Don't take this into such extremes, it is pointless. Fact is that it is possible to take some reasonable precautions and avoid risky behaviors. It is for one's own good. Period. Consider this: What if the state, out of concern for the welfare of its citizens, would have a mandatory jail sentence for everyone who hasn't started a retirement fund by the time they are 30 years old? I'm sure many people would consider this outrageous. Yet from the perspective of a good guardian, some forceful actions are in place. This is very liberal and probably nice, but unrealistic. Some people think that Earth should be heaven and we should be free to behave accordingly ... Nobody is trying to justify rape.
Phlogistician, JLocke, Bells, You seem to be arguing on the grounds of some honor issues. Whereas the actual welfare of an individual seems to be of lesser concern than honor to you.
One should expect to be assaulted, raped, robbed, murdered, killed by a falling meteorite, one's home flooded or burnt and so on simply because one lives on planet Earth. This isn't heaven. Of course, such is always possible. But they respected the Law. Which, in the great scheme of things, is more important. If my child would get raped, and I would know that he or she was engaged in what he or she knew in advance was risky behavior, I would punish the child in some way as well. He or she would need to learn not to engage in risky behavior, for his own or her own welbeing.
I'm sorry but I'm confused, I live in the USA, I don't know if you do; however, here we believe that 'we' should decide what the government does, not the other way around...it's called a democracy. The government should not be a separate entity to the people, dictating this or that from it's high position of 'guardian'. The government represents the people, and if the people decide that it should be a criminal offense not to start a retirement fund (would never happen but regardless), then I would have no problem with that law.
As opposed to you who seem to find it perfectly reasonable that this women will be whipped for being in a car with unrelated males who raped her...
Hahahahaha, ok, discussion over. We obviously have very very very different moral values, and I don't think any amount of discussion will change either of our minds on this one....so I'm out.
If you are willing to accept such a state of affairs then that is up to you. I will not tolerate such an enviornment it bears no semblance to where and how I live. It's not hell either When a societal structure is in such a state that it ceases to function in the face of adversity (girls burning to death, woman having to go somewhere but no male relation is available), in the greater scheme of things the that society needs to be fixed (along with the laws). Leo V is that you?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Lemme know how that works out for ya.
When I was younger, I did some pretty stupid and bad things, and some bad things happened to me as well. I wish my parents and the people in charge weren't so liberal and "full of understanding" then. In the long run, the way they have handled those situations actually made things worse for me.
Not at all, repressing women 'for their own good' is the cause of all this. My concern is exactly that of the welfare of the woman; Like I said, if the issue is men being alone with non-related women, lest the man assaults the woman, let the man be punished.
When I was 13 I was arrested, my parents didn't punish me, just looked terribly sad. That changed my direction.
Then you should realise that you have some issues to deal with still, and that your percecption of what is risky, moral, and acceptable is tainted, and it clearly is to the rest of us. Go get some therapy kid.
From the sound of it there are multiple issues here - and everyone seems to be talking cross-purposes: 1. The woman broke the law (being in company of un-related male). Is this a reasonable law? Is the country far too male-biased? 2. The woman was punished for breaking the law above. Does the punishment (200 lashes) fit the crime? 3. The woman was the victim of a rape. Does the law she broke prevent such things? Is there not better ways to prevent such things than seemingly draconian laws? 4. The men were punished for their crime. Was the punishment they received befitting the crime they committed? The woman broke the law of the society she was in - and therefore punished according to the law. The men broke the law by raping the woman - and were punished. If, in the UK, X shot at and injured Y while Y was trying to nick his car, then X would be done for shooting Y and Y would be punished for trying to nick a car, even though he was injured and the apparent victim of a crime / shooting. While the laws of SA might be a tad more restrictive (especially for women), the principles of who is punished and for what remain the same.
I think something kinda like this happened here in the US. A woman was raped and instead of taking her to the hospital, they took her to jail. She had an outstanding warrant. Granted, its not near as bad as this Saudi case, but still.
So you live in a true Utopia ....where nothing bad ever happens to anyone in your world? That's a pretty interesting place you have there. Just remember, if it can happen to "Joe" down the street, it can happen to you. Baron Max
Life is not without dangers Baron but the manner in which Greenberg framed that statement is beyond my life. It's the "I should expect to " that does it. Guess I got abit reactionary. None the less I think Sarkus outlined the legal particulars of this fairly well.
Let's not mix up contexts. Saudi Arabian laws make sense within the Saudi Arabian society and their laws. It would be absurd to suddenly introduce such laws to a country like the U.S., and I'm not suggesting that. But do note that even in so-called Western countries, judges and juries (depending on the particular law system of the country) sometimes do take into consideration the state of the person before he or she was attacked. Which can result in a milder or harsher sentence for the perpetrator.
Muslim society is heavily patriarchal, and sharia law only enforces this. They are basically scared of a woman's power, hence the restrictions on what she can do, where she can be.