Finally a judge with the right idea...

genericguy · 19-08-2010 11:03PM #1

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/saudi-judge-considers-severing-spine-of-attacker-who-paralyzed-man/1

A judge in saudi arabia has been asking hospitals if they would sever the spine of a cnut convicted of attacking and paralyzing another man.

Personally, I usually decry the islamic justice systems, but this time i think they have it spot on. I actually cannot see any way whatsoever that a bleeding heart could find this unfair, although I'm sure some will.

I think it would be fantastic if those found guilty of glassing/punching/stabbing someone, for example, were punished by allowing the victim to glass/punch/stab their attacker in return on the middle strip of O'Connell Street. See how tough the guy is then, huh?

What do you fine people think?

19-08-2010 11:05PM

Spineless fcuker

Biggins · 19-08-2010 11:07PM

Emotionally, questionable option with long term ramifications in many a direction.

Real justice? No - for we should not stoop to their scumbag level.
We are only then looking for justifiable excuses to do so after that.

We are better than that - or we should at least try to be. Lead by example, not by possible further mistakes

jester77 · 19-08-2010 11:09PM

Sure as the good old bible says (Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25 and Deuteronomy 19:21) an eye for an eye

Kasabian · 19-08-2010 11:09PM

Very few people would have the stomach for the "eye for an eye " form of justice.

MrStuffins · 19-08-2010 11:10PM

jester77 wrote: »

Sure as the good old bible says (Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25 and Deuteronomy 19:21) an eye for an eye

This is not biblical times, it's the 2010! And it's not justice!

genericguy · 19-08-2010 11:10PM

Biggins wrote: »

Emotionally, questionable idea.

Real justice? No - for we should not stoop to their scumbag level.
We are only then looking for justifiable excuses to do so after that.

We are better than that - or we should at least try to be. Lead by example, not by possible further mistakes

i really can't agree, i'd definitely be more of the "paralyse not, lest ye be paralysed" persuasion. this was a fantastic idea - no waste of money housing and feeding the cnut, just bam, scalpel to the spine and game-ball.

AnonoBoy · 19-08-2010 11:11PM

This is the only Judge I listen to:

Mr. Judge Reinhold!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL43nNjrMzI

Biggins · 19-08-2010 11:12PM

genericguy wrote: »

i really can't agree, i'd definitely be more of the "paralyse not, lest ye be paralysed" persuasion. this was a fantastic idea - no waste of money housing and feeding the cnut, just bam, scalpel to the spine and game-ball.

The phrase "thin end of the wedge" comes to mind and what if - just IF - someone is proved innocent later?

Emotionally I might agree but in practicable terms, I would have to decline.

genericguy · 19-08-2010 11:13PM

Biggins wrote: »

The phrase "thin end of the wedge" comes to mind and what if - just IF - someone is proved innocent later?

obviously this would be in the case of guilt beyond doubt, but every war has civilian casualties.

Kasabian · 19-08-2010 11:15PM

genericguy wrote: »

i really can't agree, i'd definitely be more of the "paralyse not, lest ye be paralysed" persuasion. this was a fantastic idea - no waste of money housing and feeding the cnut, just bam, scalpel to the spine and game-ball.

I always took that as getting in the first blow

AnonoBoy · 19-08-2010 11:15PM

Biggins wrote: »

The phrase "thin end of the wedge" comes to mind and what if - just IF - someone is proved innocent later?

Surely we can just shove them in some big camp somewhere where nobody will ever find out if they were actually innocent after we've maimed them?

Biggins · 19-08-2010 11:15PM

genericguy wrote: »

obviously this would be in the case of guilt beyond doubt, but every war has civilian casualties.

And while you have a point, there has been others later found innocent that once were found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".
America death row inmates will testify to that alone!

Kasabian · 19-08-2010 11:19PM

Maybe a poll .

Could you inflict the same injury on someone that they have inflicted on you.

1. Yes , "an eye for an eye"
2. No , " turn the other cheek "

ejmaztec · 19-08-2010 11:19PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

This is not biblical times, it's the 2010! And it's not justice!

Nothing is, especially here and in the UK. All the judges went to wanker justice academy.

cruiser178 · 19-08-2010 11:23PM

genericguy wrote: »

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/saudi-judge-considers-severing-spine-of-attacker-who-paralyzed-man/1

A judge in saudi arabia has been asking hospitals if they would sever the spine of a cnut convicted of attacking and paralyzing another man.

Personally, I usually decry the islamic justice systems, but this time i think they have it spot on. I actually cannot see any way whatsoever that a bleeding heart could find this unfair, although I'm sure some will.

I think it would be fantastic if those found guilty of glassing/punching/stabbing someone, for example, were punished by allowing the victim to glass/punch/stab their attacker in return on the middle strip of O'Connell Street. See how tough the guy is then, huh?

What do you fine people think?

I dont think there is a doctor on the planet that would initially go into an operating room to harm another human being.I just think its a bad idea and just another crazy Saudi punishment.
just out of curiosity do you think the original attacker should go to jail after he gets his back broken?

squod · 19-08-2010 11:26PM

Maybe the paraysed bloke was a cnut.

matrim · 19-08-2010 11:28PM

genericguy wrote: »

i really can't agree, i'd definitely be more of the "paralyse not, lest ye be paralysed" persuasion. this was a fantastic idea - no waste of money housing and feeding the cnut, just bam, scalpel to the spine and game-ball.

