Progress in Penal Methods - Equal and Public Punishments

[jbg]

This post is designed to disabuse people of the notion that I am opposed to Islam. To the contrary, I admire the openness of the Afghan method of public punishment (link) and the exact equal proportionality of deliberately paralyzing a violent attacker in Saudi Arabia (link). This forward looking and open philosophy cements my support for its precepts. Excerpts to both below:

August 16, 2010

In Bold Display, Taliban Order Stoning Deaths

By ROD NORDLAND

KABUL, Afghanistan The Taliban on Sunday ordered their first public executions by stoning since their fall from power nine years ago, killing a young couple who had eloped, according to Afghan officials and a witness.

The punishment was carried out by hundreds of the victims neighbors in a village in northern Kunduz Province, according to Nadir Khan, 40, a local farmer and Taliban sympathizer, who was interviewed by telephone. Even family members were involved, both in the stoning and in tricking the couple into returning after they had fled.

Mr. Khan said that as a Taliban mullah prepared to read the judgment of a religious court, the lovers, a 25-year-old man named Khayyam and a 19-year-old woman named Siddiqa, defiantly confessed in public to their relationship. They said, We love each other no matter what happens, Mr. Khan said.

Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment

Thu Aug 19, 3:27 PM

By Salah Nasrawi, The Associated Press

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.

****************

"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."

Edited August 20, 2010 by jbg

[Bryan]

The court ordered paralysis is interesting. I've always thought that we should look at some eye-for-eye punishments too. It would probably save money over incarceration.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Bryan

[bloodyminded]

These are barbaric punishments, and places the State on the same (actually, at least arguably, worse) moral plane as the original perpetrator.

[jbg]

The court ordered paralysis is interesting. I've always thought that we should look at some eye-for-eye punishments too. It would probably save money over incarceration.

Read the last line. There is court-ordered blinding.

I really think we are derelict in not making these people feel welcome in the U.S. and Canada.

[Shwa]

Read the last line. There is court-ordered blinding.

I really think we are derelict in not making these people feel welcome in the U.S. and Canada.

So when you say "these people" are you referring to those who want to emigrate away from that sort of thing or are you referring to the people in power who enact those sorts of laws? Or is it something in between>? It seems the phrase "these people" is too broad a definition, but I am confident that should we narrow it down a bit we can clarify a few things including your attempt at irony.

[M.Dancer]

The court ordered paralysis is interesting. I've always thought that we should look at some eye-for-eye punishments too. It would probably save money over incarceration.

Kind of hard to do except for personal injury...what about slander or theft?

[jbg]

So when you say "these people" are you referring to those who want to emigrate away from that sort of thing or are you referring to the people in power who enact those sorts of laws? Or is it something in between>? It seems the phrase "these people" is too broad a definition, but I am confident that should we narrow it down a bit we can clarify a few things including your attempt at irony.

I'm referring to the "honor killing" case, for example, pending in Montreal where a mother slaughtered her own daughter for the family honor.

[ToadBrother]

The court ordered paralysis is interesting. I've always thought that we should look at some eye-for-eye punishments too. It would probably save money over incarceration.

Until someone innocent gets the treatment. You can spring a guy from prison, you can't give him back an eye.

But I'm all for it, including capital punishment, on one condition, that if it is discovered that an innocent man was punished in this fashion, everyone involved in his conviction; the investigators, the arresting officers, the Crown Council, the judge and the jury, all are subjected to exactly the same punishment.

[Shwa]

I'm referring to the "honor killing" case, for example, pending in Montreal where a mother slaughtered her own daughter for the family honor.

Hmmm. So are you using the fact that she was caught at a crime - here, by our standards - as distinguising "these people" from all the others or are you suggesting that all the others are prone to "honour killing cases?" I am still trying to narrow it down since I am sure you are not painting a particular people with a broad brush. You know, like some ignoramus equating the "honour killings" in gangland with the general condition of our society.

[jbg]

Hmmm. So are you using the fact that she was caught at a crime - here, by our standards - as distinguising "these people" from all the others or are you suggesting that all the others are prone to "honour killing cases?" I am still trying to narrow it down since I am sure you are not painting a particular people with a broad brush. You know, like some ignoramus equating the "honour killings" in gangland with the general condition of our society.

I have a problem with this kind of savagery:

Dorval mother accused of trying to kill daughter granted bail - Kaleki charged with attempting to kill daughter after she spent night elsewhere (link)

By IRWIN BLOCK, The Gazette August 20, 2010

MONTREAL - A woman charged with trying to kill her eldest daughter wiped away tears Thursday as she learned she was to be released from prison.

Looking less gaunt than in previous court appearances, with her black hair tied in a ponytail, Johra Kaleki nodded in agreement as Superior Court Justice Martin Vauclair set out her release conditions.

His lengthy decision was translated for her into Farsi.

