She was in an unrelated man's car when the attack took place, and so apparently deserves punishment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096814.stm

I don't think I like our allies in the War on Terrorism...

When I read stuff like this, I get the feeling that spreading democracy to a pack of enraged baboons would have a greater chance of succeeding than these backwards misogynists.

This is a perfect example of why we need to remove our dependency on oil. If we could actually get nations like this in the pocket book, where it counts, we might actually be able to necessitate change there. As long as we are dependent on Saudi oil, this will never happen.

It's very interesting to see a particular code which was originally supposed to be applied for the protection of women actually be used to turn female victims into equal offenders compared to their male attackers.

According to the Arab News newspaper, the 19-year-old woman, who is from Saudi Arabia's Shia minority, was gang-raped 14 times in an attack in the eastern province a year-and-a-half ago. Seven men from the majority Sunni community were found guilty of the rape and sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to five years.

Come on, under a year for gang rape participation? That doesn't happen even with a very liberal criminal code in the West. Actually, rape is the one single crime for which the sentence typically approaches the minimum and practically never hits the max. Still, under a year for participation in gang rape wouldn't be possible where I live - that's 2 years minimum, up to 12. Sure, if it were possible, I guess judges would indeed sentence to less. I don't know why they insist on doing that.

But the victim was also punished for violating Saudi Arabia's laws on segregation that forbid unrelated men and women from associating with each other. She was initially sentenced to 90 lashes for being in the car of a strange man.

Ninety lashes? Are they idiots? No one's health is going to survive that without permanent injury! No one should be forced to go and undergo a beating that will forever reduce his health to disability.

On appeal, the Arab News reported that the punishment was not reduced but increased to 200 lashes and a six-month prison sentence.

That's insane.

The rapists also had their prison terms doubled. But the sentences are still low considering they could have faced the death penalty.

Lenient on the rapist, hard on the victim. And no lashing for the rapists, either, it seems.

The victim's lawyer was suspended from the case, has had his licence to work confiscated, and faces a disciplinary session.

Oh yeah. Hit the lawyer too. :rolleyes:

Some stats:

http://www.womenagainstrape.net/indexpage.htm

Time for an international convention against rape?

I think the verdict serves the "purpose" of warning Saudi women not to complain about rape, or they will be punished themselves. And if you complain about the punishment, we will make it even worse on you!

The mentality seems to be that "She probably wanted it herself". :bang:

The newspapers even forget to mention what might be the worst part of her punishment - that the young lady is probably "spoiled goods" now, since she is no longer a virgin, and it will be very hard for her to find a husband and get on with her life. What the hell did the court expect - that she should commit suicide out of shame and let a bunch of rapists walk away scot free?

And to think that these people boycotted Danish products over a bunch of cartoons! :rolleyes:

Yeah, well, if you rape someone here in Denmark, you get a ridiculously low sentence as well.

OMFG!! Not only do they punish the victim, then double the punishment after she appeals, but to rub a little salt into the wound, they confiscate her lawyer's licence to practice? WTF?

The Saudis have been like this for a long, long time.

Which is why American conservatives harping on Iranian abuses while remaining silent about the House of Saud is so amusing.

This is a travesty. Reformatio in peius? In a criminal case? Regardless of the obviously chilling effect it must have on anyone else trying to appeal a verdict deemed to harsh? :eek:

Not to mention corporal punishment and the sentencing of the attorney etc. :eek: :eek:

Worse, I think that this is in accord with the local tradition of law enforcement. I doubt the locals so much disagree about the punishment per se, but if they do, they disagree about the application. In my view it is a folly to expect that people accepting such medieval a standard of justice would eagerly embrace an enlightened western democratic system with individual rights and an according legal system. This is the Sharia, and the locals like it that way.

People need to develop something like that on their own. The liberal crusade for Freedom (tm) in such cultures is doomed to fail. It is one thing to hold the view that individual rights are universal. It's quite another to try to force that view down the throat of societies who don't agree with that, and likely refuse if because it threatens the roots of their in comparison collectivist oriented societies. That doesn't make their views right, it only explains the resistance to change. People are quite willing to fight and kill for their ways of life.

In the eyes of the Saudi's, this woman was a victim of one crime while she committed another. That she was a victim does not mitigate her guilt and, according to their law, she must still be punished.

I do not believe this is fair, but then I do not believe riding with an unrelated man is a crime. I also believe the punishment is excessive (the first punishment, the second is ridiculous). However, my beliefs are based on MY interpretation of the laws I live with and the ethics system I was raised in.

I think it is foolish for western civilization to enforce standards and ethics on people in other countries. It will only invite hatred and hostility. I don't believe in flogging, I don't believe in stoning, I do believe men and women should be treated as equals -- but only a small portion of the world's population is on that bandwagon.

In their culture, this case is akin to a drunk driver who is severely injured when rear-ended by another driver. The drunk driver here would still be punished for driving under the influence. It does not matter the accident was not his/her fault nor does it matter how badly he/she was injured.

It says a lot about their values, though, when the woman is punished more severely than her rapists. They appear to see being driven by a male who is not a blood relative as a far greater crime than rape.

I am not sure whether these are the standards the Saudis want, or whether these are the standards forced upon them by an over-zealous government.

I agree that we in the West neither can nor should force our standards upon them.

I think the verdict serves the "purpose" of warning Saudi women not to complain about rape, or they will be punished themselves. And if you complain about the punishment, we will make it even worse on you!

Nope, not really, I suppose it was a message that if you wander with foreign men in shady circumstances, knowing what they can do to you, then you are taking foolish risks. This isn't so far off - don't parents forbid children from dangerous activities under some penalties?

The mentality seems to be that "She probably wanted it herself". :bang:

Partly true, I guess.

Chev,
I disagree with you, and sharply so. Despite entering the car she certainly did not want to be raped, and her having been foolish is not a reason to basically blame her (at least partially) for being raped. She is still victim of a crime. Of course, the causality is undeniable, hadn't she violated the Saudi segregation law, this rape would not have happened. But that they in Saudi Arabia enacted that segregation law that she violated - only to be raped - is in effect only adding insult to injury. One would think that, if it is to teach her, the rape would be lesson enough.

Not to mention that after a public flogging she has a good chance to be crippled for life, and the certainty that at the very least she'll spend a month or two in hospital. As a bonus lesson she will be ostracised in Saudi Arabia for having been raped (zero chance to ever get married for instance) after being released from prison.

What she has been sentenced to is serve as an object lesson, for all to see. After having been made an object by her rapists, she is being made an object by the Saudi courts so that other woman behold and beware. And to make an example is clearly what this episode has been about. For me that is irreconcilable with an individual's human dignity.

Chev,
I disagree with you, and sharply so. Despite entering the car she certainly did not want to be raped,

Come on. There's no such thing as irrevocable pro futuro consent in sex. :P No one wants to be raped unless a very, very disturbed person in need of medical assitance.

and her having been foolish is not a reason to basically blame her (at least partially) for being raped. She is still victim of a crime.

Yup.

However, didn't they actually sentence her for violating segregation laws (dissolute conduct implied), rather than for being a rape victim?

Of course, the causality is undeniable, hadn't she violated the Saudi segregation law, this rape would not have happened.

Someone who makes those laws probably knows what happens when an unguarded middle-eastern woman mingles with unruly middle-eastern men. They may actually be holding such laws in place in order to deter women from taking risks.

But that they in Saudi Arabia enacted that segregation law that she violated - only to be raped - is in effect only adding insult to injury. One would think that, if it is to teach her, the rape would be lesson enough.

In this case yes. The doctrine of law (and some binding laws) knows such an institution as reducing or eliminating liability if one is a victim of the act (e.g. you bring about a calamity inflicting huge monetary losses, but it only harms your own property). If risky behaviours are penalised, actually meeting the bad consequences should eliminate the need for a criminal penalty in a concrete case.

Not to mention that after a public flogging she has a good chance to be crippled for life,

I actually said that, believe me or not, but my post is already long, so I won't be quoting myself. ;)

What she has been sentenced to is an be object lesson, for all to see. After having been made an object by her rapists, she is being made an object by the Saudi courts so that other woman behold and beware. And to make an example is clearly what this episode has been about. For me that is irreconcilable with an individual's human dignity.

It is and whoever doesn't abhor the 200 lashes idea urgently needs to see a therapist. The lesson they're giving her has more to do with magic (I mean magical thinking) than with law.

The reason why I'm playing advocatus diaboli is that a subsequent rape doesn't eliminate the evaluation of preceding conduct of the victim in so far as it may have been criminal in the given country. Punishing a woman for getting raped is as I said, cruel, inhuman and horribly dumb. Punishment for a violation of the segregation law is a different matter. As a non-rape-related example, if you trespass and get assaulted by another trespasser it doesn't eliminate the fact you had trespassed yourself. If you insult someone and he reacts with a murder attempt, your previous insult still stands. Same way, if they have a crime of not keeping distance from the opposite sex, the violation of it is not eliminated by a subsequent rape. However, prosecuting it will be heartless and will give wrong ideas. In this case, it looks like they're looking for some semi-legal excuse to punish a woman for getting raped.

For me that is irreconcilable with an individual's human dignity.

Any corporal penalty is, as well as any forcible disrobing which normally comes with it, or almost any publicly executed penalty for that matter.

chev,
thanks for your reply. I overread your earlier reference to flogging. As for ...But that they in Saudi Arabia enacted that segregation law that she violated - only to be raped - is in effect only adding insult to injury. One would think that, if it is to teach her, the rape would be lesson enough.In this case yes. The doctrine of law (and some binding laws) knows such an institution as reducing or eliminating liability if one is a victim of the act (e.g. you bring about a calamity inflicting huge monetary losses, but it only harms your own property). If risky behaviours are penalised, actually meeting the bad consequences should eliminate the need for a criminal penalty in a concrete case.... that would then be the only remaining point I'd like to clarify: That, they did not. The court in her case did increase her penalty, something that would in my country not be permissible in a case where the accused appeals, for the reasons I lined out earlier. Whatever the Saudi Court took into account, it probably didn't have much to do with her individual culpability.

