Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Restorer
I'm afraid I cannot see why such a penalty would be unjust or excessive...

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.

7 posted on 12/26/2005 9:32:58 AM PST by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: CarrotAndStick

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?


8 posted on 12/26/2005 9:39:27 AM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson