21st Century Justice.

Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment
By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer Salah Nasrawi, Associated Press Writer Thu Aug 19, 3:26 pm ET

CAIRO – 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.

could also be called christian punishment,,,eye for an eye is in my bible



in fact, many atheists often claim christianity is violent and hateful and use that quote as 'proof'


muslims are humans who are no more or less violent than anyone else, they just have crazies amongst them(like anyone else)

this is direct and harmful retaliation which I oppose as a pacifist, but how do those who would support 'war' (where hundreds of thousands of innocent people get caught in the middle) have the gall to judge DIRECT retaliation against a specific offender,,,,

Reading Comp. 101

The topic is Law and Justice. Not religion.

Show me, in our justice system where eye-for-eye is applied.

Molesters get a few years. Their victims get life.

Drunks who kill innocents get a few years. The victims get the death penalty.

Where is the eye-for-eye there?

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.



Islam is a religion, right?


eye for an eye is still implemented in america via the death penalty

retaliation is still supported in most countries I know of, its called 'war' or 'acts of terror'

the death penalty is for murderers and traitors. Not average people. I can't believe some of the things I'm reading.

average people, who have committed crimes that we deem worthy of death are put on death row

we wanna tout whose reasons for intentionally killing another is more JUST than the other? I dont,,,

yes....that is the difference between murder and man slaughter....now you are talking about intent.

Im talking about how people deem the authority to decide which lives are worth taking

noone should have that authority and all who assert it are equally primitive, in my opinion


yet, I stil don't consider primitive action as above an indication that any people are inherently or automatically 'evil' or my 'natural enemy'

capital crimes are the only death penalty sentences. in texas, if you kill a cop, or kill someone while robbing them can have a death penalty. they are put there as a deterrent to keep people from doing these crimes. it could be called an eye for an eye, and i think its fair. don't do the crime if you don't wanna to the time. every country has their own laws on such things. actually, msharmony is right, what they do over there is none of our business. i just worry about whats going on over here.

yes we do have that right when we are attacked......We turned the other cheek several times....seeing as you reference to the bible....That didnt work....Now guess what happens.

I took an oath to fight against all enemies....and I will hold true to that. Because if we dont....the muslims will take control, women will be mistreated and simple freedoms like tv shows and music....OR MINGLE would cease to exist.

what happens next? nothing

nothing changes except some will continue to see their 'cause' for killing as more just than someone elses,,,

their cause for RETALIATION as more historically founded...


and more innocent folks will die while all the policy makers get fatter and their constituents children get sent off to die,,,

I could see where killing someone while driving drunk could almost be pre-meditated.

They made the choice to drink. They made the choice to drive drunk. If, they've ever read the news, watched TV or listened to the radio, they know there is a chance they could kill someone.

All that information and choosing to do it anyway sounds like they would deserve to die also.

But, that ain't the way it goes.

They get off easy, and the victim gets death.

correct.....then the world gets bent out of shape when we say we will no longer be victims