The problem I had with your previous post was that you IMO addressed this case on a level too abstract from the case to do it justice. :p :)

The court in her case did increase her penalty, something that would in my country not be permissible in a case where the accused appeals, for the reasons I lined out earlier.

That only if the other side didn't appeal as well. If only she appealed, ne peius should protect her.

Whatever the Saudi Court took into account, it probably didn't have had much to do with her individual culpability.

You're probably right with regard to the real motive, but I'm pretty sure they made it so the official grounds for the ruling had at least some formal merit.

The problem I had with your previous post was that you IMO addressed this case on a level too abstract from the case to do it justice. :p :)

We're discussing theory anyway. And even if we actually wanted to solve a painfully practical casus, we don't have anywhere near enough data to do that. :p

Seriously, though, they're insane. Any prosecutor with a shred of decency should drop the case supposing there even were anything to begin with. Pulling a gang rape victim through courts like that is abominable. The first sentence the rapists got was a joke. I just can't see any of the judges finding it fitting if it were his own daughter.

Yup.
Yup.
Hmm... :p
Yup.

:)

I have been following this thread and considering whether or not to post. There is simply no way I can post objectively and unemotionally. So please bear with me. :mad:

The laws of Saudi Arabia are their laws and there is little I can do about them except to voice my disapproval and I do disapprove. Treating women as second class citizens is wrong. It is just as wrong as treating Blacks as second class citizens or any other group. 200 lashes? I don't know what they use but that could cripple or even kill her.

I will stop now because I want to go into a tantrum and throw things.

Yes, Nakia, don't think I don't care. I'm a lawyer, I've read of all kinds of punishment, including corporal penalty, and perhaps if I consider a legal problem, I turn off emotions for this reason, as well as to maintain some objectivity. However, I don't know how I'd react if I had to witness that. It is abhorrent indeed and the international community should all intervene peacefully to make Saudi Arabia not execute that sentence.

I understand what you are saying, Chev. We all need to be objective when dealing with our professional lives and even our personal lives (if possible). This is why I held off posting and made it a short post. Just no way I can be objective.

In the eyes of the Saudi's, this woman was a victim of one crime while she committed another. That she was a victim does not mitigate her guilt and, according to their law, she must still be punished.

I do not believe this is fair, but then I do not believe riding with an unrelated man is a crime. I also believe the punishment is excessive (the first punishment, the second is ridiculous). However, my beliefs are based on MY interpretation of the laws I live with and the ethics system I was raised in.

I think it is foolish for western civilization to enforce standards and ethics on people in other countries. It will only invite hatred and hostility. I don't believe in flogging, I don't believe in stoning, I do believe men and women should be treated as equals -- but only a small portion of the world's population is on that bandwagon.
As is more often than not, I find myself agreeing with T2.

It's their law, and she surely knew that she was breaking the rules. While I disagree with the law, I also don't live there, and am not part of their culture. It would have been easy for her to avoid punishment (by not getting into the car), and so she she only has herself to blame.

On the other hand, history is full of people who broke the law and, in doing so, made their part of the world a better place (Rosa Parks is an example). Maybe some good will come of this (although I'm not holding my breath).

Hokay, I'll make an effort to be a bit objective. I tried to get more information on the situation but failed. Why was the woman in the car? Did she just walk out on the street and get picked up by a stranger? Was he a long time friend? I assume (but don't know) that a 19yr old girl in Saudi Arabia would be subject to her family. Why did her family let her go with this man?

And I still think the penalty is outrageous.

Drow have more mercy.

So merely because she is a 'victim' of an unrelated crime, this woman shouldn't be punished for breaking the law?

Interesting. Let's assume that a burglar breaks into someone's house, and then while walking down the street with the stolen goods, has the stuffing beaten out of them by a bunch of emo goth punks because... well, because punks like to beat up losers.

As they are a victim of a violent bashing, should they be exempt from prosecution for the theft?

I agree that the law isn't exactly fair, but it's not as if the woman was ignorant. If she hadn't disobeyed the law, she would not only have not be punished, her lawyer also wouldn't have been suspended, and she probably wouldn't have been raped.

I like how you put victim in quotation marks.

I agree that the law isn't exactly fair, but it's not as if the woman was ignorant. If she hadn't disobeyed the law, she would not only have not be punished, her lawyer also wouldn't have been suspended, and she probably wouldn't have been raped.You aren't honestly suggesting that traveling with a man who is not a relative is a gateway to rape, are you? Way to blame the victim for the crime.

In the US, when a jaywalker gets hit by a drunk driver, they don't ticket the jaywalker.

Drew:

You aren't honestly suggesting that traveling with a man who is not a relative is a gateway to rape, are you?


Apparently in Saudi Arabia it is! Much like not wearing the veil in many hardline Islamic countries is regarded as an invitation to rape.

I'm not going to argue that rape is justified if a woman travels with an unknown male. But the law is the law, and victim or not, you are bound by the law. If you don't want to get punished, obey the law.


Way to blame the victim for the crime.


Well, she is to blame for the crime of being escorted by an unrelated male. Do you deny that?


In the US, when a jaywalker gets hit by a drunk driver, they don't ticket the jaywalker


So they don't enforce the law in the United States?

Apparently in Saudi Arabia it is! Much like not wearing the veil in many hardline Islamic countries is regarded as an invitation to rape.

I'm not going to argue that rape is justified if a woman travels with an unknown male. But the law is the law, and victim or not, you are bound by the law. If you don't want to get punished, obey the law.OK. But that isn't what you said. You said this:


If she hadn't disobeyed the law, she would not only have not be punished, her lawyer also wouldn't have been suspended, and she probably wouldn't have been raped.You clearly stated that, if she hadn't been traveling with a man who wasn't part of her family (and we have no idea whether there was a good reason for this), she probably wouldn't have been raped. Do you still stand by your statement, now that I've made plain what your statement implied?

The real likelihood, here, is that she was given her lashes not because she broke the oft-broken segregation laws in Saudi Arabia, but because she was a minority Shia in the primarily Sunni holy land. Such (mis)treatment is not uncommon for the Shia and (even worse) Christians living in Saudi Arabia.

So they don't enforce the law in the United States?Not when the law is stupid or there would be no point.

Drew:

You clearly stated that, if she hadn't been traveling with a man who wasn't part of her family (and we have no idea whether there was a good reason for this), she probably wouldn't have been raped. Do you still stand by your statement,


Yes, I do stand by my statement.


now that I've made plain what your statement implied?


I implied nothing. You're simply squinting to hard to see between the non-existent lines. No doubt you'd claim that I was blaming the victim if I simply pointed out that if they hadn't left their doors and windows unlocked, they probably wouldn't have been burgled.

The real likelihood, here, is that she was given her lashes not because she broke the oft-broken segregation laws in Saudi Arabia, but because she was a minority Shia in the primarily Sunni holy land. Such (mis)treatment is not uncommon for the Shia and (even worse) Christians living in Saudi Arabia.


So they give lashes to minorities in Saudi Arabia who have not broken the law? You may be correct in the sense that they are more lenient in punishment of majority factions (although you have yet to post any data to support your claim), but that would be a non-issue if this woman hadn't broken the law in the first place.


Not when the law is stupid or there would be no point.


Merely because you feel a law is stupid does not mean you should not obey it, nor should it not be enforced.

I implied nothing. You're simply squinting to hard to see between the non-existent lines. No doubt you'd claim that I was blaming the victim if I simply pointed out that if they hadn't left their doors and windows unlocked, they probably wouldn't have been burgled.You're quite right, of course. You didn't imply that she probably wouldn't have been raped were she not in the company of a man who was not related to her. You flat out stated it.:o

So they give lashes to minorities in Saudi Arabia who have not broken the law? You may be correct in the sense that they are more lenient in punishment of majority factions (although you have yet to post any data to support your claim), but that would be a non-issue if this woman hadn't broken the law in the first place.If anyone actually wants to argue in good faith that Saudi Arabia doesn't have a double standard in the ways in which its laws are enforced which spans across racial, class, and religious lines, I'll gladly post some data, but since I strongly doubt I'll be seeing any good faith arguments with my assertion, I'm not going to bother. When stating the obvious, one need not cite one's sources*.

Merely because you feel a law is stupid does not mean you should not obey it, nor should it not be enforced.Not only should stupid laws not be enforced, but they should also be changed.

*And as a trained Arabic linguist, I think I've studied enough middle eastern culture to speak off the cuff about it once in a while.

A law which is unjust need not be obeyed. Of course if you choose to disobey an unjust law you have to be ready to suffer the consequences. I still don't have very much information on this whole situation but when the woman appealed her punishment was more than doubled and her lawyer was severely punished.

History has examples of people who chose to break the law because it was unjust and thereby started radical changes in their country. Two examples spring to my mind: Ghandi and Rosa Parks.

We do not change the world by accepting injustice where ever it may be. We do not change the world by being silient when we see something wrong.

I think the fact that they are not lashing the man she was travelling with is proof of a double standard. If we accept for the sake of argument that travelling with the man is a crime for the woman, then letting her travel with him makes the man an accomplice to that crime.

@Drew: How do you define a "stupid law"? Anyone can break a law and then claim that the law is "stupid".

@Ghaldring: Do you think the law is infallible and should be obeyed, simply because it is? A law may well be passed by an oppressive government, for example to curtail free speech or hamper certain peoples' right to free movement (for example, prohibiting women from driving cars or moving in public without being escorted by a related man, which would prevent them from fleeing a country where the government was hostile to women).

Merlanni,
Drow don't exist.