Kaleki, 39, has been held at the Tanguay prison for women in Ahuntsic since June 13, when she was arrested for allegedly attacking Bahar Ebrahimi, 19. The attack came after Ebrahimi arrived at the family's Dorval home at 6:30 a.m. after spending the night elsewhere.

Kaleki allegedly flew into a rage and attacked the teen, leading to charges of attempted murder, assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon.

********

Read more:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/todays-paper/Dorval+mother+accused+trying+kill+daughter+granted+bail/3420267/story.html#ixzz0xClLENwv

The Judge's reasoning in granting this monster bail is withheld because of a "publication ban". If part of the reasoning, whether over or under the surface is deference to this "culture" something is extremely wrong.

[Peter F]

The Judge's reasoning in granting this monster bail is withheld because of a "publication ban". If part of the reasoning, whether over or under the surface is deference to this "culture" something is extremely wrong.

Yah. and if parrt of the reasoning whether over or under the surface is bribery then something is extremely wrong.

or maybe, sexual favours! Yah then something is really wrong there too. Or maybe Blackmail! Oh man, there is somethingreally really wrong there thats for sure....etc etc and on and on.

[jbg]

Yah. and if parrt of the reasoning whether over or under the surface is bribery then something is extremely wrong.

or maybe, sexual favours! Yah then something is really wrong there too. Or maybe Blackmail! Oh man, there is somethingreally really wrong there thats for sure....etc etc and on and on.

How about plain old political correctness?

[Peter F]

How about plain old political correctness?

How about it? Or plain ol' judicial process for granting bail? How's about that?

[Shwa]

If part of the reasoning, whether over or under the surface is deference to this "culture" something is extremely wrong.

So, hmmmm, hang on a sec. Is this the same "slaughter" that you mentioned earlier, or is there another honour killing that you were referring two, which would make that an example of "two" of "these people."

[jbg]

So, hmmmm, hang on a sec. Is this the same "slaughter" that you mentioned earlier, or is there another honour killing that you were referring two, which would make that an example of "two" of "these people."

Why do you insist on overly complicating my statement. You know what I mean. I know what I mean. You know about these savage customs. Please, some common sense.

[Shwa]

Why do you insist on overly complicating my statement. You know what I mean. I know what I mean. You know about these savage customs. Please, some common sense.

I know about customs that you think are "savage" but I am trying to determine if you are referring to all "those people" as being complicit in those savage customs and therefore, when referring to "these people" you are referring to a particular people in general; or your reference to "these people" is actually a simple reference to people who are inclinded towards criminal acts.

So, in effect, I am trying to simplify your statement. However, if you would like to come right out and say what you "mean" then it would be a lot easier to determine if your sense of irony is on target or not. I sense it isn't, but I think it is only fair to ask for a clarification, outside of two references to some sort of honour killing or an attempted honour killing.

[jbg]

I know about customs that you think are "savage" but I am trying to determine if you are referring to all "those people" as being complicit in those savage customs and therefore, when referring to "these people" you are referring to a particular people in general; or your reference to "these people" is actually a simple reference to people who are inclinded towards criminal acts.

So, in effect, I am trying to simplify your statement. However, if you would like to come right out and say what you "mean" then it would be a lot easier to determine if your sense of irony is on target or not. I sense it isn't, but I think it is only fair to ask for a clarification, outside of two references to some sort of honour killing or an attempted honour killing.

What I'm plainly saying is that in the "old country" daughters obeyed their parents, often on pain of death. In Canada the daughters learn in school and through the media that now they inhabit a "free country". Their parents don't see it that way and act accordingly. Canada as a country cannot tolerate a "private justice system" where parents have the right to inflict serious injury or death on their daughters.

[Argus]

I know about customs that you think are "savage" but I am trying to determine if you are referring to all "those people" as being complicit in those savage customs and therefore, when referring to "these people" you are referring to a particular people in general; or your reference to "these people" is actually a simple reference to people who are inclinded towards criminal acts.

What's wrong with holding people responsible for customs they support? Every poll ever taken in the Muslim world shows massive support for Sharia law. To dismiss barbaric laws as being simply the cruelty of a leadership with no ties to the people is ridiculous. Muslim societies support these laws. In Saudi Arabia, the place currently under discussion, the only strong reform movement is made up of people who think the laws are far too LAX, and who want much more strict (barbaric) laws.

I am unaware of ANY Muslim nation where Sharia law is not supported by the majority of the population. In fact, those Muslim nations which fail to practice Sharia law do so against the wishes of their population.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Argus

[dre]

What's wrong with holding people responsible for customs they support? Every poll ever taken in the Muslim world shows massive support for Sharia law. To dismiss barbaric laws as being simply the cruelty of a leadership with no ties to the people is ridiculous. Muslim societies support these laws. In Saudi Arabia, the place currently under discussion, the only strong reform movement is made up of people who think the laws are far too LAX, and who want much more strict (barbaric) laws.

I am unaware of ANY Muslim nation where Sharia law is not supported by the majority of the population. In fact, those Muslim nations which fail to practice Sharia law do so against the wishes of their population.

