatever its is you want to talk about, but do leave it to

me to decide what I should and shouldn't say in this thread.
If you believe that my initial response was off topic, please use alert button.

Otherwise, have a good day as I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.

[leftynyc]

41. I'm very used to

posters here trying to change the subject when the subject is anything to do with Islam. Like knowing the sun will rise in the east. Talk about whatever you want and I'll keep reminding that the distractions like yours do not work.

[ieoeja]

80. US Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn

At a local level there have been numerous such proposals. Surprised you haven't heard of any.

[leftynyc]

87. Nope - never saw that

and have never seen him put forth legislation for it. Has he done that? They didn't mention - only that he favors exceptions to save the mother's life. Still, and this is the important part - one senator believing this is a very far cry from a judge imposing a penalty of paralysis for an unpaid debt. Why people can't just accept that the saudis are a backwards, uncivilized society that treats their women like crap is totally beyond me. They'll trash Christianity all day long (as we recently saw this the pope news) but just can't bring themselves to call fundamentalist islam the disgusting mess that it is.

[Ash_F]

49. Ah "moral relativism"

A lot of leftys use that phrase

Thank you for always being there to explain to us THE DIFFERENCE between Muslims and everyone else. "DONT YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE DU?!!!"

Yes without you, there would be no way we could. Be strong. Don't let anyone deter you from your mission.

[cali]

38. jaysus, that's ridiculous.

and I hate to tell you this, but it's illegal to murder abortion providers, genius.

yikes for utter _ _ _ _ _ _ ity.

[idwiyo]

39. Good day to you too. :)

[demosincebirth]

56. Bad analogy, it won't pass muster

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:21 PM - Edit history (1)

[idwiyo]

58. It's not "analogy". It is a statement. The mentality of "eye for an eye" is the same mentality.

The degree of control over judiciary system is obviously different, expect when it comes to death penalty.
To argue that our own ultra-religious freaks are not salivating at the prospect of applying "eye for and eye" to abortion providers and women who had abortions is utterly stupid. They do. Would they prefer it to be state sanctioned law? Of course they would.

[blackspade]

7. WTF?

Not that this is any more barbaric that the shit we do to prisoners in this country.
We may not cripple the body, but we cripple the mind instead.

[lunasun]

8. eye for an eye still? Our " Oil Friends"

Is this to force payment on a form of our civil suits from someone who has the $$?? Still sick way to get the judgement $

[yellowcanine]

10. 'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' - Ghandi.

[gordianot]

11. Eye for an eye, so what would the United States get for all the Saudi's involved in 9/11?

Religious Dementia.

[KansDem]

12. There they are, folks: our allies in the Mideast...

From the article --

Saudi courts regularly sentence people to forms of corporal punishment, according to the charity. In retribution cases, sentences have included eye-gouging, tooth extraction and death.

In such cases, the victim can demand the punishment be carried out, request financial compensation or grant a conditional or unconditional pardon.

Flogging is mandatory for a number of offences and can also be imposed at the discretion of judges as an alternative, or in addition to other punishments, Amnesty said.

Thieves are often sentenced to amputation of the right hand, while "highway robbery" is punished by cross amputation – cutting off the right hand and the left foot.

[Evasporque]

17. No western trained doctor would do that....nt

[KamaAina]

40. "First, do no harm..."

What part of that don't our bosom buddies understand?

[happyslug]

21. If the sentence to pay £177,000 in damages "grotesque" why does UK Foreign office NOT pay it??

Remember, under traditional Islamic Law, the family of the victim or the victim him or herself can opt for compensation other then the eye for an eye punishment. Here the family has agreed to accept 1m Saudi riyals (£177,000) in compensation. The Defendant has not been able to pay, now after giving him 10 years to pay, the Courts of Saudi Arabia has said that is long enough to come up with the money.

If the British Foreign Office truly thinks what the Saudi Arabian Court plans to do is "grotesque", then just pay the £177,000 and prevent the punishment from being implemented.

[leftynyc]

23. How about shaming the kingdom

into doing the civilized thing? How about calling barbarians barbarians? Or should foreign governments just shell out the bucks so the saudis can't carry out their disgusting penalties?