If they would, it would be the woman dealing out the beating, and Drow men aren't required to wear veils, and from what I know from my past visits to the Underdark Drow are sort of promiscuous, too, all of which make your analogy ... haha ... err :confused:

@Drew: How do you define a "stupid law"? Anyone can break a law and then claim that the law is "stupid".Not really. First of all, you should note that I said that stupid laws shouldn't be enforced. I made no statement whatsoever about whether or not I felt they should be obeyed. If it makes you feel better, though, substitute "unreasonable" for "stupid". The reality about most stupid (or, if you prefer, unreasonable) laws, of course, is that due to salutory neglect, the vast majority of such laws are never enforced.

I agree that the law isn't exactly fair, but it's not as if the woman was ignorant. If she hadn't disobeyed the law, she would not only have not be punished, her lawyer also wouldn't have been suspended, and she probably wouldn't have been raped.

Her lawyer's job is to defend her no matter what she's done, using all the ethical means he has in his disposal. Suspending him because they didn't like the fact he defended someone they particularly wanted to make an example of, is very, very bad. Also, no matter everyone knows the law and knows the gamble, 200 lashes for approaching a member of the opposite sex is insane. Five would be (except maybe in case of a man violating a restraining order), much more 200.

Drew,
Yup. Example: Germany is a federal republic. Bavaria had the death penalty on the book, that is, in their state constitution. It was never enforced after the Grundgesetz went into power because the Grundgesetz prohibited the death penalty. Consequently the Bavarian provision was unconstitutional. The death penalty remained 'on the books' in Bavaria well into the 1990 until the well known unconstitutionality was eventually made explicit when the provision was removed. Because it was a stupid law it wasn't ever enforced in nearly 50 years.

Another similar example of laws that are not enforced are for instance some US state laws that regulate proper conduct in the bedroom (iirc banning oral, anal sex under threat of punishment etc.). They can only be explained historically and would fall into the same category - stupid laws, that are with the greatest likelihood unconstitutional and thus are never enforced because everybody knows about it.

Chev,
good point of making up that thread. It's indeed about the conflict between legal positivism and natural law. Legal positivism can be a very dangerous point of view. The school was highly popular in Germany during the 1930s. The law is the law, and thus it must be obeyed (the theory goes deeper). The application of that view didn't serve my country particularly well, thus I'm weary of positivists. But that extends well into your new thread and ought to be discussed there.

Drew:

So they give lashes to minorities in Saudi Arabia who have not broken the law? You may be correct in the sense that they are more lenient in punishment of majority factions (although you have yet to post any data to support your claim), but that would be a non-issue if this woman hadn't broken the law in the first place.

Allow me to come to Drew's aid on this one, please. While the amount of punishment isn't precisely regulated by laws prescribing from X to Y, a line of sentencing which awards more years to one group than to another, except factors like juvenile age, low intelligence, mental impairment, particular circumstances, is not a good one. It's not a legal excercise of the law, it's abuse of the system and not in line with the duties of a judge.

Merely because you feel a law is stupid does not mean you should not obey it, nor should it not be enforced.

According to the positive law (statutes and similar, put in place by the authorities), yes, you are right. However, it can be argued that laws going against the right reason are not binding. Laws exist for a reason and a purpose, and within a certain system. If they cross those lines, they're statutory injustice, not proper laws.

Chev,
one counterargument is that if the law crosses the line then it is up to the constitutionally designated bodies to change the law. Following that line of argument can lead you to some atrocious results.

Against that can be held that, when threatened by administrative action, a citizen's rights can't wait for the laws to be changed at some later point. Corporal punishment here offers a perfect example for why: If the lady were to wait for the laws to be changed by the designated authority at some later point, that wouldn't help her right now. She'd be beaten anyway.

It is a little much to ask from a subject of an administrative act like a beating to wait, get hurt, and then patiently sue the government for compensation - to probably then be denied compensation because at the time of the beating the beating was legal. Chev put it quite well.

Chev,
good point of making up that thread. It's indeed about the conflict between legal positivism and natural law. Legal positivism can be a very dangerous point of view. The school was highly popular in Germany during the 1930s. The law is the law, and thus it must be obeyed (the theory goes deeper). The application of that view didn't serve my country particularly well, thus I'm weary of positivists. But that extends well into your new thread and ought to be discussed there.

Do feel welcome. If this helps any, I've read Radbruch too. ;) (Statutory injustice and suprastatutory law, hello. ;))

It is a little much to ask from a subject of an administrative act like a beating to wait, get hurt, and then patiently sue the government for compensation - to probably then be denied compensation because at the time of the beating the beating was legal. Chev put it quite well.

That's the way of the authorities everywhere: submit and ask for compensation later. No matter the state will lose zots in civil or administrative suits. No matter it will cost more than changing the rules early enough. No matter the citizen will have been hurt. In our "civilised" systems, the closest counterpart is unjust taxing. Pay all, declare bankruptcy of your company, sue the decision/verdict/statute in appropriate courts, then sue for compensation. Either get a symbolic payment, or sue the state out of many million, they don't care. They explain lawfulness in one way: submit and then ask for compensation. That's a small-minded view.

Well, you can see I'm not quite a positivist. ;)

Not really. First of all, you should note that I said that stupid laws shouldn't be enforced. I made no statement whatsoever about whether or not I felt they should be obeyed. If it makes you feel better, though, substitute "unreasonable" for "stupid". The reality about most stupid (or, if you prefer, unreasonable) laws, of course, is that due to salutory neglect, the vast majority of such laws are never enforced.

If a law is not enforced, then an act of violation would be passively tolerated (and therefore de-facto OK'd by the authorities). So let me rephrase the question:

When do you think a law should not be enforced, and that acts of violation should be tolerated?

(I might also ask: What is a "good" law?)

I think this is an important question, since once a law is on the books, it is up to the civil authorities - lawmakers, police, courts - to decide whether they want to enforce the law, against whom, and which punishment should be inflicted upon transgressors. And they are not going to ask you or me what we think about the law. Plus, they might suddenly decide that a hitherto ignored law should be strictly enforced.

A law which is unjust need not be obeyed. Of course if you choose to disobey an unjust law you have to be ready to suffer the consequences. I still don't have very much information on this whole situation but when the woman appealed her punishment was more than doubled and her lawyer was severely punished.

History has examples of people who chose to break the law because it was unjust and thereby started radical changes in their country. Two examples spring to my mind: Ghandi and Rosa Parks.

We do not change the world by accepting injustice where ever it may be. We do not change the world by being silient when we see something wrong.

Bingo.

I alluded to that in my post. But Nakia said it much better.

Thanks, Splunge. I would like to expand a bit on the Gandhi, Rosa Parks theme. They would not have been successful if many people had not supported them. One person may initiate an movement but without the vocal and active support of those who agree the movement will die before birth.

One cement block does not a wall make but add thousands together and you have a wall. Not the best example but the one which popped into my mind.

@Montressor: To be honest, I think Ragusa, Nakia, Splunge, and Chevalier have all laid plain what does and does not constitute a stupid (or unjust, or unreasonable) law and how we should deal with them. Regarding what makes a "good" law, it's a question of fairness. Fair laws are good. Unfair laws are not. If you are looking for a rigid definition upon which to rely, you'll never find it. In the realm of philosophy (where the crux of your question lies), there are few absolutes.

@Drew: Thanks; I consider myself answered! :) The reason I kept bugging you was that we can all agree that some laws are unjust and unreasonable, but we rarely agree on which ones. And unfortunately, we often disagree with the powers that be.

For the record, we agree 100% that the Saudi law, not to mention the judges' interpretation of it, is unjust and unreasonable (and stupid!:mad:), and that it belongs in the dark middle ages.

For the record, we agree 100% that the Saudi law, not to mention the judges' interpretation of it, is unjust and unreasonable (and stupid!:mad:), and that it belongs in the dark middle ages.

Really? Two hundred lashes for talking to a foreign man? Yup. How about a fine, however, i.e. the same prohibition but a different penalty? Parents often forbid children to go to dangerous places. If men are unruly, why not instill a habit in women of not going alone where men, especially many men, are? And what's a better motivator for a habit than attaching a criminal penalty? Don't go to the forest. Going to the forest is bad. Dad will smack you if you go to the forest. You get the idea. Liberal laws don't get the concept of punishing people for putting themselves in danger, but this doesn't mean the idea is backwards. It's simply not in line with the liberal tendencies which are dominant in this age, but liberalism isn't coterminous with progress. I'm not bashing liberalism, because liberal ideas are quite often quite progressive. On the other hand, some are quite regressive. And some are, well, just liberal ideas. One of those is that you don't ever punish people for doing what can harm only or mostly themselves. However, the fact is, in the Saudi social system, it is known that men are unruly and that they are voracious. It is also known that the best way to avoid danger is avoiding naive or downright risky association with them. It is further also known that dishonour or shame befalling one member befalls the whole family. Knowing all this and still choosing to take the risks, choosing to act on flighty urges and careless motives (I'm not talking about deliberate romantic encounters involving a feeling here), at the price of endangering oneself and the family, may be a morally negative act. Therefore a society might choose to affix a penalty to it.

Consider a society of hunters-gatherers. They move around. They will on occasion finish off or leave behind the injured or crippled, but this is no happy moment to them. The tribe is weakened as one of the results, so is the immediate family, there is also the sadness of having to leave him behind or having to finish him off if he can't fend for himself or be helped within reason, as the tribesmen see it. Therefore it might well fit them to establish a criminal penalty for hunting alone and throwing oneself at a beast he has a slim chance of defeating, or for venturing outside for too long without adequate supplies or without sufficient notice. What kind of penalty? Certainly not prison and probably not a fine since resources are limited and vital. Then what? Lashes. Some form of physical pain.

Perhaps a more modern society. Some bad habits people enjoy put them in need of healthcare and sometimes also welfare. If they choose to indulge in their vices, why fund the treatment for them, especially if they will continue to act counterproductively to the medication? We no longer need people to be healthy and fit, but we have healthcare and we can't quite deny people the benefits of it. We can't just allow a person to die because he has overdosed this or that. On the other hand, we can't forbid the person from doing what he likes if it's not a crime, unless our law allows some drastic administrative means. Aren't students punished for drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes? This is meant to prevent them from becoming addicted. Aren't drugs prohibited even for private use?

