Saudi: Why we punished rape victim
 

Saudi: Why we punished rape victim

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...tim/index.html

This is where breeching the separation of church and state leads.

I think that living under Shar'ia law in a Wahabi state might have something to do with it too. Followers of this branch of Sunni Islam believe that the Koran lays down exactly how a Muslim should live in every aspect of life. The state is religion and the religion is state. The only law is the law laid down by Mohammed, therefore the American style separation of Church and State is impossible.

Unless you are expecting the States to start following Shar'ia law any time soon I don't think you need to worry about it coming to this.

Shhhh! RK, they're our allies, remember?
They're helping us fight the baddies.
[/irony]

Remember where 85% of the S-11 hijackers came from?

as a woman, this kind of shit makes my blood boil. They're the same people who think it's perfectly fine to murder your own daughter for going on a date.

This incident served to arouse a discussion today, and an interesting one at that. Rape is a singularly grating crime. Because of our attitudes toward sex, forcing another into sexual intercourse, or any other molestation, is probably the most humiliating and degrading act conceivable. I don't think there is anyone on this forum that argues that point.

SO, that being said, and it is right and good that a rapist be punished (as the rapists in this case reportedly were), the reason this woman is being punished is somewhat unconnected to her rape. She was punished for being in a car with an unrelated male (who was also raped). So the question I raise is, does her victimization absolve her responsibility for her crime?

My gut reaction, of course, is yes. We always tell underage women (or men) that they wont be prosecuted for things like underage drinking or drug use when reporting a rape. This is in interest of fair reporting on the victim's part. But ignoring for the moment that we completely disagree with the laws against women's rights, is it right to absolve this victim from her crime because she was wronged some other way?

Because of the ridiculousness of the saudi religious laws, I'll put forth an analogy that I used earlier today. A woman burgles a house, and in the process is discovered by the owner and he decides to rape her, maybe to "teach her a lesson." When the cops arrive and find the woman's been raped, is she given immunity based on the circumstances her rape?

And if she IS given immunity, at what point DO we begin to prosecute her crimes? Does she have to murder someone? Is there ever a circumstance when a rape victim is prosecuted?

Just something I've been thinking about.

a thoughtful post, but I really don't think you can compare the Saudi's actions with any scenario involving Western law. She was in a car with an unrelated male. Against their laws, fine. the BIG stink was when she was further punished for talking to the media about it, rather publicly humiliating the Saudis.

But 200 lashes? Not to mention 6 months in jail? Come on. Can people even survive 200 lashes? And then they disbarred her lawyer when she had the effontry to appeal, leaving her without representation.

One of the things that gets me so mad is that it's always the woman's fault because the men can't control themselves. The sight of a woman's hair or ankle naturally incites men to unreasoning beasts, therefore it's not their fault.

Well, GROW UP, I say!

The question was posed about western law as well as well as saudi (after a fashion). They give lashes, we give years in jail. In either circumstance, and accepting for the sake of argument that there is nothing questionable about their laws (or ours), is it ok to absolve someone of their crimes for being victimized? I'm not sure it is, after a point. If this woman's crime was severe enough (say murder) would that still be ignored if she were brutally raped?

We had a case in the last few years where a Norfolk farmer who had been burgled several times shot a fleeing burglar in the back (still on his property). The teenager died and the farmer was initially charged with murder and sent to prison. The sentence was reduced to manslaughter and he served three years of a five year sentence.

So in that case the more heinous crime was punished. Hard to say if the thief would also have been, but even if he had survived I believe it unlikely his sentence would have been the same.

Therefore, even though I don't know of any case where the criminal was raped I would assume it would outweigh the crime of theft.

Except that. Except, that... It is unlikely ever to come to prosecution, statistically. And even less likely to end in a conviction, statistically. And with the significant drawback of a criminal in the dock.... well. Many juries feel the weight of the burden of proof on them for a "normal" rape case. My belief is that in this country at least, they wouldn't believe a word the victim said. And forget evidence - it is always disputed in a rape case anyway.

Unless a bloke beats the shit out of the woman, it's very hard to prove he's guilty of raping her...if you take the evidence into account.

I know this from my own experience as head juror in a rape case.

While it seemed on the surface of it that the woman was raped, there was no evidence to suggest it, and even she could give no evidence because her only answer when questioned was, "I don't remember".

In the end, the jury decided that the only thing we could convict anyone for was being stupid, and unfortunately, that's not a crime.

I've seen discussion on this on several boards. Many people are missing a very important part of this scenario. I don't see it discussed here. The girl was abducted, and raped. She was taken into a car against her will. Then she was punished for being in the car?!?

The Saudi law seems to be saying that it doesn't matter if a woman gets into a car with a strange man of her own accord or against her will. She's screwed either way.

That's pretty much it. It's been discussed on this board before which might be why there are less comments in this particular thread.

That's according to the telegraph, and BBC reports the same. She was not forced into the car, that's why I pose the question. She was commiting a crime (unjust crime, but that's not important to my question) in no connection to the rapes when she was assaulted.

I suppose the reason I'm stressing this is that I think it is an important question that remains largely unaddressed (at least in US courts). I have no problem with allowing for absolution of things like underage drinking, maybe because I think it's a stupid crime to punish in the first place.

But here's the big question (rephrased again): We find it perfectly acceptable to shoot someone for, say, breaking into our house. In some cases, even in the burglar is in broad daylight and is shown to have no weapon and therefore poses you no threat, you can shoot him simply for being on your property. This cannot be defended as self preservation, because you KNOW the person isn't a threat. So we take that burglar that was shot and give him his legal punishment. What if you raped him instead? Would his crime be absolved and yours be punished?

I guess what it boils down to is; is it ok to absolve rape victims based on a "time served" kind of thing? They've already suffered enough, we can't punish them on top of all that?

I still haven't figured it out.

I really don't see why you are stressing. Separate crimes, separate criminal prosecutions. Motive and intent are taken into account. Our legal system is perfectly capable of handling this.

Are you serious?
You think because the sun is shining and you can't see a weapon in their hand, the person who just broke into your home is no threat to you??? Really??? Seriously???