Saudi Hospitals Are Asked to Maim Man as Punishment

[Orignal Earl]

I'm sure you do

Why?

 

[nick1985]

You can leave your wallet in the street in Saudi Arabia and go get it the next day.

:thumbsup:

 

[nick1985]

Why?

You tell me

 

[Orignal Earl]

You tell me

How am I supposed to know what you think???

 

[jman19]

You can leave your wallet in the street in Saudi Arabia and go get it the next day.

Good point. When do we start lopping off hands here in the US? :hmm:

 

[nick1985]

How am I supposed to know what you think???

How did you get so confused? Re-read our exchange

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the way it works for theft in SA is that it's the right hand, the left hand and then the head. Three strikes and you're out, with no need for penal institutions at tax payer's expense and the lowest crime rate on earth. Stealing from poor folk is like murdering them. Odd no, that barbarians should run a practically crime free society whereas here nice folk govern barbarian thieves.

 

[Orignal Earl]

How did you get so confused? Re-read our exchange

Earl-Do you agree all the countries of the West are morally superior over the US?

Nicky-I'm sure you do

EArl-Why?

Nicky-You tell me

Earl-How am I supposed to know what you think???

Nicky-How did you get so confused? Re-read our exchange

Looks pretty much like your confused

 

[nonlnear]

eeewwww.... sent a chill down my spine... how can a human being do that in cold blood... FVCK

Oh the things that were done in the name of science in the USA as recently as the fifties and sixties. If a little nick on the spine creeps you out, you had better not learn any more medical history.

I know it's unconstitutional, however I think that an outright prohibition on cruel punishment in the Bill of Rights was a mistake. As long as the punishment is proportional to the crime that was committed then IMO it ought to be legal.

There is no outright prohibition on cruel punishment. It's cruel and unusual punishment. Cruel but usual punishment was A-OK. It's a moving target for policy-makers though, because as cruel punishments go out of style, they become (arguably) unusual.

 

[nick1985]

Looks pretty much like your confused

Nope. Its clear you are

 

[Orignal Earl]

Nope. Its clear you are

Why are you sure I think the rest of the western countries are morally superior to the u s


better?

 

[Narmer]

I see no problem with this. Although I think the victim should be allowed to carry out the punishment. This is one of the few things the Middle East gets right.

 

[Moonbeam]

I see no problem with this. Although I think the victim should be allowed to carry out the punishment. This is one of the few things the Middle East gets right.

Right is relative in this case, I think. In a poor society that has no police and no jails but crime, it seems a natural survival response. Stealing and other crimes against people is like murder. To steal food from a mother is to kill her kids. Folks don't like that much.

In a wealthy society less brutality is required to deal with crime, there are police and jails, but there is far far more crime and most of the victims don't die from theft.

In a wise society that may one day exist, folk will find a way to insure that criminality is preempted before it exists. Children will have their emotional needs met and grow up responsibly with a capacity to give and a reluctance to take. A better knowledge of genetics will insure that genetic freaks that can't feel empathy won't exist.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets see, US doctors will cheerfully assist in Lethal injections, so why should not Saudi doctors do the same? Its the same hippocratic oath, you take a somewhat healthy body and do it harm.

But wait this is Sharia law, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. And our perp paralyzed someone else and is supposed to get a dose of his own medicine.

But now its gets tricky, if it were simply doing someone else to death, all kinds of methods can be applied. Guns, Swords, firing squads, oh lets us all count the ways to do someone to death, no medical expertise needed.

But wait, this is an eye for an eye Sharia law case. What happens if the perp becomes more paralyzed that the victim? Or less? Yup not a direct eye for an eye here and thus a violation of Sharia law. That is why they feel compelled in this case to ask for medical assistance to insure equivalence in punishment.

Is their legal system per say more barbaric than ours? Somehow I suspect we are all equally rotten.

 

[lord_emperor]

I don't think a doctor's assistance is necessary here.

Stab in the spine with a sterilized knife, bandage.

Failed? Try again.