Similarly, sex might be prohibited for teenagers, who are not fit to be parents. Allowing the use of contraceptives, which do not have a 100% success rate as well as even abortions on the ground that the girl's spine won't be done good by pregnancy, or some such, is not the answer. We know what happens when young people meet unsupervised, especially in a hotter climate. Especially in a culture in which men are supposed to be manly - voracious fighter macho types who used to steal camels from other tribes at age 13 to prove they've reached adulthood. There's no sense in repeating Romeo and Juliet stories and sobbing over tales of youth love when we know how this ends in practice with a near 100% rate. Therefore, prohibiting young people from meeting usupervised is reasonable in such circumstances, at least until such time as the youth are able to control themselves. This, of course, should be enforced on both sides, not just the girls. It is understandable, however, that more stress is put on girls, especially by parents, since boys simply do not become pregnant. Therefore, girls risk more. While two hundred lashes is barbaric and even a single lash would make most of us cringe in disgust, perhaps a serious consequence of non-corporal nature would actually be a good idea and could serve the purpose well.

I don't consider the state to be the loving parents of its unruly children (or subjects or citizens, depending on your point of view). This is especially true in autocratic societies such as Saudi Arabia.

I don't consider myself to be the state's child or property. What I do to myself, I do at my own risk. If I err, the punishment will happen of itself, not because I am fined, slapped, lashed, or imprisoned "for my own good", but because stupid behaviour tends to have bad consequences.

In short, I consider the words "Victimless Crime" to be a contradiction in terms. Without a victim, there can be no crime.

If Saudi men have a problem taking a "No" for a "No", and if they don't understand that a woman's body is her own property, and not their plaything, then it is the Saudi men, not the Saudi women, who need a better upbringing and more restrictions on their behaviour. And I seriously doubt if the Saudi law is in place to protect women from the unruly men; it is rather to protect men's property rights to the women.

I don't consider the state to be the loving parents of its unruly children (or subjects or citizens, depending on your point of view). This is especially true in autocratic societies such as Saudi Arabia.

I neither, but you can't say they're under a social contract under which everyone decides for himself and transgressors respond to authority set forth by their peers, right? ;) The state might issue some prohibitions for the sake of its citizens' welfare as the situation warrants. No jay-walking, no children smoking or drinking, no women having fun with unrelated males without escort by relatives.

I don't consider myself to be the state's child or property. What I do to myself, I do at my own risk. If I err, the punishment will happen of itself, not because I am fined, slapped, lashed, or imprisoned "for my own good", but because stupid behaviour tends to have bad consequences.

Nonetheless, if you reach for drugs, you will be punished all the same and if you were under 18/21, you wouldn't be sold alcohol. ;)

In short, I consider the words "Victimless Crime" to be a contradiction in terms. Without a victim, there can be no crime.

You forget to add, "without a victim other than yourself." According to liberal tenets you can't be a victim of yourself, but this isn't exactly true. Suicide is not a victimless crime - if it's a crime. Neither is putting yourself in danger if that's outlawed. Personally, I think family fathers and other obligated bread-winners who attempt suicide should be restrained and it should be made sure they won't succeed the next time they try. Similarly, people shouldn't be allowed to take foolish risks (I don't mean heroic feats or risk for a good reason, e.g. high-risk military actions), such as let's say, riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Someone depends on them and even if no one does, there are still people who care. We aren't each on his own, we're social beings, members of families and societies.

If Saudi men have a problem taking a "No" for a "No", and if they don't understand that a woman's body is her own property,

It's not property. Not even her own.

and not their plaything, then it is the Saudi men, not the Saudi women, who need a better upbringing and more restrictions on their behaviour.

Nonetheless, knowing the risks, it's reasonable to forbid women from high-risk interaction. Especially if we deal with such young or inexperienced people that can't predict possible consequences of their actions or neglect those.

And I seriously doubt if the Saudi law is in place to protect women from the unruly men; it is rather to protect men's property rights to the women.

In part probably yes, another part - to protect family and family values (even if they have polygamy there, eh...), reduce fornication and a couple of such reasons.

On our own civilised grounds, I'm very much in favour of preventing co-ed sleeping rooms, co-ed baths, co-ed nudist beaches etc to minors, as well as preventing the free and unsupervised intermingling of sexes in such situations as beaches, parties, night clubs. I'm very much in favour of highschools and universities being allowed to continue some of these restrictions past legal age. Physical restraint of a person under legal age and especially under the age of consent, from having consensual sexual intercourse, doesn't ring wrong to me either.

I still maintain that the judges should lash one another if they enjoy it, though.

In part probably yes, another part - to protect family and family values (even if they have polygamy there, eh...), reduce fornication and a couple of such reasons.

Those may be the stated reasons, but they're probably not the actual reasons.

IME, the people who talk loudly about protecting the family and/or women tend to, ah, dislike women. Often intensely.

IME, the people who talk loudly about protecting the family and/or women tend to, ah, dislike women. Often intensely.

Including your old buddy chev? ;) Obviously, I don't connect my Catholic values with Eastern-style proprietary notions, but they do have a point in trying to prevent the opposing sexes from unsupervised intermingling if the latter can't be trusted.

Drew:

You're quite right, of course. You didn't imply that she probably wouldn't have been raped were she not in the company of a man who was not related to her. You flat out stated it.


Yeah. But I never implied that she was to blame for being raped. Surely you can appreciate such a subtlety?


If anyone actually wants to argue in good faith that Saudi Arabia doesn't have a double standard in the ways in which its laws are enforced which spans across racial, class, and religious lines, I'll gladly post some data,


I'd love to see such data. I'd also love to see some sort of conclusive evidence which demonstrates that the woman in this case was discriminated against due to her ethnicity, religious or political beliefs.


Not only should stupid laws not be enforced, but they should also be changed.


Who decides that a law is stupid? You? You may feel that the law is stupid, but I'm afraid that your opinion matters very little in Saudi Arabia. It's clear that in Saudi Arabia, the law is not seen as stupid, otherwise it would not have been enforced.


*And as a trained Arabic linguist, I think I've studied enough middle eastern culture to speak off the cuff about it once in a while.


And I have a PhD in Sexology. Being a 'trained Arabic linguist' does not make you an impeccable authority on the culture of Saudi Arabia.

Nakia:

A law which is unjust need not be obeyed. Of course if you choose to disobey an unjust law you have to be ready to suffer the consequences.


Precisely. So what is everyone on this thread *****ing about? The woman knew the law, and she knew the punishment for breaking the law. If she had wanted to change the law, she could have found legal ways of doing so. Instead, she broke the law. Not only was she punished, but she was also raped. Boy, perhaps there is a good reason for having that law in place, huh?


[Two posts within 6 minutes of each other??? Merged - dmc]

Precisely. So what is everyone on this thread *****ing about? The woman knew the law, and she knew the punishment for breaking the law.

Making a harsh penalty known doesn't make it fair.

If she had wanted to change the law, she could have found legal ways of doing so.

In Saudi Arabia?

Boy, perhaps there is a good reason for having that law in place in the first place, huh?

Yes. Exactly. Though 200 lashes is absurd and abhorrent. I wouldn't have anyone suffer it. One, two, five, but 200? And certainly not for a young girl. Corporal penalty on women is just barbaric.

Therefore, girls risk more. While two hundred lashes is barbaric and even a single lash would make most of us cringe in disgust, perhaps a serious consequence of non-corporal nature would actually be a good idea and could serve the purpose well.

Hokay, Chevy, here I come. First of all I agree that society through its representatives has the right to regulate behaviour. Even harmful behavior that is caused directly only to oneself.

Here, however, we are dealing with a specific law which as I understand it states that a woman (any woman, young or old) may not be in the company of an unrelated man unless properly chaperoned. Why? Because men are so degenerate, so uncivilized, so lacking in self control that women must be locked away from them in order to protect the women? If I was a man I would be screaming my head off against such a law. Women should be punished because men are less than animals? Come on now.

Moral Theology, as both Chev and I have studied it, clearly states that an unjust law need not be obeyed. The downside of this is that the person refusing to obey must be willing to suffer the consequences of disobeying. Which is why I cite Gandhi and Rosa Parks who were people willing to do this and thus brought to national, nay, International attention the injustice of certain laws. If I believe a law is unjust I have the right to protest it; if enough people agree with me it may even get changed. On a side note this in my opinion is democracy working at its best and bravest.

So friend Chev, stop playing Devil's Advocate :evil: and admit that this particular law is unjust and stupid. I still maintain that the judges should lash one another if they enjoy it, though. You almost did there. :D

Unjust laws have been and are written. Stupid laws have been and are written. Silence is agreement so if you believe a law to be unjust or stupid speak up. Don't be intimidated by those who tell you to be quiet and obey. Lift high your banner, stride forth to face the minions of those who make second class citizens of people based on gender, race or ethnic group. :hippy:

Nakia, the moral theology I have studied often leads to conclusions that laws generally had better be obeyed, which sometimes includes very silly stuff. On the other hand, I don't consider myself bound to report myself for jay-walking in a hurry or the underage drinking I committed when illegal to drink but legal to answer before courts. ;) Similarly, if I were a judge and I knew they'd shot me at the court wall for acquitting or absolving (I mean the civil law term, not religious) a doctor who refused to carry out or inform about possibilities of abortion, I'd still sign that verdict, citing natural law if need be, and tell them where they can shove the blindfold. However, I wouldn't feel obliged to do that just because the statute said so or the executive ordered so. I might as well flee the country and be perfectly morally in order. So here I don't think being willing to face the consequences is a prerequisite if the law is unjust. If it's not binding and you're not under an obligation to obey it, the sanction affixed to it isn't valid either.