[PaulaFarrell]

24. Or Saudi Arabia could recognise basic human rights

one or the other...

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. You know, civilization doesn't work like that

That would be blackmail: "if he doesn't pay it, we'll cripple him, and no-one can object unless they pay the money instead". I presume your posts in this thread are meant to be satirical, but you're coming across as supporting the Saudi government instead.

[Nye Bevan]

25. Yes, it is grotesque. But so is strapping someone to a gurney and forcibly injecting him

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:51 PM - Edit history (1)

with lethal chemicals. The sad fact is that while the UK has the moral standing to object to sentences such as this, the USA, especially while Barack Obama has stated that he supports capital punishment, does not.

[idwiyo]

31. +1 I am happy that my government is trying to do something to stop that barbaric shit. Hopefully

they don't just stop there and also do something about our own torturers.

[Javaman]

28. eye for an eye in a blind society. nt

[DeadEyeDyck]

30. isn't all justice based on the premise of the punishment

Being equal to the crime?

[SHRED]

35. we "liberated" the wrong country

[tabasco]

44. I wish I could live long enough to see these fuckers run out of oil

and go back to herding goats.

[Brigid]

47. Have you ever seen "Syriana?"

In one fascinating scene, Matt Damon's character predicts exactly this. Great movie.

[Posteritatis]

59. Do I want to see that?

Ebert's passing today has got me thinking about gaps in my movies-seen list and I'm trying to figure out what I should start plugging them with now and then.

[Brigid]

60. Oh yes, see it.

It is difficult to describe, because it has a complex plot that can be difficult to follow. You will want to see it more than once to appreciate it.

[Posteritatis]

62. On the list it goes, then! (nt)

[dipsydoodle]

61. Ta for the reminder

I bought and watched the dvd when it was released. I'll dig it out now and watch it again.

[Brigid]

63. I need to watch it again too.

It's been a while.

[tabasco]

74. Yes ----

I saw it the first time and I was very tired and didn't get it.

The second time I got it and thought it was great.

[truebrit71]

51. Yup...

[Blandocyte]

46. But if they paralyze him, his wife will have to do all the driving

They can't have that!

[Ash_F]

50. And these people are among our "closest allies" /nt

[truebrit71]

52. Disgusting, but typical of medieval morons..

...and their medieval superstitions..

[happyslug]

81. Or you perfer the US method of Creditor enforcement, kicking people into the streets?

Remember this is enforcement of a JUDGEMENT against the Defendant. The Defendant has had ten years to pay off 1 million Riyals to the Victim and end this whole dispute. Try to do that in the US. Since this is a criminal action it is NOT dischargeable in Bankruptcy, thus the full weight of State's debt collection laws can be applied. That includes selling anything the debtor owns, his house, his car, his personal property, even the clothes off his back. The Creditor can claim any inheritance, any bank account, any stocks and bonds.

Creditors can attach wages, and then when the remaining wages are deposited into a bank account, clear out the bank account. Depending on the State, the Creditor even has the right to the clothes off the back of the Debtor (That is technically the law in Washington DC). Creditors can take over anything the Debtor owns, even the house he or she is living in and be kicked out of the house so the Creditor can sell it.

AND there is no ten year delay, the above can start as soon as a Judgment is entered, even if the Debtor does NOT know the Judgement was entered.

Which is more barbaric, being THREATENED by being made paralysis unless your family comes up with some money (the law in Saudi Arabia), or being kicked out onto the streets naked, stripped of anything of value, and told that if you get any assets, it will occur again and again till the debt is paid in full, which is the law in the US?

[truebrit71]

82. Yes I do. At least I can still walk.

What a fucking stupid question...

[happyslug]

84. So it is OK that you can make a person paralysised and NOT pay a penny?

Remember this is to FORCE payment from the person who CAUSED someone else to be paralysised. The victim's family has waited TEN YEARS for the payment, and finally the COURTS have said that is long enough, pay up one way or another.

So, if you make someone paralysised, you would be happy as long as you can walk. That the victim is paralysised DUE TO YOUR ACT, is unimportant to you.

