Posted on 12/26/2005 9:01:56 AM PST by Alouette
THE lawyer for an Indian migrant worker sentenced to have his eye gouged out as punishment by a Saudi Arabian court said he has launched a new appeal against the verdict.
The original sentence, handed down in August, "is not definitive, the Riyadh court of appeal having not yet confirmed it", Nawaf al-Mutawa said, adding that "any recourse to (calls for) clemency" is premature. New Delhi announced on Friday it had sent a "mercy petition" calling on Riyadh to pardon the worker, Puthen Veetil Abdul Latheef Noushad, sentenced for blinding a Saudi national in 2003.
Human Rights Watch earlier this month also called for Saudi King Abdullah to grant royal clemency.
"Such declarations make the verdict seem definitive, which is not the case," said Mr Mutawa.
Under Saudi law, if the appeals court confirms the verdict, the supreme court must then look at the verdict, which, if approved, can only be carried out following a decision by the king, Mr Mutawa said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
PROP ping
of interest.
Is this written up in India?
I'm afraid I cannot see why such a penalty would be unjust or excessive, if the blinding of the other person was indeed intentional. Obviously I don't trust the Saudi courts to make such a decision.
It is little known that the Bible's "eye for an eye" punishment was a reduction of penalties from previous codes where the punishment was often more severe than the damage inflicted by the crime. An example of this was Draco's law code in Athens, in which the penalty for almost all crimes was death.
Yes.
Saudi court orders 'gouging' of Indian's eye PTI ^ | Tuesday, December 06, 2005 03:13:47 pm | PTI
Saudi court orders 'gouging' of Indian's eye
KOLLAM: A youth from the state of Kerala is facing an "eye-for-eye" punishment in Saudi Arabia after a court found him guilty of blinding an Arab during an altercation two years ago.
The helpless family members of the youth are in tears and prayers hoping that their kin would return unhurt.
Puthan Veettil Naushad, who worked as an assistant in a shop attached to a petrol station near Dammam in Saudi Arabia, was the sole bread-winner of the family comprising his parents, wife and two children at Anchal near here.
His life took a tragic turn two years ago when a Saudi national came and purchased a battery charger from the shop. After a while, the customer returned complaining that the product he bought was faulty and allegedly roughed up Naushad. The Saudi national's left eye was damaged when Naushad reacted in self-defence.
The incident landed Naushad in court, which imprisoned him and ordered that his right eye be scooped out and given to the Saudi national as replacement for his damaged eye.
However, according to the family members, the court of appeal has directed the Saudi national to consider whether Naushad could be pardoned. As per Shariat , the offender can escape punishment if the affected person pardoned him.
As a ray of hope for the grieving family, Naushad rang up his wife Shuhaila from Saudi on Monday to say that he hoped the man who took him to court would show mercy.
This is the Indian's story. It may very well be true, it even sounds more believable, but the article you quote states it as fact.
My comment was with regard to the announced penalty, not whether the defendant was properly convicted. My point is that the very idea of "an eye for an eye" is usually portrayed as unjust and barbaric. I cannot see why. It merely results in the court applying the same damage to the perp as he inflicted on the victim.
Most of us accept this equivalence readily enough in its most extreme application, the death penalty. Why balk at applying the same principle in less extreme situations?
Working in Saudi Arabia is dangerous to your health.
Any Saudi can do anything he likes to you, and basically you have no recourse. This goes for maids from the Phillipines who are made into sex slaves, and contract workers from India. It even applies to British, Canadian, and American citizens, who have sometimes been jailed or tortured with no protests from their governments.
It's a little safer if you work for a whole contracting company among people from your own country, but not completely safe if someone important takes a dislike to you.
The Saudis pay well, but going to work there is much the same as volunteering to become a slave. Keep your mouth shut, jump when you're told to get out of the way, and don't wander around too much.
"My point is that the very idea of "an eye for an eye" is usually portrayed as unjust and barbaric. I cannot see why. It merely results in the court applying the same damage to the perp as he inflicted on the victim.
Most of us accept this equivalence readily enough in its most extreme application, the death penalty. Why balk at applying the same principle in less extreme situations?"
Are you serious?
There is no equivalence.
The death penalty is applied only very rarely and only for DELIBERATE acts of killing.
I have seldom heard of a DELIBERATE act of eye gouging. Sometimes, as here, it is a mere accident or a byproduct of a physical fight. Further even here it is eye injury not total loss.
Finally the point of the law and judgement under the law is NOT to descend to the level of the criminal or mete out God like retribution.
The Old Testament concept of 'an eye for an eye' is widely misunderstood because its meaning derives from the Oral Tradition (Talmud) with which it is inextricably tied.
The Talmud explains that it is a Tort concept of financial value. Thus a person who loses an eye is entitled to the monetary equivalent based on lost earnings, pain and suffering, etc. That is a far cry from the Saudi Arabian barbarism and quite a sophisticated concept for those times.
Why is inflicting the same damage on a murderer by execution justice, but breaking the leg of someone who breaks another person's leg in an assault vengeance?
The death penalty is applied only very rarely and only for DELIBERATE acts of killing.
Quite true. However, I believe the death penalty is applied far too seldom. I would prefer laws where the death penalty was the default punishment for murder, with mitigation in unusual circumstances, rather than the present situation where the death penalty requires special circumstances.
