Islamic "Justice" - Like A Horror Movie

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_saudi_justice

I find this pretty messed up.

 

Are these people sick in the head or something?

 

OK, now who's feeling sorry for the man convicted of attacking another man with a cleaver and paralyzing him?

 

It's not really about one single incident. You could focus, if you prefer, on the guy who had his teeth pulled after knocking another guy's out in a fight. You don't know who started the fight, you don't know if it was on those rare times in life that punching someone was entirely justified, or what.

To clarify however, it isn't about pitying the guy, he should spend the rest of his life in jail - if the attack was unprovoked, maybe the death penalty makes sense - but honestly, jail is one thing - forced surgery is another.

I do believe in harsh punishments for horrible crimes, but I know that I would never want this kind of crap in my country.

Imagine finding a man raping your sister/mother/wife/daughter - you attack him, and leave him paralyzed - because the rapist is most likely not going to be convicted, or worse yet, the victim will be blamed, you are then up on charges.

If even one innocent person was forced to undergo such insane surgery it would be one of the worst miscarriages of justice in history (when referring to an individual) - sure, going to jail when you're innocent sucks, but at least if exonerated they are released. You can't fix paralysis. You can't grow teeth back. Or an eye.

 

I can get your point, I just believe that for certain crimes jail time is just not enough, especially in Western countries where all that happens in "state of the art" jails is basketball and gym!

 

I agree that jails like that are not where anyone who has committed a crime should be sent - I also think that the death penalty needs to be used more frequently with certain crimes; such as repeat offenders who commit violent/sex crimes.

Another thing that bothers me about this is that if a doctor was made to perform this surgery it would likely haunt them for the rest of their life.

 

Islamic justice have always been too harsh

I heard lots of stories as, one who looks at another girl face - will face punishment of losing his eyes
one who rapes - get his thing cut off (males )
one who steals - loses their hand

they need to modernize the relation and the most sickening part in the above case of Saudi Arabia is, world thinks the current King is a lot better than his ancestors who ruled the nation, so just even to think how it might be gives me creeps

 

Eye for an eye isn't exclusively an Islamic concept.

 

True, but do you know anyone else that has carried the *practice* into the 21st century?

 

Not that I know of, my point was it should be looked at from a cultural point of view as apart from some regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen etc this is not practiced in all Islamic countries either.

 

Not me, but it does seem more sensible to punish the jackass by making him support the victim for the rest of his natural life.

 

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, if I remember rightly, is found in the Old Testament, which is used by the Jews. In Islam, this concept is still valid but in the Quran, the line right after it says, "it would be better to forgive, for Allah forgives those who forgives others". For the exact wording, please refer to the relevant documents. Google is your friend.

The point I want to make is that justice must be seen in the total sense. You cannot judge it exclusively just from the victim's or the perpetrator's viewpoint. The bottom line is does justice serve it's purpose? The purpose of justice being that all parties involved get a fair deal, or as fair a deal as is humanly possible.

I will illustrate with an example I have personally witnessed.

A man lodged a report at the local police station stating that he had been cheated. He said he paid 50,000 bahts for a used car but the ownership was not transferred to him. The police officer on duty called the seller to the police station. The seller arrived and admitted taking the money but said he was not the actual owner of the car. He said that he had lost contact with the actual owner of the car after he paid that person 20,000 bahts. That's why the ownership of the car could not be transferred to the buyer. So the police officer asked the buyer whether he would accept the 30,000 bahts and consider the case closed. The buyer agreed. The seller went to the bank, withdrew the money and gave it back to the buyer in front of the police officer. Case closed. Not the best solution, perhaps, but acceptable. Would it have been better if the buyer had taken the case to court? I think not.

 

Islam allows counter-attack in self-defense or defending your family.

See post #12 for what Allah says about forgiving. But if you do not want to forgive, eye for an eye sounds harsh but is pretty fair deal to me.

 

So - under an eye for an eye concept, when you rape someone in Islam and they demand this kind of "justice" - how exactly does that work?

Next, if this man is paralyzed the cost of his care will fall on others for the rest of his life, as well as a carer, medical bills, etc.

So in effect you are also punishing those forced to care for him, possibly the tax payers (I've no idea how medical care works there,) or if he has health insurance, his insurer.

You are also punishing an innocent doctor if one is made to perform this procedure, as well as anyone involved, directly or indirectly, with the procedure. (Other doctors, consultants, nurses, etc.) They will have to live the rest of their lives with the knowledge that after entering the medical profession to help the weak, to save lives, to improve the quality of life for their fellow man - that they have now tarnished their noble profession/s and have in fact injured a person, ruined quality of life (deserved or not) and gone against what being in the medical profession stands for.