[truebrit71]

86. I do not believe in an eye for am eye..

...that isn't justice, that's revenge...

[happyslug]

90. Neither does Islamic law, the issue is how do you force the perpetrator to pay?

What the victim wants is 1 million Riyals (The currency of Saudi Arabia), NOT to make the perpetrator like himself, paralysis. The Perpetrator and his family (Arabia is a Clan based society, so what one person does affects the whole extended family or clan) has had ten years to come up with about 1/4 quarter of a million dollars.

The court, in this case, is saying come up with the money or we will do the alternative. The Alternative has always been an option. Please note, the House of Saud is known to intervene in such cases as a favor to the leaders of the various tribes of Arabia. I suspect that is what the Court expect the perpetrator's tribal leader to do, but in exchange for a favor to the House of Saud. Worse, the House of Saud is heading for Civil War over who will rule Arabia once the present generation of old men dies out. All the branches of the House of Saud are looking for allies, thus the extended family of the perpetrator may be playing sections of the House of Saud against each other, seeing who will do what for what (and the details we may never even hear about).

This may also involves the Victim's family, who are pressing this to force they "Allies" in the House of Saud to come up with the money. The politics of this can be complex, and thus why it hit the papers, through the western papers either do not, or refuse to acknowledge, the complications at work.

[truebrit71]

91. Sorry but that is utter bullshit...

...You continue to defend this type of law, and I'll stick to more modern methods of justice, yes?

[happyslug]

92. Yes, lets do, kicking kids out of their home in winter

And selling their toys to pay for the debts owned by their parents. That the AMERICAN Way.

[obama2terms]

53. This is what happens

When religious nuts dominate everything. Not religious people but religious nuts ( There's a HUGE difference)

[treestar]

57. They are a sick country

Talk about a sick culture.

This is not the first horrible thing I've read about. They did some really barbaric things to girls who crossed their very low bars for girls' behavior.

[happyslug]

79. Yes, unlike the US where it is possible to kick people out in the middle of winter WITHOUT clothing

Yes, in the US today, it is possible for a creditor to get the local Sheriff to take the property of a debtor, including his home, his car, his personal items (including his clothes) and sell them to pay off a judgement, leaving the Debtor without any clothing, a place to live, or a means to get to and from work. In Saudi Arabia the courts have waited TEN years before permitting the Creditor from enforcing the Judgement (A delay UNHEARD of in the US) and then is making sure the Debtor has a place to live, clothing and even a means to get to and from work. Which culture is sicker?

[treestar]

83. Well that may happen but the person

can hopefully qualify for some of the social programs.

I would say it is far worse to drown a girl in the family swimming pool for seeing a boy the family doesn't like. (This is something I read about). Their own daughter.

And the subject of this article - that is something the US does not do to any prisoner.

[happyslug]

85. We are DISCUSSING US Law, there are NO such social programs

We are talking about adults, and the Federal Government had NEVER paid for Adult welfare and have restricted Welfare for families ONLY if they have children under age 18 (and then only the amount of Welfare, all other assets are available to creditors).

Social Security Disability is exempt from attachment, in or out of a bank account, but anything you buy with Social Security can be attached and sold by the Creditor, this included toys for Children and even the Children's clothes. The law says everything in the house is held in the same name as the house itself (even if the house is rented) and thus if a parent is the debtor, the Creditor can sell everything in the house, including the children's toys and clothing.

[treestar]

94. What has that got to do with the horrible criminal penalties Saudi Arabia infliicts on people? nt

[happyslug]

96. This is NOT a criminal punishment, it is a Civil Action.

We in the west separate Civil from Criminal actions, but that is a recent invention, as late as the 1700s many of what we call Criminal Actions were Civil (If we go further back, in the Time of the Romans, even theft was a CIVIL not Criminal action). Even today, many actions are Civil not criminal in nature, judgments are entered and they follow the debtor till they are paid.