So friend Chev, stop playing Devil's Advocate :evil: and admit that this particular law is unjust and stupid. You almost did there. :D

It surely would be in a country like ours, but the way things are in Saudi Arabia, coed ban with a fine or several days of arrest attached wouldn't be a bad thing. Where I have a problem is that those laws interfere with friendships and valid social interaction. In so far as they prevent fornication, vain flirtation, licentious behaviour, those laws do a good job. Again - without the 200 lashes attached. ;)

Yeah. But I never implied that she was to blame for being raped. Surely you can appreciate such a subtlety?You're right, of course. You only said that she was probably to blame.

"If she hadn't disobeyed the law, she would not only have not be punished, her lawyer also wouldn't have been suspended, and she probably wouldn't have been raped.


I'd love to see such data.I sincerely doubt that you would, since you aren't arguing in good faith. I think you are arguing just to argue, and I'm not interested in participating.



Who decides that a law is stupid? You? You may feel that the law is stupid, but I'm afraid that your opinion matters very little in Saudi Arabia. It's clear that in Saudi Arabia, the law is not seen as stupid, otherwise it would not have been enforced.Saudi Arabia is not a democracy. Just because the government enforces a law does not mean that many (or even most) Saudis agree with the law. Even in democracies like ours, the courts often enforce laws that the people don't agree with.

Drew:

You're right, of course. You only said that she was probably to blame.


No I didn't.



"If she hadn't disobeyed the law, she would not only have not be punished, her lawyer also wouldn't have been suspended, and she probably wouldn't have been raped.


Nowhere in the above did I say that she was to blame for her rape. What I did say is that if she had followed the law, and taken logical precautions, she probably wouldn't have been raped.


I sincerely doubt that you would, since you aren't arguing in good faith. I think you are arguing just to argue, and I'm not interested in participating.


So you're choosing to bow out immediately after I requested some sort of evidence to support your supposition? How convenient that it took you exactly this long to realize that I wasn't arguing 'in good faith'.

Also note that if I am not arguing 'in good faith' (an assumption on your behalf), you're still required to back up your claims. He who asserts must prove.


Saudi Arabia is not a democracy. Just because the government enforces a law does not mean that many (or even most) Saudis agree with the law. Even in democracies like ours, the courts often enforce laws that the people don't agree with


Even if Saudi Arabia is not a 'democracy', that does not change the fact that laws often represent the will of the majority. And if the majority are incensed enough with a law they consider unjust, they will rise up and affect change.

chev:

Making a harsh penalty known doesn't make it fair.


Yeah, sure, I'm willing to repeat that IMHO, I find the penalty unfair. But then, I find many laws (and their corresponding penalties) harsh in my own country. And I still obey those laws, and will not whinge (or for people to whinge on my behalf) if I am ever punished for breaking them.


In Saudi Arabia?


Are you saying that there are no legal methods by which one can affect change in the law in Saudi Arabia? I agree that it might not be as easy as in a liberal country such as Denmark, but I'm a little skeptical that there are no legal methods of altering the law.


Though 200 lashes is absurd and abhorrent. I wouldn't have anyone suffer it. One, two, five, but 200?


True. But look on the bright side. Pain teaches even the dumbest of animals.


And certainly not for a young girl. Corporal penalty on women is just barbaric.


I disagree. Sometimes a bit of corporal punishment on both men and women is necessary. Although I agree that in this particular scenario, it is excessive.

Here is a another article on the sentence:

Rape victim's harsh sentence shocks Saudis (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/11/16/1194766968246.html)

The decision, which many lawyers found shocking even by Saudi standards of justice, has provoked a rare public debate about the treatment of women

by Ghaldring I disagree. Sometimes a bit of corporal punishment on both men and women is necessary. Although I agree that in this particular scenario, it is excessive.

I would like to know under what circumstances you think corporal punishment is justified. Protecting society from those who would harm it is one thing but that can be done without inflicting harsh and unreasonable punishment. Physical pain may cause fear and the fear may lead the person to obey the law or it may create an even more rebellious person. Too many people in this world must live in fear. It is not right.

Injustice where ever it may be should be fought. "They came for the Jews and I was silent.......They came for me and there was no one to speak for me."

For anyone interested in further information regarding the government of Saudi Arabia here is a link:
Saudi Arabia (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html#Govt)

Saudi Arabia is a monarch and there are no elections. The legislative branch is appointed by the Monarch.

Including your old buddy chev? ;) Obviously, I don't connect my Catholic values with Eastern-style proprietary notions, but they do have a point in trying to prevent the opposing sexes from unsupervised intermingling if the latter can't be trusted.

The way in which they go about it is interesting, to say the least.

Nowhere in the above did I say that she was to blame for her rape. What I did say is that if she had followed the law, and taken logical precautions, she probably wouldn't have been raped.You said that if she followed the law, she probably wouldn't have been raped. That is all you said. In saying that, you are saying that she was probably raped because she broke the law. In other words, she was probably raped because of her actions. Sure, you aren't placing all the blame on her shoulders, but you are still blaming her.


So you're choosing to bow out immediately after I requested some sort of evidence to support your supposition? How convenient that it took you exactly this long to realize that I wasn't arguing 'in good faith'.Are you honestly going to tell me that you believe that a corrupt monarchy in the middle east has a judicial system that is, in fact, more fair than the American judicial system? The judicial system that we enjoy, one of the best in the world, has been proven again and again to have both a class and racial bias, yet you somehow expect Saudi Arabia, where nepotism is the order of the day and no gear spins without first being greased by a little bakshish, to be free of such ills? Give me a break, kid, you're insulting my intelligence...and your own, as well.

Yeah, sure, I'm willing to repeat that IMHO, I find the penalty unfair. But then, I find many laws (and their corresponding penalties) harsh in my own country. And I still obey those laws, and will not whinge (or for people to whinge on my behalf) if I am ever punished for breaking them.

I'm afraid that just summarises your point and mine. You think the law is unfair but the consequences of breaking it are somewhat fair. I say it's never fair when inequity happens.

Are you saying that there are no legal methods by which one can affect change in the law in Saudi Arabia? I agree that it might not be as easy as in a liberal country such as Denmark, but I'm a little skeptical that there are no legal methods of altering the law.

In no democracy can a single private citizen change the law and certainly not in a country which is not a democracy. It's a myth that it's so easy to change laws in countries with parliaments, but first gather the 100K votes or however much under your draft of a bill (hello, draft a bill if you're not a lawyer or politician or anything, let alone uneducated), then push it through the parliament. Or get elected a parliament member. Easy to do, eh? If it were so easy, we here would all have changed a couple of laws already as well as served a parliamentary term or two. "Easy to change the law," is the favourite line of legal positivists (positive, statutory law above all, always entirely binding, with no restraint), but it doesn't survive a reality check. It's just nice to say we can do so much, but the reality is we can't.

True. But look on the bright side. Pain teaches even the dumbest of animals.

Yup. Just not 200 lashes.

I disagree. Sometimes a bit of corporal punishment on both men and women is necessary. Although I agree that in this particular scenario, it is excessive.

In what cases would say it were proper? I would have little problem with the idea of violent thugs being properly lashed, but women? Granted, they can be thugs too and lashing can be administered by female staff without males around, but still.

There are always those who say 'that person should have known better.' Whatever the incident there is nearly always something that could have been done differently by the victim to eliminate the threat. Sometime the proper action is obvious, sometime it is not so obvious.

In most rape cases we can look over the incident and find something the victim could have done to prevent the rape. In many cases the victim had signs they were going into a dangerous situation and ignored those signs. These victims may be guilty of ignorance, not paying attention, poor judgement, or riding with an unrelated male. Yes, this woman showed poor judgement, yes, she committed a crime in her country. But there is no way ANYONE could convince me this was her fault -- rape is an act of violence, the victims are simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The events that put the victim in that place, at that time are immaterial to the cause of the crime -- the rapist is simply a sadistic, violent criminal intent on causing harm and showing domination over others.

If you want to find fault it is quite simple. It is the rapist's fault, not the victim's. All the arguments delineating what the victim COULD have done to prevent this are moot. It is discussons like this that keep victims from coming forward and allow rapists to remain at large hurting others.

Bruno, the rape is always the rapist's fault unless for some reason he cannot direct his actions. No one here is saying it was the girl's fault. But at the same time, being flogged for violating segregation laws is not the same as being flogged for getting raped.

If you want to find fault it is quite simple. It is the rapist's fault, not the victim's. All the arguments delineating what the victim COULD have done to prevent this are moot.

Agreed. However, the scope of culpability of every rapist needs to be evaluated independently and invidually, as with any criminal. To the same extent as with any other crime, the level of control over his actions matters, every aspect of the sitaution matters and the victim's previous behaviour also matters. Not the fact that the victim shouldn't have gone alone at night, for instance, but in a hypothetical situation involving alcohol, drugs, sex and mind games, it's possible to find certain factors affecting the rapist's responsibility and making it less severe than raping a stranger in a dark alley. This is why I'm against making blanket, sweeping generalisations regarding culpability. Any criminal has the right to have his case thoroughly examined, assessing all aspects of the situation. Even rapists for whom I have no special sympathy as you might have noticed from my other threads.

In this particular case, the rapists probably just seized the girl and gang-raped her taking advantage of the situation. I'd say there are only aggravating factors, no mitigating ones.

On the other hand, she might well have violated, as you also said, some standards of care and caution, which are more obvious in her country than in ours and some penalty might normally have come with that. Still, in this case, what happened to her should result in the supposed infraction on her part not being prosecuted. As was said here, you don't ticket a jay-walker who gets hit by a car.

I think it is foolish for western civilization to enforce standards and ethics on people in other countries

I'm not sure what you are saying here, since I'm not sure how the "West" is imposing anything upon people in other countries, regarding its own standards. I have seen no American or European armies invading Saudi Arabia lately. But you may be speaking more broadly in this instance, rather than dealing with the specific instances raised by this topic.

Yet, it seems to me that there are people in other countires who would rather live under some Western notions regarding the rights of the individual. There are certain rights, as Jefferson commented, that should be extended to all mankind, (for a further explaination, the Declaration of Independence may prove useful), as the individual's escape from tyranny.