In fact, I think many, though not all, of the punishments for crime prescribed in the Mosaic Law would be more effective and actually merciful than those we use today. For example, I know I would absolutely prefer to be flogged for a relatively minor crime and spend a week in the hospital recovering than be locked up with the scum of the universe for a year. I suspect such a punishment would be a far more effective deterrent than our present system.
The Talmud explains that it is a Tort concept of financial value. Thus a person who loses an eye is entitled to the monetary equivalent based on lost earnings, pain and suffering, etc.
If so, all crimes against persons could be settled by paying the equivalent of a fine, making it similar to our present civil justice system rather than our criminal system. This inherently means wealthy persons could commit crimes with essential impunity. I fail to see why you consider this system morally superior.
It is also a fact that the Talmud was not developed until centuries, perhaps as much as a thousand years, after the Mosaic Law. You can interpret the Law in the light of the Talmud, if you wish. I suspect that the Talmud often attempts to circumvent the pretty clear language of the Law.
For instance, the conversion of all penalties for crimes against persons into monetary penalties would certainly be very much in the interests of the wealthy, who often had great influence among the rabbis, at least according to one Jesus of Nazareth.
"It is also a fact that the Talmud was not developed until centuries, perhaps as much as a thousand years, after the Mosaic Law. You can interpret the Law in the light of the Talmud, if you wish. I suspect that the Talmud often attempts to circumvent the pretty clear language of the Law. "
Not according to Orthodox beliefs. The Talmud is the written codification of the Oral, what you call Mosaic, Law. Oral Law was handed down at Sinai together with the written law. It has the same force as the written law and the written law can not be understood without it. The Oral and written law are integral and the word of God. That is the core belief of Orthodox Jews.
"For instance, the conversion of all penalties for crimes against persons into monetary penalties would certainly be very much in the interests of the wealthy, who often had great influence among the rabbis, at least according to one Jesus of Nazareth."
It is widely misunderstood that the wealthy Jews were the legalistic Pharisees. In fact there were two groups. The Saducees were the wealthy High Priests who had adopted Roman ways. The Pharisees were not wealthy but were observers of the Oral Law considered legalistic (a derisive term as applied by Christians). The surviving Jews of today are descendants of Pharisees.
Crimes are crimes and torts are civil even where people are injured. Our legal system rightly considers the intent or the accidental nature of acts. I never meant to suggest that there are no criminal peanlties under Jewish law. An eye for an eye arises in the non-criminal context.
Even in crime some outcomes are accidental and can not be fairly attributed to intentional acts deserving of severe criminal penalties. An exception to this would be the felony murder rule. However even there "the felony must present a forseeable danger to life, and the link between the underlying felony and the death must not be too remote. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder
"This inherently means wealthy persons could commit crimes with essential impunity."
The same applies to criminal trials today where OJ can pay for an array of lawyers to get him off. I am not in favor of widespread use of the death penalty although I am not opposed to all use of it.
I see the goal of the criminal justice system as one of keeping criminals, especially violent ones, off the street. I would treat rescidivists very harshly.
Hey...he'll still have one eye!
Whats the big deal? /sarcasm
Then my reading of the Law must have missed these other criminal penalties. Where are they found? The Jews, and other ancient peoples, had nothing resembling our long-term imprisonment. So what form of punishment did they use, if the eye for an eye principle was not used?
I realize that Orthodox Jews view the Talmud as of similar authority with the Law. I do not, however, agree with them.
I am well aware of the origin of the Pharisees as the "liberals" (in the original sense of the word) of Jesus' day. The Saducees and several other sects of the time disappeared in the great revolt against the Romans and its aftermath. However, Jesus does not appear to have a much higher opinion of the Pharisees of his day than he did of the Saducees.
That OJ and other rich, famous people can manipulate the legal system to be acquitted is very different from a legal system where the punishment, if convicted, consists solely of the equivalent of a fine. I think this argument is sophistic.
The ancient Germans had such a system. Each person had their wereguild (?), or price for murder or injury. It varied by station in life. Rich men could commit a crime and pay the same fine for it as a poor man. (If even convicted.)
You are the very first person I have ever run across who appears to claim that having purely monetary penalties for crime is a morally superior system. The immorality of it can be seen by the idiocy of today's sports commissions who "punish" a player earning $20M/year by fining him $5000.
Neither of which is prescribed in the Mosaic Law. There were no physical punishments for economic crimes, which required multiple reimbursement, a policy that actually makes sense. You steal $100 from me, you have to pay me back some multiple of that amount. If you can't pay, you're sold into slavery, or more accurately indentured servitude, until the amount has been worked off.
It is interesting that you make no attempt to explain WHY "an eye for an eye" is unjust. I am perfectly well aware that we don't do it that way here. Do you seriously contend that our present criminal system is the best that could possibly be implemented?
Would you rather be flogged and spend a week in the hospital or be locked up in a prison and perhaps raped hundreds or thousands of times in a year? That's the way our "kinder and gentler" system often works in practice.
I believe that much of the opposition to "an eye for an eye" is based on squeamishness, not logic.
That is his story. It may quite possibly be true, but it is is not a proven fact. In any conflict between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, the Muslim is not always at fault.
Although that's probably the way to bet. :)
That is simply not Western Civilization.
Correct. IMHO, so much the worse for Western Civ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.