Public beheadings in Saudi Arabia

[Heiroglyph]

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Saudi authorities on Friday executed three Saudi militants convicted of assassinating several officials two years ago, Saudi authorities said as this Gulf state continued its campaign to stamp out terrorism.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152296,00.html

The Saudi government is as barbaric as these terrorists.

 

[rahma]

The Saudi government is as barbaric as these terrorists.

Why? They're executing murderers. Public, private, it's still the death penatly.

 

[kenalim]

Scary.... *chills*

 

[Heiroglyph]

Why? They're executing murderers. Public, private, it's still the death penatly.

The article says they then hung the bodies from poles for public display,
like a scene from some horror movie.

tying their bodies to poles on top of which were placed their heads

 

[Jacey]

The Saudi government is as barbaric as these terrorists.

I'm glad you agree with me. And remember these are our allies.

 

[Jonathan David]

Why? They're executing murderers. Public, private, it's still the death penatly.

Agreed. It's a pretty odd distinction to be drawing. Apparently the United States gets its moral superiority from hiding its barbarous acts from the public. The death penalty is unconscionable.... period.


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html
Wow, the entire "Axis of Evil" is in the same list as the USA. As is China (whose human rights abuses, the US government makes a big deal out of every year)... also Cuba (who the American government loves to claim moral superiority over) and Iraq (under Sadam Hussein... 'nuff said)....

DEATH PENALTY PERMITTED

Afghanistan
Bahrain
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
China (People's Republic)
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Cuba
Egypt
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Libya
Morocco
Myanmar
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Philippines
Qatar
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Zimbabwe

Death Penalty Outlawed (year)

Andorra (1990)
Angola (1992)
Australia (1984)
Austria (1950)
Azerbaijan (1998)
Belgium (1996)
Bermuda (1999)
Bosnia-Herzegovina (1997)
Bulgaria (1998)
Cambodia (1989)
Canada (1976)
Cape Verde (1981)
Colombia (1910)
Costa Rica (1877)
Côte d'Ivoire (2000)
Croatia (1990)
Cyprus (1983)
Czech Republic (1990)
Denmark (1933)
Djibouti (1995)
Dominican Republic (1966)
East Timor (1999)
Ecuador (1906)
Estonia (1998)
Finland (1949)
France (1981)
Georgia (1997)
Germany (1987)
Guinea-Bissau (1993)
Haiti (1987)
Honduras (1956)
Hungary (1990)
Iceland (1928)
Ireland (1990)
Italy (1947)
Kiribati (1979)
Liechtenstein (1987)
Lithuania (1998)
Luxembourg (1979)
Macedonia (1991)
Malta (1971)
Marshall Islands (1986)
Mauritius (1995)
Micronesia (1986)
Moldova (1995)
Monaco (1962)
Mozambique (1990)
Namibia (1990)
Nepal (1990)
Netherlands (1870)
New Zealand (1961)
Nicaragua (1979)
Norway (1905)
Palau (n.a.)
Panama (1903)
Paraguay (1992)
Poland (1997)
Portugal (1867)
Romania (1989)
Samoa (2004)
San Marino (1848)
São Tomé and Príncipe (1990)
Serbia and Montenegro (2002)
Seychelles (1993)
Slovak Republic (1990)
Slovenia (1989)
Solomon Islands (1966)
South Africa (1995)
Spain (1978)
Sweden (1921)
Switzerland (1942)
Turkmenistan (1999)
Tuvalu (1978)
Ukraine (1999)
United Kingdom (1973)
Uruguay (1907)
Vanuatu (1980)
Vatican City State (1969)
Venezuela (1863)

by the way, I do think that it is wrong to have public executions and to display the bodies.... but if private executions are better, it is only the most marginal of differences that makes it so.

 

[OttawaUk]

That's why I have such a tough time beliving George W Bush, his brother, and Father are Christians.

They support(ed) and signed off on the deaths of hundreds of inmates. The whole point of being a Christian is forgiveness, even someone who has committed murder.

Killing is wrong, no matter what.

 

[Jacey]

That's why I have such a tough time beliving George W Bush, his brother, and Father are Christians.

They support(ed) and signed off on the deaths of hundreds of inmates. The whole point of being a Christian is forgiveness, even someone who has committed murder.

Killing is wrong, no matter what.

Don't forget that Bush mocked Karla Faye Tucker, a death row inmate and born again christian while she pleaded for her life.

Also consider the case of Gary Graham.............

 

[praying]

The Saudi government is as barbaric as these terrorists.

That's okay they are one of our allies in the mid east. We can over look beheadings and human rights abuses.

 

[praying]

Agreed. It's a pretty odd distinction to be drawing. Apparently the United States gets its moral superiority from hiding its barbarous acts from the public. The death penalty is unconscionable.... period.


[by the way, I do think that it is wrong to have public executions and to display the bodies.... but if private executions are better, it is only the most marginal of differences that makes it so.