 

[hal2kilo]

Lets see, US doctors will cheerfully assist in Lethal injections, so why should not Saudi doctors do the same? Its the same hippocratic oath, you take a somewhat healthy body and do it harm.

But wait this is Sharia law, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. And our perp paralyzed someone else and is supposed to get a dose of his own medicine.

But now its gets tricky, if it were simply doing someone else to death, all kinds of methods can be applied. Guns, Swords, firing squads, oh lets us all count the ways to do someone to death, no medical expertise needed.

But wait, this is an eye for an eye Sharia law case. What happens if the perp becomes more paralyzed that the victim? Or less? Yup not a direct eye for an eye here and thus a violation of Sharia law. That is why they feel compelled in this case to ask for medical assistance to insure equivalence in punishment.

Is their legal system per say more barbaric than ours? Somehow I suspect we are all equally rotten.

This. Also IIRC, the US interrogators employed psychiatrists and medical doctors during interrogation of terrorist suspects. I know at least the psychiatric professional community was quite upset about it. It's all about perspective.

 

[thegimp03]

Go to google news search, read up about a guy named Peter Cantu (executed this week by the state of Texas) and what he did to a couple of teenage girls in the early 1990s. Some people deserve cruel punishment.

Good riddance. A person like that should have been executed about 5 minutes after he was sentenced to death, not given a bonus of 17 years to live.

 

[hal2kilo]

Good riddance. A person like that should have been executed about 5 minutes after he was sentenced to death, not given a bonus of 17 years to live.

I see the authoritarians are all in attendance today.

 

[Lemon law]

I see the autoritarians are all in attendance today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets not forget about all them US prisoners executed that are later proved innocent by DNA evidence. OOPS, can't bring them back to life can we.

 

[Fern]

Aside from the moral issue etc, this strikes me as completely stupid.

Take a healthy person and cripple them intentionally? Who will support them? The gov, or other people?

Why not instead let this guilty person labor for the benefit of the injured man and his family?

This 'eye for an eye' stuff may have made some sense waaaay back when, but not now.

Fern

 

[OCGuy]

Wow some people will go any length to defend Islam and it's fundie followers.

I'm going to go watch some Gunship cam footage of Jihadis getting ripped to shreds to cheer up a little.

 

[nonlnear]

I see no problem with this. Although I think the victim should be allowed to carry out the punishment. This is one of the few things the Middle East gets right.

A rather interesting possibility exists for a certain Biblical passage to be read in exactly this way. In the passage where Jesus interrupts the stoning of the woman caught in adultery and says "let he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone", it is a rather interesting possibility that he was not sarcastically saying that nobody had any right to stone her, but inviting the husband who was wronged ("without sin" doesn't have to be read as an absolute declaration, but could be taken to be without sin in this instance - i.e. the party who was wronged) to initiate the punishment rather than letting the mob do it. It turns the passage on its head, and makes it not quite so cut and dry for the kindergarten level pastors to dispense from the pulpit, but it strikes me as a more likely read...

 

[feralkid]

I know it's unconstitutional, however I think that an outright prohibition on cruel punishment in the Bill of Rights was a mistake. As long as the punishment is proportional to the crime that was committed then IMO it ought to be legal.

Yes, let's make our justice system more like the one in Saudi Arabia.

Good luck, shmuck!

 

[Infohawk]

The idea of retribution is fine, but you can just stop at death. The best solution for the criminal here would be a quick execution.

[sarcasm] In the name of freedom of religion we should allow muslims to practice sharia law in the US and implement this system here for their followers. Anything else would be bigotry. [/sarcasm]

 

[Jaskalas]

Is their legal system per say more barbaric than ours? Somehow I suspect we are all equally rotten.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, the Left's argument of moral equality.

This is the greatest threat to our nation. People from within who see us as Saudi Arabia. Or worse, think barbarism like this is better. (See Moonbeam)

Anyone who cannot see the difference, who does not appreciate that we do not do these things, is assaulting everything we stand for. Now they'll go ahead and lecture us on right and wrong.