As Thomas Paine commented, "principles stand upon their own merits." They are not contained by the artificial boundries of nationalism, nor religious dogma. It is within the conscience of all good people, who love liberty and value the rights of the individual, to speak out against tyranny in all its malicious forms, regardless of where it occurs. This is also from Paine: What Archimedes said of the mechanical powers, may be applied to Reason and Liberty. "Had we," said he, "a place to stand upon, we might raise the world."

To most of us it matters little where that place to "stand upon" existis - East or West, it hardly matters. It is the truths of the rights of the individual, which are as Franklin added to the DoI, that are "self-evident." What Franklin, Jefferson and Paine believed is that once these self-evident rights have a place upon which to be raised, that they would be valued most everywhere; that it was the natural tendency of mankind to value those rights.

I'm not suggesting that we invade the ME and "spread Democracy," as a certain admistration has been advocating. What I am suggesting is that we not ignore our own principles - and that we not acquiesce in the face of injustice and tryanny. I believe that the surge in conservative and orthodox Isalm is a result of challenges to its centuries old authority, brought on by the raisng of the Rights of the Individual occuring in various places in recent years, including yes, the ME. The old authorities are attempting to stifle those who would otherwise make choices for themselves. To some it may appear "the foolish choices" of women, but it is nevertheless, THEIR choices to make.

You said that if she followed the law, she probably wouldn't have been raped. That is all you said. In saying that, you are saying that she was probably raped because she broke the law. In other words, she was probably raped because of her actions. Sure, you aren't placing all the blame on her shoulders, but you are still blaming her.

Drew, while I can hardly be considered someone who backs Ghaldring's opinion, I think in this case you are reading more into his words than he intended. I interpreted what he is saying as a simple statement of fact - that if the woman had not got into the car with the unrelated male, then she probably would not have been raped. I feel that statement is true. I'm certainly not saying the woman is to blame, nor am I saying that she should be held even somewhat culpable for getting into the car in the first place. I view it as a simple if-then relationship.

For an extreme example, if the person had not attempted to jaywalk across the street, he would not have been run over by a drunk driver. While the person crossing the street in no way removes the culpability of the drunk driver, it also does not change the truthfulness of the statement, i.e., if he was not walking across the street, he would not have been hit.

Similarly, if the woman didn't get into the car, she probably wouldn't have been raped. I do not think it is logically inconsistent to view that as a true statement, and yet simultaneously acknowledge that her being raped wasn't her fault. Just like in the example above with the jaywalker and drunk driver.

@Aldeth: I disagree with the very assertion that the woman probably wouldn't have been raped had she been with a relative. In order for that to be true, you have to believe that her rapists walked up to her escort, asked "are you her relative?", and upon learning that he was not, chose to rape her. This simply isn't a plausible explanation. In fact, it's pretty ridiculous. From the information available, there is no reason to believe that, had she been traveling with a relative instead of a friend, she wouldn't also have been raped.

This isn't addressed specifically at you, Aldeth, but I find it conspicuous that no one is asking if perhaps she had a good reason to be traveling with a friend, rather than a relative, as her escort. For all we know, it could have been an emergency.

Ah, now I see this issue. This is really a semantic point more than anything. It is true - she could just have easily been raped if she had been traveling with a male family member. That I agree with. I was going back a step further. I was following the reasoning that if she was not in the car with a non-family member, than she likely would not have taken the trip at all. After all, I'm sure if it was as convenient to take the trip with a family member as to take it with a non-family member, she would have done so. I actually agree with your assertion that there probably was a good reason why there wasn't a male family member travelling with her. I doubt this woman would have flagrantly and deliberately broken the law as she was likely aware of the potential consequences.

So allow me to be a little more clear in what I meant: If she was raped at location X, then it logically follows that if she was in some location other than X, she probably wouldn't have been raped (unless of course the male non-family member was part of the gang rape i.e., that he was the one who planned the whole thing). I whole-heartedly agree that upon arriving at location X, regardless of who was in the car with her, she likely would have been raped.

So allow me to be a little more clear in what I meant: If she was raped at location X, then it logically follows that if she was in some location other than X, she probably wouldn't have been raped (unless of course the male non-family member was part of the gang rape i.e., that he was the one who planned the whole thing). I whole-heartedly agree that upon arriving at location X, regardless of who was in the car with her, she likely would have been raped.I think we can both agree that assigning culpability to the victim for simply not being at home is a little ridiculous, too, though. If the Archduke Ferdinand had stayed home with the Flu instead of visiting injured people at the hospital on June 28, 1914, or had he not sewn his coat shut so he would look less overweight (were he not sewn into his coat, his life may have been saved), WW1 may not have happened. These types of hypotheticals are pointless, really, and prove nothing. Isn't the issue, here, that the law is absurd and her punishment even moreso?

Isn't the issue, here, that the law is absurd and her punishment even moreso?

I absolutely agree. I'm just saying that from a certain point of view, Ghaldring's statement can be interpreted in such a way that he wasn't assigning blame to the victim. I like to think I'm a fairly reasonable person, and I didn't read his comment that he was assigning the fault, even partially, to the woman

i dont think i would have mattered who she was in the car with. read the link nakia put up. the 7 men kidnapped and raped the girl AND her ex-boyfriend. so any guy with her would probably have been as vulnerable .
i agree that the prison sentnces handed down to the rapists is too short however look at the number of lashes ordered, 80 to 1000(yep that says 1 thousand, i dont think that guy will be doing anything else ever again)

personally, i think all the rapists should be taken out and whipped to death but thats just an ole southerners outrage at violence against women talking. i probably wouldnt really whip'em to death........well, maybe not.

I'm getting rather confused here. The woman is not being punished for being raped, she is being punished for being with an unrelated male. We seem to be having several discussions going on here.

1) Whose fault was the rape?

2) Do non-citizens of a country have the right to voice their opinion as to whether the behavior or laws of a country are right or wrong?

3) Is the punishment given to the woman extreme or unjustified?

Perhaps we need to split this into separate threads?

Aldeth:


Similarly, if the woman didn't get into the car, she probably wouldn't have been raped. I do not think it is logically inconsistent to view that as a true statement, and yet simultaneously acknowledge that her being raped wasn't her fault. Just like in the example above with the jaywalker and drunk driver.


It's nice to be understood for once. Thanks.

And, to just summarize exactly what my opinion is, as some posters are apparently a little confused:

1) Whose fault was the rape? The rape was the fault of the rapists. This does not mean, however, that the woman could not have taken precautions in order to protect herself against bad men.

An analogy I often use: If you leave your house unattended, and your doors unlocked, you are not to blame for any resulting burglary. However, you could (and should) have taken reasonable precautions .


2) Do non-citizens of a country have the right to voice their opinion as to whether the behavior or laws of a country are right or wrong?


They have the right to voice their opinion. However, they should not act as though their opinion is important.


3) Is the punishment given to the woman extreme or unjustified?


The punishment is extreme.

Perhaps my main gripe is the outrage expressed by some individuals on this thread. They act as though this woman received 200 lashes for being gang raped, a crime which she did not perpetrate (but was also a victim of). Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact of the matter is that she willfully broke a law which she could have easily obeyed, while knowing the punishment for disobedience. I'm not happy about the law, but she knew the risks. She gambled, and lost.

The fact of the matter is that she willfully broke a law which she could have easily obeyed,

Idiotic laws are never "easily obeyed." Nor should they be. The issue of laws being crafted by narrow-minded, tyrannical bigots, is most always a problem. Again, if we turn to America's own misfortunes in this regard - since I'd rather not just focus on the despotic and misogynistic tyrants of Arabia - it becomes apparent just how difficult a thing this is.

The issue is American slavery before and during the Civil War. Many within the abolitionist movement willfully broke the law in order to both free slaves and bring an end to slavery for good. From the Underground Railroad to the reaction of the hated Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court, it is apparent that many chose to adhere to the principles consistant with freedom and equality rather than submit easily to the continued injustice of the pro-slavery laws.

One of the real touchstones for many who are inclined towards the notion of civil disobedience, is the American writer and thinker Henry David Thoreau, who deliberately chose to break the law, rather than support, what he believed, to be a corrput and oppressive American goverment regarding the issue of slavery, among other things. Thoreau's focus is on the individual as an agent and advocate for conscience and justice, rather than the collective:

Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience.

It is a stunning and provocative comment, which is a clarion call for less governmental authority and the empowerment of the individual as the source of real law and the final arbitrator of justice. Yet, there is a problem with Thoreau's ideas, which has been often pointed out:

The problem raised by the willlful breaking of bad laws, is that it opens the door to the good, enlightened, laws being broken as well. This is Thomas Paine:

I have always held it an opinion (making it also my practice) that it is better to obey a bad law, making use at the same time of every argument to show its errors and procure its repeal, than forcibly to violate it; because the precedent of breaking a bad law might weaken the force, and lead to a discretionary violation, of those which are good.

An equally valid point. Yet the validity of Paine's argument is based upon his belief in the empowerment of representative government. As Jefferson remarked in the DoI, "that a government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." More from Paine:

The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case.

There is a point to all this, which is: How are women represented in the Arabian government? Do they vote? Do they have representatives of their own choosing who vote in their interests?

If the answer to this question is a resounding "NO" then the woman in question is no better than a slave, as Paine points out. She is under no obligation to follow any law in which she has not given, or others of her own gender, their consent. So the only logical choice left her is Thoreau's idea of Civil Resistance. And of course she paid the price for that resistance, as you are quick to point out. The lashes, which the woman in question is to receive, would have also been a common punishment given to "disobedient" slaves in the American South before the Civil War. Some things never seem to change.

Perhaps my main gripe is the outrage expressed by some individuals on this thread. They act as though this woman received 200 lashes for being gang raped, a crime which she did not perpetrate (but was also a victim of). Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact of the matter is that she willfully broke a law which she could have easily obeyed, while knowing the punishment for disobedience. I'm not happy about the law, but she knew the risks. She gambled, and lost.