How is it justice to punish so many innocent people just to ensure an eye for an eye is carried out? Even if you agree with the practice, how can you justify that? Or would these doctors and nurses then be able to demand that the judge who insisted the procedure was carried out undergo an equally traumatic and troubling experience to ensure that he too suffered life long demons haunting him?

PS - Idiot Inside - I said if the rapist wasn't convicted. It wasn't a "real" rape, not a handful of witnesses, etc. After the poor victim got whipped or jailed for premarital sex, then there'd be nothing to stop the rapist, who would still be seen as a good man, from pressing charges against his attacker - right?

 

From what I remember, sexual intercourse outside the bounds of matrimony is punishable by stoning to death, if the person involved is married and, punishable by 100 lashes of the whip, if the person involved is not married. Rape, if I am not mistaken, is punishable by death, most likely, by beheading.

Off-hand, the eye-for-eye concept of justice may seem uncivilized. However, if you look deeper into the system which is supposed to be a more civilized alternative, you will find even more injustices. Take a simple case of theft.

In Islam, the punishment for theft is amputation of the hand. However, there is a minimum amount involved before this punishment is invoked. You don't actually get your hand amputated just for stealing a loaf of bread. Nevertheless, the possible implementation of amputation is definitely a very strong deterrent to any would-be theft. On top of that there is still the very humane option of the victim forgiving the thief. It doesn't take much imagination to see how a thief might feel when, at the last minute, as his hand is about to be amputated, he is forgiven by his victim. He must be less than human if he does not feel moved by the kindness of his victim.

Consider, on the other hand, the system which is supposed to be more civilized. A person is caught for theft. He is sentenced to jail. He goes to jail. He learns more about stealing from his seniors in jail. He is released. He cannot find gainful employment. He goes back to stealing except that this time he steals more since he has learnt from his seniors in jail. Eventually he is caught again. And the cycle repeats itself.

So, the system which is supposed to be more civilized, is, in fact, a system for creating more and more better-trained criminals. Am I talking rubbish? You should look up the statistics on relapses as related to the criminal rehabilitation system and think about it for a while. Also look up the case histories of big-time criminals and see whether they were overnight wonders or were they actually the product of a step-by-step incremental education in the art and science of criminal activities.

 

Well done, you somehow managed to ignore the actual scenario and facts relating to it, to discuss a much tamer alternative involving theft.

Your post doesn't address the issues of the cost of care for the victim, for the criminal who is punished by being paralyzed, for the doctors and nurses involved who will suffer forever because of the act they're forced to perform - supposing this goes ahead - etc.

Kindly explain to me, including those facts, how this is the best possible outcome?

 

Personally I do not consider that the best possible outcome. I would say that every effort should be made to get the victim, or in this case, the victim's brother, to solemnly consider the virtues of forgiveness. I don't think this is an easy task. Imagine yourself being the victim's brother. Imagine the pain you feel every day when you see how your brother suffers while the perpetrator goes on with his life relatively unaffected. Should all efforts in this direction fail, then more effort should be made to stress the fact that Islam strictly forbids retaliation beyond what had been afflicted upon the victim.

At the end of it all, there is still the option of demanding compensation for the suffering borne by the victim. Since you have pointed out the costs, etc of applying the "eye-for-an-eye" concept of justice, you should be able to appreciate the burden of the victim's family. Due compensation is a part of the Islamic concept of justice.

btw I suppose you are aware that justice is blind. Blind in the sense that justice is neutral and does not see beyond what is just. To see beyond that will be to introduce extraneous parameters into the equation which will definitely result in an imbalance thereby nullifying the very concept of justice. Justice meaning the punishment must be of equal weight as the crime. Not one jot more and not one jot less.

To look it from another angle, I suggest you should read up on Jonathan Swift's satirical writings where criminals are sent to hospital and sick people are sent to jail. If you look beyond the actual act of the crime itself and begin considering the how and why the crime is committed, then you will eventually conclude that every time someone commits a crime, the society as a whole must be punished because it is society itself that created the criminal. The criminal is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, so to speak.

While we are about it, have you considered the cost of incarcerating criminals? Said cost being borne by the rest of society? In the present system being practiced by so-called civilized countries, the average man on the street, struggling to make ends meet, is paying for the cost of feeding and housing and protecting convicted criminals. Is that fair? Is that just?

 

Naah. We all have choices, and we're the product of the decisions we make. The idea that society is jointly responsible for the actions of an individual is just psychobabble.

 

Amen Brother Jones!

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." - Ronald Reagan

 

I can follow that line of reasoning. So does it follow that the punishment meted out to the perpetrator of the crime must be of equal weight to the crime committed? No more and no less?