Thursday, August 19, 2010

Bizarre Saudi court mulls verdict to cut prisoner’s spine

This religion is out of control!!

Doctors take an oath to do no harm... but Saudi doctors who could be involved in the amputations of hands and feet for crimes... could now be involved in disabling an able bodied man!!


He caused paralysis to another man during a fight and the victim is insisting that he should suffer the same injury

A court in Saudi Arabia is seeking medical advice on whether it is possible to cut the spinal cord of a man as a punishment after he was indicted of causing paralysis to another man during a fight, a local daily reported on Thursday.

The court in the northwestern province of Tabuk has sent letters to hospitals in the kingdom asking them whether the punishment to cripple the defendant by severing his spine is medically possible, the Arabic language daily Okaz said.

The unidentified defendant hit Abdul Aziz Al Mutairi, another Saudi, with a cleaver during a fight more than two years ago and the trial has been delayed because Mutairi is insisting that his attacker suffer the same injury.

“The General Court in Tabuk has sent several letters to hospitals in and outside the region asking doctors about the possibility of cutting the spinal cord of the defendant after he was indicted of causing paralysis to another man,” it said.

The paper quoted the 22-year-old Mutairi as saying the defendant had confessed in court to hitting him with the cleaver during their fight in Tabuk.

“King Khaled Hospital is of the opinion that it is possible to cut the spinal cord and cause paralysis medically through specialist centres,” he said.

According to the paper, the verdict is pending responses from hospitals to the court’s letters.

Emirates 24/7

2 comments:

D. G. Neree said...

an eye for an eye turns everyone into blind men

Matt said...

THERE IS A SERIOUS LEGAL FLAW HERE. If the attacker is eventually paralysed, AND out lives the person he hurt, he would end up being paralysed for a longer duration than the person whom he hurt. Thus, eye for an eye law would not be implemented correctly as the two punishments would not be equal in nature. Time must be a consideration in judging the suffering of another. If the victim dies 10 years from now, and the attacker lives another 50 (while presumably medically paralysed) then how can that be just? I am not condoning the actions of the attacker, only bringing to light the flaw in this type of punishment.