Saudi gang rape victim to be flogged

Remove all ads!

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.

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.

Yup. Just not 200 lashes.

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.

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'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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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:

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:

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 .

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

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.

 

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:

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:

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:

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.

 

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.

 

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?

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

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.

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.

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

 

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?