I agree about the death penalty but there is difference between chopping a person,s head off then dispalying the body to strike terror in the hearts of people and a lethal injection. That said, like I said I am against the death penalty in all forms.

 

[Matth3w]

The Saudi government is as barbaric as these terrorists.

I totally agree.. this proved nothing!! They allowed themselves to fall into evil and perform for the devil!

 

[Jonathan David]

I agree about the death penalty but there is difference between chopping a person,s head off then dispalying the body to strike terror in the hearts of people and a lethal injection. That said, like I said I am against the death penalty in all forms.

There is... you are right... and I should have bolded the note that I placed at the bottom of my post or explained it more. There is a difference and one is less awful... but the question remains should the government EVER allow itself that power (and you and I agree that it shouldn't). The problem with articles like this is that they try to create a distinction that appeals to our guts... to condemn the Saudis... which implicitly legitimizes the position that the death penalty is okay as long as it is not done publicly. The point is not the public/private divide.... it is that the state should never have such coercive power. Is it better to drop napalm on people or to lob cruise missles at them? Is it better to stab someone or to shoot them? Is it better to target civillians or to knowingly and willfully initiate attacks that will have large amounts of "collateral damage"? We might be able to draw qualitative differences but all of these acts cause death and they are all wrong... and I was just worried that the article was trying to mask that.

(I hope that you are having a great Sunday M. )

 

[Jonathan David]

Why? They're executing murderers. Public, private, it's still the death penatly.

They're executing convicted murderers... not necessarily murderers. Certainly, our systems will have errors.... certainly we must protect the public and some people will be locked up when they committed no crime... but when we kill them, there is no going back. Think of Ruben Carter (19 years), Donald Marshall (11 years), Guy Paul Morin (3 years), David Milgaard (23 years), Steven Truscott (10 years) and the many many more who have been wrongfully convicted and forced to spend time in jail. While there is nothing that can be said to console these people or to compensate them for their losses that have been wrongfully inflicted by the state.... if there had been a death penalty (public or private), they could never have been freed.

to read about wrongful convictions in Canada (www.aidwyc.org)
to read about wrongful convictions in the United States (http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/wrong.html)

 

[rahma]

If a society chooses to execute it's criminals, why does it need to be done in private? Might as well make it public, as a deterent.

 

[Heiroglyph]

Agreed. It's a pretty odd distinction to be drawing. Apparently the United States gets its moral superiority from hiding its barbarous acts from the public. The death penalty is unconscionable.... period.


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html
Wow, the entire "Axis of Evil" is in the same list as the USA. As is China (whose human rights abuses, the US government makes a big deal out of every year)... also Cuba (who the American government loves to claim moral superiority over) and Iraq (under Sadam Hussein... 'nuff said)....





by the way, I do think that it is wrong to have public executions and to display the bodies.... but if private executions are better, it is only the most marginal of differences that makes it so.

I don't believe int he death Penalty. Yet, even those who do in America will acknowledge that once the person has paid the ultimate price for their crime that their debt is paid and their body should be treated with the same dignity that anyone else would get.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't believe int he death Penalty. Yet, even those who do in America will acknowledge that once the person has paid the ultimate price for their crime that their debt is paid and their body should be treated with the same dignity that anyone else would get.

Want to bet?

Personally, I think if you're going to put someone to death, you might as well go all out.

Capital Punishment is supposed to be a deterrant (it's not, but we like to say that it is). So let's deter criminals by showing them exactly what happens to the ones who get caught.

US history is full of public executions... perhaps this time-honored tradition should be reinstated...

 

[Jonathan David]

I don't believe int he death Penalty. Yet, even those who do in America will acknowledge that once the person has paid the ultimate price for their crime that their debt is paid and their body should be treated with the same dignity that anyone else would get.

Yeah, as I have been thinking more about this, I think that I might have been wrong in my first assertion but I am not sure.

Paying respect to the body is... disingenous... or... well, something. Frankly, I don't think that it has anything to do with the dead person. They have been killed. That's done. Destroying someone's body and THEN respecting it is... well, funny. I think that the real question is about how the death is used by the government. What is the line between terrorizing your population and having a deterrent? Ultimately this is a fairly subjective question.

I maintain that ALL death penalty is wrong.... but maybe there is more to the public/private thing that I thought. I still don't know what to think. But this makes me think of lynchings in the States... about the way that the bodies of murdered people of colour were exploited to further terrorize the population. And, while it was not government policy, there certainly were many places where government officials participated and where there was little done to punish/prevent these crimes.

For capital punishment, maybe there are two potential crimes here that, although connected, are distinct.

1) The state should never have a legal power to put prisoners to death. It is always wrong.
2) If the state gives itself that power, they should never do it in such a way that the killing is exploited and used to terrorize the population.