The problem with your claim about polls on Sharia law is that it can be implemented a number of ways. Some muslims believe it should be the ONLY source of law, and some favor a kind of partial implementation of it along side a constitution that guarantees things like free speech.

Cutting across diverse Muslim countries, social classes, and gender differences, answers to our questions reveal a complex and surprising reality. Substantial majorities in nearly all nations surveyed (95% in Burkina Faso, 94% in Egypt, 93% in Iran, and 90% in Indonesia) say that if drafting a constitution for a new country, they would guarantee freedom of speech, defined as "allowing all citizens to express their opinion on the political, social, and economic issues of the day."

However, while acknowledging and admiring many aspects of Western democracy, those surveyed do not favor wholesale adoption of Western models of democracy. Many appear to want their own democratic model that incorporates Sharia -- and not one that is simply dependent on Western values. Actually, few respondents associate "adopting Western values" with Muslim political and economic progress. Abuses in the name of Sharia have not led to wholesale rejection of it.

In our data, the emphasis that those in substantially Muslim countries give to a new model of government -- one that is democratic yet embraces religious values -- helps to explain why majorities in most countries, with the exception of a handful of nations, want Sharia as at least "a" source of legislation.

In only a few countries did a majority say that Sharia should have no role in society; yet in most countries, only a minority want Sharia as "the only source" of law. In Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, majorities want Sharia as the "only source" of legislation.

Most surprising is the absence of systemic differences in many countries between males and females in their support for Sharia as the only source of legislation. For example, in Jordan, 54% of men and 55% of women want Sharia as the only source of legislation. In Egypt, the percentages are 70% of men and 62% of women; in Iran, 12% of men and 14% of women; and in Indonesia, 14% of men and 14% of women.

Ironically, we don't have to look far from home to find a significant number of people who want religion as a source of law. In the United States, a 2006 Gallup Poll indicates that a majority of Americans want the Bible as a source of legislation.

Forty-six percent of Americans say that the Bible should be "a" source, and 9% believe it should be the "only" source of legislation.

Perhaps even more surprising, 42% of Americans want religious leaders to have a direct role in writing a constitution, while 55% want them to play no role at all. These numbers are almost identical to those in Iran.

[Peter F]

Jbg post #17:

Canada as a country cannot tolerate a "private justice system" where parents have the right to inflict serious injury or death on their daughters.

Wherever do you get the impression that there's a "private justice system"? What parent - no matter the cultural origin - has a right to inflict serious injury or death - on anyone?

The example you provide has the mother was arrested and incarcerated. Now out on bail awaiting trial. Sorta like everyone else who assaults anyone, let alone family members, in this country.

So do tell: What special priviledge was granted this woman?

Where do you guys get this bizzaro idea that immigrants are gaining some sort of right to kill people?

[jbg]

Where do you guys get this bizzaro idea that immigrants are gaining some sort of right to kill people?

Were Humulka and Bernardo free on bail pending trial? Pickton?

Seems like a double-standard.

[Smallc]

Were Humulka and Bernardo free on bail pending trial? Pickton?

Seems like a double-standard.

Those are very different cases, and as a lawyer, I would think that you would realize that.

[Shwa]

What I'm plainly saying is that in the "old country" daughters obeyed their parents, often on pain of death. In Canada the daughters learn in school and through the media that now they inhabit a "free country". Their parents don't see it that way and act accordingly. Canada as a country cannot tolerate a "private justice system" where parents have the right to inflict serious injury or death on their daughters.

So here is this confusion of meanings again: by saying "the daughters" and "parents" are you referring to ALL daughters and parents of a particular culture or are you referring to SOME daughters and parents of a particular culture? And what is that particular culture? It is almost as IF you are singling out a particular culture, but in a non-specific and general way.

So I am wondering if you are capable of speaking plainly, or that you are accustomed to being completely obtuse.

[Shwa]

What's wrong with holding people responsible for customs they support? Every poll ever taken in the Muslim world shows massive support for Sharia law. To dismiss barbaric laws as being simply the cruelty of a leadership with no ties to the people is ridiculous. Muslim societies support these laws. In Saudi Arabia, the place currently under discussion, the only strong reform movement is made up of people who think the laws are far too LAX, and who want much more strict (barbaric) laws.

I am unaware of ANY Muslim nation where Sharia law is not supported by the majority of the population. In fact, those Muslim nations which fail to practice Sharia law do so against the wishes of their population.

Had you been following the line of questioning, then you would obviously know that we are talking about "these people" in reference to immigrants. And - as clearly pointed out - the specific examples show that indeed people - presumably immigrants - were being held "responsible for the "customs they support" through criminal charges.

Or did you miss all of that and just want to argue?

[ToadBrother]

Were Humulka and Bernardo free on bail pending trial? Pickton?

Seems like a double-standard.

Not that I'm defending this woman, but I suspect that most people who are accused of what amounts to acts of passion involving a single victim are far more likely to get bail than, well, serial killers.