Let me set your mind at east: I understand your position. I simply think it's morally bankrupt.

The idea that there should be no outrage when people are punished for violating unjust laws is laughable. At best.

The rape was the fault of the rapists. This does not mean, however, that the woman could not have taken precautions in order to protect herself against bad men.

It's said she was with her escort, who was unrelated, when the men seized her. It wasn't the escort or his friends who did. If the woman had been raped by her escort or in cooperation with him, your argument would apply. However, things being as they are, it doesn't, since even if she had been escorted by a male relative or two, the same would most probably have happened.

Moreover, if an American girl were raped somewhere in the outskirts of Californian city where she went alone, would she still have been able to take precautions?

An analogy I often use: If you leave your house unattended, and your doors unlocked, you are not to blame for any resulting burglary. However, you could (and should) have taken reasonable precautions.

Yup. The burglar, if caught, will pay. The insurance will not.

They have the right to voice their opinion. However, they should not act as though their opinion is important.

Why should they and why isn't it? A citizen's opinion is not any more important, either, unless you do believe a vote out of milion changes anything, especially outside the voting process anyway.

Perhaps my main gripe is the outrage expressed by some individuals on this thread. They act as though this woman received 200 lashes for being gang raped, a crime which she did not perpetrate (but was also a victim of). Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have doubts. What happened later was deemed her fault or she wouldn't have received 200 lashes. She wouldn't have received 200 lashes for just being seen with her escort. She's getting 200 lashes for being damaged goods, even if the legal grounds used is the violation of the segregation law. I'd like to see the argumentative part of the sentence.

The fact of the matter is that she willfully broke a law which she could have easily obeyed, while knowing the punishment for disobedience. I'm not happy about the law, but she knew the risks. She gambled, and lost.

That's what you say to jay-walkers getting ticketed, but that doesn't work for women getting lashed.

She wouldn't have received 200 lashes for just being seen with her escort.

The arguement for whether or not her punishment is "just" really starts and ends right there, doesn't it? What's the normal penalty for a woman who goes out without being escorted by a male family member? If it's not a sizable amount of lashes, then she is being punished for being raped.

Drew hit the point I was trying to make in my last post. Stating 'if the woman would not have been with an unrelated escort she would not have been raped' is misleading. Such a statement automatically places blame on the victim. This has been a point made by numerous defense attorney's in rape cases. They make how the woman dressed, who she was with, or where she was at, to imply she 'must have wanted it....' The most successful rape defenses put the victim on trial. Such statement are nauseating to me.

You can always state if someone wouldn't have been in place x at time t, then action z would not have occured -- that goes for everything that happens everywhere. And it's a ridiculous argument. It was not her fault, where she was and who she was with was immaterial. To say she could have avoided the rape by not being there is assigning blame to her. It doesn't matter how else you candy coat the argument.

Yes, the judges also punished her for being raped -- for the exact same reasons we are seeing listed here. They undoubtedly believed, through her actions of being with an unrelated male, she 'wanted it.' They assigned blame to her, just as people have done on these boards. So the men who raped her got lesser sentences and she got punished harshly.

As long as we are willing to see these extenuating circumstances (a woman wearing the wrong clothes, acting improperly, going to the wrong type of place, being close on a date, etc.) as valid excuses for rape, women will continue to abused by the courts.

Even if this woman had stripped down and said "come get some, boys" only to change her mind seconds later it still wouldn't be her fault...

Rape is rape, and no means no. You can debate whether she could have taken better precautions from hereon until easter, doesn't really change the matter of fact.

And no, this woman has no way to really change much within her countries justice system... It's Saudi Arabia. The only thing she could do was to get the medias attention, for which she landed herself an even harsher sentence.

T2's point cannot be repeated often enough. He is perfectly right.

People are fallible. People write laws. Some laws are ridiculous. Some laws are stupid. Some laws are ridiculously stupid. This is one of those of the "not funny" variety.

I'm with the general sentiment of the board on this one. No wonder I always get an NG or CG alignment when I play PS:T. How could you support stupid things like this?

T2's point cannot be repeated often enough. He is perfectly right.

Absolutley. Great post, T2.

Yes, the judges also punished her for being raped -- for the exact same reasons we are seeing listed here.I don't agree. I do agree they did not take her rape as punishment enough, and then punished her further because they were pissed at the criticism her lawyer was heaping on the court in the media.

I agree that both of those things are outrageous, but that is still not being punished for being raped.

Both she and her escort originally got the same punishment for being alone in the car together: 90 lashes.

The rapists each got between 8 months and 5 years in prison as well as between 80 and 1000 lashes. The report didn't go into detail about who got what sentence and why some got more and others got less.

From what I can tell, flogging in Saudi Arabia is not necessarily the debilitating punishment portrayed in this thread. There are conflicting reports. The Saudis obviously saying it's more of a symbolic humiliation than an extremely painful punishment and that the flogger has to hold a Koran under the arm swinging the cane/strap/whatever so he can only use the elbow and not the shoulder. Amnesty International obviously says oh no, they don't always hold that Koran under the arm, and present first-hand accounts of the process where at least it seems the person is bruised and bleeding afterwards. So, I would imagine the lashing punishment is rather variable in its intensity depending on who is getting the lashes and why. I did not see any reports (though admittedly I didn't search widely, and I'm sure such things are difficult to get ahold of) of floggings being permanently debilitating, and apparently flogging is a pretty common punishment in Saudi Arabia.

Now, don't interpret the above as my saying flogging is a great punishment. I'm just pointing out that in Saudi Arabia it doesn't seem to be the "crippling" punishment as asserted in this thread.

The arguement for whether or not her punishment is "just" really starts and ends right there, doesn't it? What's the normal penalty for a woman who goes out without being escorted by a male family member? If it's not a sizable amount of lashes, then she is being punished for being raped.

Yup. Or make it 100, as that's what she got and the judges claimed they doubled it because she tried to influence them through the media. Doubling the penalty like that - for what happened after the first conviction, is a mockery of justice.

T2's point cannot be repeated often enough. He is perfectly right.

Right!

Drew hit the point I was trying to make in my last post. Stating 'if the woman would not have been with an unrelated escort she would not have been raped' is misleading. Such a statement automatically places blame on the victim. This has been a point made by numerous defense attorney's in rape cases. They make how the woman dressed, who she was with, or where she was at, to imply she 'must have wanted it....' The most successful rape defenses put the victim on trial. Such statement are nauseating to me.

Those lawyers should face disciplinary action and consequences up to being disbarred. I can imagine several mitigating circumstances in rape, as much as I hate that crime, but come on, what's mitigating in a gang rape by 14 people taking it out on a poor girl?

With whom she was matters nothing. How she was dressed matters very little. Her behaviour matters a bit, but only really if you could construe that she had it coming. And that kind of thing would require a hefty amount of intentional and malicious seducing. Similarly, not taking a no very well when a woman changes her mind right before or in the middle of the act, should warrant fewer years in prison than a dark alley rape on a stranger, but it's still a bit hard to call it a mitigating circumstance. If anything, it could reduce the culpability of a degenerate individual unable to control animalistic passions.

Also, where such things matter, is a word vs word case where we only have the woman saying she didn't want it and the man saying she did, and it matters how credible she is. However, in that case it should also matter that he e.g. likes rough sex, has been accosting girls against their will, has a tendency to hear a no only after it's shouted 20 times etc. That means an overall assessment of how credible both sides are. Still it doesn't sound fair that a Harvard-going rich girl accusing a thug would have more credibility than a simple maid accusing a minister. After all, it's all words. Judges should have the guts to rule that there's not enough evidence, but victims shouldn't be put on trial themselves.

You can always state if someone wouldn't have been in place x at time t, then action z would not have occured

Yes, but that's not an adequate cause-result relationship. It's something they teach to second year law students here. Certainly, it would have been a worse crime if they had broken into her car or kidnapped her from her university, but for decency's sake, the fact she was where it happened but didn't need to be there doesn't give the offender any sexual rights!

Perhaps it's time to make attorneys obtain a fully functional Master's in theoretical law before they can practice?

To say she could have avoided the rape by not being there is assigning blame to her. It doesn't matter how else you candy coat the argument.

If anything, an accused using that argument proves himself to be degenerate.

As long as we are willing to see these extenuating circumstances (a woman wearing the wrong clothes, acting improperly, going to the wrong type of place, being close on a date, etc.) as valid excuses for rape, women will continue to abused by the courts.

They are not valid excuses - if you had a valid excuse, you'd be acquitted. They aren't extenuating circumstances per se, but they lack the aggravating factors of a typical stranger rape in some situations simply because the culpability of the rapist depends on how big "effort" he had to make to overcome his inhibitions and commit a crime.

Even if a woman were dressed and behaving like a hooker, it still wouldn't make it fine to rape her. However, it would be unfair to see it the same, especially if she had been drunk and taunting the rapist - for instance, as in case of a typical "grey mouse" getting assaulted in a park at night or in the evening.

[...]the flogger has to hold a Koran under the arm swinging the cane/strap/whatever so he can only use the elbow and not the shoulder.

Yup. I've heard that too. Shoulder lashes in the number of 200 wouldn't be survived by anyone, I think.

they were talking about this on one of the news channels last night, apparently to get a rape conviction in saudi arabia you either need a confession from the rapist or 4 MALE witnesses. female witnesses dont count

Let me state flat out that I hate the Saudi regime and similarly repressive ones around the world. I also hate that people do this in the name of a religious code (Sharia) that some people still assert is "respectful and uplifting to women." What a load of crap. Anyone with an ounce of decency and objectivity would agree that rape is a worse crime than mere association and therefore deserves harsher punishment.