You do realise this is Ireland and if we did something like that, we'd end up paying disability to the person for the rest of their lives and probably provide them with a house too

Wibbs · 19-08-2010 11:34PM

As the Indian fella in the loin cloth said, An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

OK if you're mind is running from the lower animal brain, if you're running from any sort of intellect, then no. Its beyond daft.

Pherekydes · 19-08-2010 11:44PM

Wibbs wrote: »

As the Indian fella in the loin cloth said, An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

OK if you're mind is running from the lower animal brain, if you're running from any sort of intellect, then no. Its beyond daft.

+1.

If the judge is so keen why doesn't he do it himself?

johnmcdnl · 19-08-2010 11:44PM

I'd agree with this justice too - if you paralyse a man and it's proven without doubt that you did then a 1 year stint in jail before getting on with the rest of your life isn't going to be a big deal is it...

It'd make you consider the punishment a lot more if you knew you'd be in a wheelchair for the rest of your life too if you commit a crime like this...

of course it depends on the accutual event like - if it was an intentional fight or whatever and you intended to bust someone and this happened then you deserve it too...

mightn't be as many random attacks on the streets late at night if you knew this was coming..

ejmaztec · 19-08-2010 11:45PM

Biggins wrote: »

The phrase "thin end of the wedge" comes to mind and what if - just IF - someone is proved innocent later?

Emotionally I might agree but in practicable terms, I would have to decline.

They could always be presented with a free car under the mobility scheme, and a letter of apology.

...and cripple the judge, jury and the prosecution, and the whole lot of them can go wheelchair jousting.

Pherekydes · 19-08-2010 11:49PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

They could always be presented with a free car under the mobility scheme, and a letter of apology.

...and cripple the judge, jury and the prosecution, and the whole lot of them can go wheelchair jousting.

Then new evidence is presented showing he was, in fact, guilty after all, so now we gotta cripple those wot crippled them judges and juries and whatnot.

Looks like we're gonna need a lotta wheelchairs.

Now there's an opening for an entrepreneur.

19-08-2010 11:55PM

I was reading somewhere once that in KSA when the punishment is chopping off the hand, they now do it surgically in hospital, rather than with an axe/sword in the market square.

19-08-2010 11:57PM

Class form of justice.. Completely and utterly agree with it.
Same as the girl who got acid thrown in her face and was blinded.. The judge ordered she could blind the attacker. Not sure if she did yet though but I think it's brilliant.

Like my cousin's face was deformed by a pint glass.. The guy who did is away off scott free after a bit of jail and being sued while my cousin is still wrecked over 10 years later. I know I'd go for the attacker getting deformed as justice if I was the victim. Fuk being the bigger man, I want harsh raw justice.

Jesus Juice · 19-08-2010 11:59PM

Jesus if thats their judgement system, do they just throw shit at each other in the courtroom?

Lost Dog · 20-08-2010 12:02AM

Abdul-Aziz al-Mutairi, 22, was left paralyzed and subsequently lost a foot after a fight more than two years ago, his older brother, Khaled al-Mutairi, told the Associated Press. He said the assailant, whom he and the paper did not identify, was sentenced to 14 months in prison, released after seven months in an amnesty and now teaches at a university.

:eek:

HorsesNHarleys · 20-08-2010 12:04AM

The reference to "An eye for an eye" is probably one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted verses in scripture. The intent of the principle "An eye for an eye" is if you injure or bring harm to another person, you are to compensate that person with something of equal value for the injury or harm you brought upon them. One of the most important reasons for this principle was to deter the excessive and overly harsh punishment by the victim, avenger, or by those in positions of authority. In other words, the punishment should fit the crime or compensatory damages should be consistent with the damages done. It is not meant in literal terms.

With that type of mentality it won't be long before we see the of rebuilding coliseums, and one can't help but wonder are we evolving as people or moving backwards?

who what when · 20-08-2010 12:05AM

Biggins wrote: »

Emotionally, questionable option with long term ramifications in many a direction.

Real justice? No - for we should not stoop to their scumbag level.
We are only then looking for justifiable excuses to do so after that.

We are better than that - or we should at least try to be. Lead by example, not by possible further mistakes

A free Larry Murphy, scumbags, drug addicts, petty criminals, gang wars are all a result of what happens when a justice system leads by example.

Sir Gallagher · 20-08-2010 12:07AM

genericguy wrote: »

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/saudi-judge-considers-severing-spine-of-attacker-who-paralyzed-man/1

A judge in saudi arabia has been asking hospitals if they would sever the spine of a cnut convicted of attacking and paralyzing another man.

Personally, I usually decry the islamic justice systems, but this time i think they have it spot on. I actually cannot see any way whatsoever that a bleeding heart could find this unfair, although I'm sure some will.

I think it would be fantastic if those found guilty of glassing/punching/stabbing someone, for example, were punished by allowing the victim to glass/punch/stab their attacker in return on the middle strip of O'Connell Street. See how tough the guy is then, huh?

What do you fine people think?

Absolutely stupid.

Herb Powell · 20-08-2010 12:08AM

genericguy wrote: »

obviously this would be in the case of guilt beyond doubt, but every war has civilian casualties.

and that's why war is ****ing bullshiit

Finally a judge with the right idea...

Comments