This being a CIVIL ACTION under the Laws of Saudi Arabia, the victim has the option to receive MONEY instead of having the punishment implemented. The threat of physical harm, is just a method to get the perpetrator and his safety net (his extended family) to pay up what both families have decided needs to be paid. That is what the Court WANTS, it appears that is what the VICTIM and his family wants. It is the PERPETRATOR who is SAYING no to the payment, and thus incurring the threat of being paralysis. Apparently the Perpetrator is counting on foreign objections to spare him being paralysis AND to pay up. i.e. he gets away with paying nothing.

[treestar]

98. Criminal or civil, the idea of paralyzing someone

as a legal penalty is barbaric.

[happyslug]

99. You prefer the American way of selling everything they have, and kicking them out of their home?

The Arabs of Arabia would view that as barbaric, yet we do it all the time, even to Children.

[treestar]

101. None of our criminal penalties sell everything the person has

And yes that would be better than being paralyzed.

[happyslug]

102. Who said anything about CRIMINAL sanctions, you should look at what Creditors can TAKE from Debtors

Washington DC is the worse, no exemptions. My home state of Pennsylvania only exempts $300 worth of property, everything else can be sold (Through Pennsylvania is one of only six states that exempts attachment of wages, but only in the hands of the employer, once in a bank or on the person it is 100% attachable).

Tenant's who fall behind must move out within ten days of being told to vacant a rental unit, or face going to court, which only delays the eviction about 20 days, then on the street they go, with their spouses and children.

Given this was an act of violence that lead to the Judgement, it is NOT dis-chargeable in Bankruptcy, and thus only whatever your state exempts from attachment is exempt (and DC and several states have NO exemptions).

In my comments I keep on emphasizing the CIVIL nature of action and what are the CIVIL liabilities for such actions. Criminal judgement are meant to keep the peace (and protect people with a lot of money from the "Mob" NOT to correct the harm caused by the perpetrator of the harm. The job of making the victim whole is left to the Civil Courts and as you can see, in the Civil Courts liability is NOT limited AND most things can be sold to satisfy the Civil Judgement.

[treestar]

103. This seems to be a completely different subject

than what the OP was about. Whatever happens to debtors here, criminals in SA suffer barbaric physical punishments.

[happyslug]

104. Again, this is NOT a criminal sanction, but a Civil Sanction

In most of the world, the Criminal-Civil Division is NOT a clear as it is the West. In fact Civil Litigation is older AND considered Superior to Criminal litigation in most of the world. i.e. it is EXPECTED that the victim and the perpetrator work out a deal, which may include Payment of money AND criminal punishment (In Afghanistan such agreements can include marrying of women of one clan to another as part of the "payment" to resolve the dispute). We may find such settlements barbaric, but taking someone's property and leaving him or her penniless the Afghans and Arabs of Saudi Arabia would find to be even more barbaric. The ultimate punishment, the eye for an eye punishment is to force the sides to work out a deal NOT to be actually implemented unless it is clear one side (the side that did the crime) is simply refusing to pay (and then is used, as in this case, to force a settlement).

[Comrade Grumpy]

93. No, we just drive them insane with perpetual solitary confinement.

In those shining stars among our gulag, like Crescent City, the California supermax, or Florence, Colorado, the federal supermax.

[treestar]

95. Deliberately paralyzing them is a whole different league altogether

Not even comparable, even if your assertions are true.

[Sunlei]

68. 269677.20 US Dollars and all is forgiven

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. Saudi Arabia denies paralysis punishment

Saudi Arabia has denied reports that a court in the kingdom has ordered a punishment of paralysis for a man who caused the paralysis of a friend.

A Saudi justice ministry spokesman said the reports about the sentence were completely false.

The justice ministry said on its twitter account that the judge in the case decided to dismiss demands for such a sentence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22080539

It took them long enough to deny it, so it looks more like a changed decision, after the outcry.

[dipsydoodle]

89. Yes - change of mind.

Thanks for the update.

[happyslug]

97. The perpetrator's family finally paid up

That threat was to force the payment of the one million Riyals, and it now appears to have worked. Under traditional Tribal and Islamic law, once the victim had been paid, no further punishment is called for. Thus it is now convenient for the courts to say they "Denied" the punishment but I suspected it was made with the Court knowing the Perpetrator or his family just needed some encouragement to make the payment.