BUT, if it is within the context of the judicial system, one of the principles of sentencing is "deterrence". I am quite sure that public executions are justified under the premise that this has a deterrent effect. How do we reconcile that? How do we determine what is dehumanizing/exploitative/terrorizing and what is a deterrent?

I realize that my bias (anti-death penalty) makes it impossible to see much distinction because I think that the application of the death penalty is about terrorizing a population so the second question is moot... but if I am wrong... if there is a place where the death penalty makes sense (theoretically... because I don't think that I will ever change my mind on that front) then that legitimacy is only maintained when the death is only used to punish/deter... and not to terrorize. Keeping it private certainly could go a ways in trying to ensure that the death does not take a terrorizing role. So, I can see how the distinction that the American model is less offensive than the Saudi one makes sense.... but they both remain absolutely repugnant to me (sorry, just had to say that one more time).

 

[xhristlives]

interestingly enough the whole of Saudi Arabia is seen as holy land by muslims, which may b y they take it so seriously and publicly...NOT that 1 agree with either the death penalty OR islam!!

 

[praying]

There is... you are right... and I should have bolded the note that I placed at the bottom of my post or explained it more. There is a difference and one is less awful... but the question remains should the government EVER allow itself that power (and you and I agree that it shouldn't). The problem with articles like this is that they try to create a distinction that appeals to our guts... to condemn the Saudis... which implicitly legitimizes the position that the death penalty is okay as long as it is not done publicly. The point is not the public/private divide.... it is that the state should never have such coercive power. Is it better to drop napalm on people or to lob cruise missles at them? Is it better to stab someone or to shoot them? Is it better to target civillians or to knowingly and willfully initiate attacks that will have large amounts of "collateral damage"? We might be able to draw qualitative differences but all of these acts cause death and they are all wrong... and I was just worried that the article was trying to mask that.

(I hope that you are having a great Sunday M. )

JD, having a great Sunday and hope you are too.

I agreee about the not having the power to administer the death penalty however I don't agree about the distinction in the difference between the two. The Saudi's which are notorious human rights abusers are not merely invoking the death penalty but using a form of state sanctioned terror to keep the citizenry in line.

 

[praying]

Yeah, as I have been thinking more about this, I think that I might have been wrong in my first assertion but I am not sure.

Paying respect to the body is... disingenous... or... well, something. Frankly, I don't think that it has anything to do with the dead person. They have been killed. That's done. Destroying someone's body and THEN respecting it is... well, funny.

That respect JD is not for the deceased really it is for the deceased family, no matter what they did in life they were still someone's brother, uncle, father etc.

I think that the real question is about how the death is used by the government. What is the line between terrorizing your population and having a deterrent? Ultimately this is a fairly subjective question.

Well as you can see from my previous post (I hadn't read this reply yet) I think there is a clear line in this instance.

I maintain that ALL death penalty is wrong.... but maybe there is more to the public/private thing that I thought. I still don't know what to think. But this makes me think of lynchings in the States... about the way that the bodies of murdered people of colour were exploited to further terrorize the population. And, while it was not government policy, there certainly were many places where government officials participated and where there was little done to punish/prevent these crimes.

Though the argument could be strongly made that even though not legally sanctioned the government by benign neglect (not pursuing prosecution or policy to stop lynchings) was a passive participant in the lynchings

For capital punishment, maybe there are two potential crimes here that, although connected, are distinct.

1) The state should never have a legal power to put prisoners to death. It is always wrong.
2) If the state gives itself that power, they should never do it in such a way that the killing is exploited and used to terrorize the population.

BUT, if it is within the context of the judicial system, one of the principles of sentencing is "deterrence". I am quite sure that public executions are justified under the premise that this has a deterrent effect. How do we reconcile that? How do we determine what is dehumanizing/exploitative/terrorizing and what is a deterrent?

I think they the only way is to draw a line in the sand and for me that line is incarceration and harsher prison sentences for subsequent crimes. There is never for me the justifiable use of terror as a deterrent.

I realize that my bias (anti-death penalty) makes it impossible to see much distinction because I think that the application of the death penalty is about terrorizing a population so the second question is moot...

i don't think the application of the death penalty here is to terrorize, just the process only and the long appeals etc takes away any real deterrent factor.

but if I am wrong... if there is a place where the death penalty makes sense (theoretically... because I don't think that I will ever change my mind on that front) then that legitimacy is only maintained when the death is only used to punish/deter... and not to terrorize. Keeping it private certainly could go a ways in trying to ensure that the death does not take a terrorizing role. So, I can see how the distinction that the American model is less offensive than the Saudi one makes sense.... but they both remain absolutely repugnant to me (sorry, just had to say that one more time).

You are not wrong the death penalty never makes sense. It might be what we want on an emotional level but giving into the sense for retribution is giving into to our baser instincts IMHO. Let God mete out the ultimate punishment.