I have to say, though, that this should come as no surprise to anyone. The Saudis and other repressive regimes both Muslim and otherwise have been at this sort of barbarism for years. She would have been punished for being with a man even had the rape not occured. That in itself is disgusting, but not surprising. The fact that she was punished is likely no surprise to her or anyone else in the society. I agree full well that the law is disgusting, but she knew of the law and the likely consequences for her if she disobeyed it. It's reasons like this that I don't like leaving Canada -- too many other countries have crazy ass laws and customs and I don't want to get involved. If circumstances did force me into such a country, I would keep my head down and follow whatever law was there until I could get the hell out, regardless of how stupid or wrong the law was. No point is worth making if you have to go through 200 lashes to make it, and to be honest, I doubt she went out with the guy hoping to get caught and lashed so that she could draw world attention to the utterly repulsive culture she lives in. She probably just wanted to get out of the house, and I can't blame her for that, but she should have thought of the possible fallout (legal, I'm not talking about the rape) and stayed home -- bored, repressed, but at least unlashed. It's not fair, but it's life, I'm afraid. To say it another way, she didn't deserve to be raped and she didn't deserve the lashes, but she knew the lashes were a likely result of going out, undeserved as they may be.

The sad thing is that the US will never put any pressure on its beloved ally to get them to change their mysogynistic approach to life.

Well, in fact the rapists did get a harsher punishment than she or her ex-boyfriend did. Not to say that she deserved the sentence.

If you read one of the links Nakia put up, she was meeting with her ex-boyfriend to get some pictures he had of her before she got married to someone else. I guess that was important to her.

Wait a second, what? The rapists got something stupid, like a few months of house arrest, right? That's hardly worse than what happened to the girl! I think what most people here are pissed off about is the fact that the rapists got away with committing what any thinking person would agree is a heinous crime, and this girl was punished brutally for a relatively minor crime.

So how do you really feel about the Saudis, LKD? I think your take on the Saudi regime is spot on. They're real primitives.

Wait a second, what? The rapists got something stupid, like a few months of house arrest, right?

Wrong. From Nakia's link on the previous page:

The woman and the former boyfriend were originally sentenced to 90 lashes each for being together in private. The attackers received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in prison, and 80 to 1000 lashes each.

Mr Lahem appealed against the attackers' sentences, saying they were too lenient and that the treatment of the victim was too harsh. In its decision issued on Tuesday, the court increased the victim's sentence to 200 lashes and six months in jail. It also increased the sentences of her attackers to prison terms of two to nine years.

There goes ne peius.

There goes ne peius.

I have no idea what that means.

Once again, chev gives himself an opportunity to show how much smarter he is than the rest of us. :p

Thanks Splunge and BTA. Nice to know that someone reads my posts and checks the links. I was beginning to wonder.

I maintain that we are confusing several issues here.

1) The rape
2) The law forbidding a woman to associate unchaperoned with a man to whom she is not related.
3) Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy not a democracy not even a democratic monarchy but as I read an Absolute Monarchy.

The only relationship between the rape and the the woman's punishment is that if the woman had not been raped no one would have known or paid any attention to the fact that she was with a non-related male. She is not being punished because she was raped she is being punished because she broke a law and was found out.

The above statements are facts and I have already posted my opinions in various places.

Splunge,
Generally, "ne peius" is a latin phrase that refers to a worsening of a sentence or administrative act.

In most western criminal law, sentences can be worsened if the prosecutor appeals, or, indeed, both parties (hat tip to chev). That is not seen as bad, because the defendant is basically in the same situation when prosecuted in the first time.

That is not so when the defendant appeals against a verdict. The reason is that abandoning "ne peius" in this situation introduces an element of gambling into criminal justice. The verdict is out, the prosecutor is happy with it, but by seeking appeal the defendant would without "ne peius" risk being worse off anyway? What this would lead to is very simple: It will have an adverse effect, because the defendant, even if sentenced unfairly, might not seek appeal, fearing he'd be worse off. So he wouldn't seek appeal. Making appeal risky and thus unattractive would nullify the whole point of an appeal to serve as a corrective instrument to achieve greater justice.

I have no idea what that means.

Once again, chev gives himself an opportunity to show how much smarter he is than the rest of us. :p

Nah, I'm not. It's just I use continental terms. If I mentioned a common law Latin term, you'd know it. Basically, there's the prohibition of giving a harsher penalty in appeal. If both the accuser and the defendant or just the accuser appeals, then there can be a harsher penalty. But if only the defendant appeals, then he can only get better but not worse.

This thread, and the situation it discusses has created something of an emotional rollercoaster for me. Over something I have absolutely no direct control or influence to change.

My conclusion... thanking god that I, and my loved ones, were born in a place where the courts dont dole out 200 lashes for being in the wrong place at the wrong time... adding insult (and a lot more injury) to the injury of being gang raped 14 times!! That could have been my mother, my sister, my wife....

My country certainly doesn't have a blameless history. Not at all. But we've clearly come a long way.

Ladies and gentlemen, the situation has changed. I urge you to read this:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3899920&page=1

As the situation looks now, the man with whom the victim was in the car cooperated in the gang rape and should be sentenced along with the rapists as an accomplice.

The woman was blackmailed and tricked (yes, at the same time) to go into that car, restricting the freedom of her choice, therefore she should be innocent of the "crime" of being in that car under any reasonable rules of criminal law.

The judges are idiots.

The lawyer is a friggen' hero.

I'm e-mailing the Saudi embassy in my country as a PhD candidate in law, specialising in criminal procedures. Do the same. Just google the embassy and mail them.

Breaking news: The young lady has been pardoned by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Link. (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/17/saudi.rape/index.html)

While it is a happy development that she will not be going to prison or beaten for her "crime", I am not sure how I feel about her "pardon". After all, a pardon means that she has committed a crime and received a sentence, only the king has decided that she should not be punished in this case.

Apparently Monty took a level in ninja at some point ;) Yeah, it's good for her that at least she won't have to worry about being publicly flogged... although I can only hope the reception she gets in her home will be any better. Her life appears to be a little less ruined now.

Anyway, I'm worried how this will progress now. It appears (I'm reading http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7147632.stm) that the king's decision has riled conservatives, and while meddling by external forces is the reason they cite for their displeasure, I think a lot of them just wanted to see the "hussy" punished and will try to rally support for yet harsher measures. I hope they fail - particularly not in the courts, but in society. Being killed in your own family is probably even worse than being flogged.

While it is a happy development that she will not be going to prison or beaten for her "crime", I am not sure how I feel about her "pardon". After all, a pardon means that she has committed a crime and received a sentence, only the king has decided that she should not be punished in this case.

According to the letter of the law, she did commit an offence. One of the purposes of pardon is such situations as this one, in which a litteral application of the law will not do good. The King had no power to overturn the verdict in a judicial procedure, anyway, I think.

By the way, what I've read suggests the man who was with her was raped too. That would change my previous hypothesis that he cooperated with the rapists.

According to Saudi Arabia she did commit a crime and she was sentenced so the pardon by the supreme ruler is appropriate. We may not agree with the law but that does not change the fact that it is a law in Saudi Arabia.

From what I have read of the Saudi Arabian government the Monarch is supreme and government actually flows from him. There are no elections there, appointments are made by the Monarch or those appointed by him.

And he's descended from Muhammad, so the clerics can't actually complain too much.

Well, I'm not quite sure about the last one. If the priests are irked enough and actually manage to topple him, they can always find a reason why Allah wanted it done. It was kind of like with the Byzantine emperors - sure, their position as God's viceroys on earth meant any rebellion or coup was blasphemous, but after you got the old one imprisoned or killed it was easy to come up with reasons why he was abusing his God-granted powers. Divine right comes with divine responsibilities, which are conveniently defined by those with religious power.

Anyway, Nakia's right (afaik) on the Saudi king being much more powerful than his peers in modern constitutional monarchies, but I think there's something else to it. Doesn't the Saudi king get additional powers and prestige from his stewardship over the Islamic holy sites? IIRC the Ottoman sultans assumed the title of Padishah due to their reign over Mecca and Medina, so I think the Saudi king is in a priviledged position in this dimension as well. It would certainly explain Saudi Arabia's influence over other Sunni muslims... and their opposition (quite vocal iirc) to Iran's ambitions.

At any rate, this ties in with the pardon. Due to his religious importance, it would be a pretty major thing if he had decreed her blameless - possibly upsetting quite a few old laws that are currently favored. He could, however, pardon her offense... although to what degree it would save her from any honor-bound fanatics outside of prison is another thing entirely.

Well, I'm not quite sure about the last one. If the priests are irked enough and actually manage to topple him, they can always find a reason why Allah wanted it done. Not in this case. The reason for the existence of the Sunni and Shia sects is that the Sunni believed that Mohammad's successor should be decided by blood. In other words, the importance of genealogical succession has been an article of Sunni Islam for over 1500 years. The catholics will abandon the papacy before the Saudis abandon their ruler. Even if someone knocked him off, the Sunni majority who rules in Saudi Arabia would stand for nothing less than another descendant of Mohammad to take his place.

Not in this case. The reason for the existence of the Sunni and Shia sects is that the Sunni believed that Mohammad's successor should be decided by blood. In other words, the importance of genealogical succession has been an article of Sunni Islam for over 1500 years. The catholics will abandon the papacy before the Saudis abandon their ruler. Even if someone knocked him off, the Sunni majority who rules in Saudi Arabia would stand for nothing less than another descendant of Mohammad to take his place.

I rather doubt the House of Saud can claim direct descent from Mohammad - plus, with an extended family as big as 200+ direct descendants of King Abdul Aziz, it should not be a problem finding an heir with a more agreeable mindset instead of staging a revolution a la the Iranian example. After all, the Wahhabis have been a part of Saudi Arabia for as long as the house of Saud has, and the two groups have often worked together.

I Googled 'House of Saudi' and did not find any statement that the family was descended from Mohammad.

Here is one article (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zeroes/House_Saud.html) which might shed a little light on the subject.

Seems there are 3000 to 4000 Saudi Princes although not all of them are eligible to become king. Another article listed the eligibilty at 150 princes.

Saudi Arabia is a religious dictatorship with lots and lots of oil.