Yes, of course this is barbaric, medieval, shouldn’t happen, etcetera. But on the other hand, it also feels kind of unjust that the attacker just spends 14 months in jail, while the victim stays paralysed for life.
I gotta say, I don’t mind that much the custom of having to pay blood money in compensation. But If I were the victim and I felt a raging need for revenge, would I be better off with this kind of revenge or with a month of anger management therapy urging me softly to move on?
IIRC the “First do no harm” is actually Greek in origin, and there is nothing in Saudi history that makes any claim they will follow a greek precept =)
And personally, I have no problem with the punishment, Saudi Arabia wasn’t the US last I checked. What laws run in other countries are not my business [other than to make sure I don’t break them when I am there] Would you rather they chop off the guys head for paralizing the first guy?
It makes perfect sense… in a sense. Brutal, I will grant- and I don’t think that productive in this case. I would sentence this guy to be his victim’s indentured servant for life. Or sell him into servitude to someone else & have the victim collect the profits.
“Thing is, Doc, there’s a criminal we’re set to execute; we often apply the death penalty for offenses like the one he committed, when (a) he can’t undo the damage the way a thief can return stolen money or whatever, and (b) we can’t inflict eye-for-an-eye justice. Anyhow, the prisoner has asked if you can paralyze him instead of having us kill him, and, well, if you’re up for that, I guess we’d prefer it too.”
“First, do no harm”, comes from Latin (primum non nocere), not Greek; it’s not part of the ancient or modern Hippocratic Oaths. It’s a maxim attributed to several different French and English physicians, and can be traced back no further than about 1650.
Not only may this be considered barbaric, it’s socially retarded. They’re going to deliberately reduce a potentially useful member of society to a mouth and an anus. I would make the perpetrator be the victim’s hands and feet for at least 8 hours a day for the rest of his life.
Jesus was very much against eye-for-an-eye punishments. How can I, as Christian, advocate something that Jesus expressly forbade?
As to be more practical, the eye-for-an-eye morality just starts a chain of violence. There’s no reason for the family of this guy to not try to hurt the family of the victim for causing their guy harm. And then it will just repeat.
Okay, it may not happen in this case, but eventually someone will see it that way. There’s a reason why civilized countries have decided to have humane punishments. The alternative leads to violence.
And that’s not even considering that it will bolster the idea here in America that Muslims are brutal savages.
This. Medical ethics aside, I can’t see intentionally making somebody (I don’t want to say “useless” but I can’t come up with anything else; “a less productive member of society” maybe?) just for revenge. Where’s the benefit?