Saudi Arabia & Justice

KRAM1 · March 9, 2009

Hopefully, the attached link will work. Seems a 70 something women was sentaced to lashes for having two unrealted men in her house at the same time. Check it out. This stuff is simply amazing! I hope one of the links work. You simply cannot make this stuff up! Can you spell "Dark Ages"?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506984,00.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/03/09/Eld...39751236597845/

EagleD · March 9, 2009

We call them an ally.

meangreendork · March 10, 2009

Yes, evidently. Enemy of my enemy is my friend?

DeepGreen · March 12, 2009

Those that despise US offshore drilling and want our country to continue being dependant on countries like Saudia Arabia, Venezuala, etc., please don't b!tch.

meangreendork · March 12, 2009

They're still going to, you know that.

I mean, I get the environmental concern that the drilling may seriously hurt the environment. And although I'm almost always for the protection of the planet, it's one of those times where a sacrifice has to be made. You can't say we wanna stop taking our oil from imports if we don't have a viable alternative. We have some fuel alternatives like algae-based gasoline, but that's still on the horizon. Even though that fuel works, and works as well as gasoline (it's also carbon-neutral) there just aren't the facilities to use it on a national scale yet.

Until then, the oil has to come from somewhere. It might as well be our own oil, and we might as well pay our own people to drill for it.

oldguystudent · March 12, 2009

When there is written guarantee that oil drilled in ANWAR is used exclusively to meet domestic demand, I'm all for it.

KRAM1 · March 12, 2009

Drill, baby, drill!!!! And, while you are at it...how about developing some new nuclear power plants? Did anyone else notice that Obama left nuclear power "out" while touting wind, solar, etc.? Wind and solar, while great programs can, in no way, generate enough power to off-set imported oil in any timeframe relatively appropraite. Got to drill for toady, and build nuclear facilities for the future while we develop comerivcally viable wind and solar programs. We must look at all sources...how about that oil sand in Canada? Tons of it. I have no problem importing from Canada, do you?

DeepGreen · March 12, 2009

They're still going to, you know that.
I mean, I get the environmental concern that the drilling may seriously hurt the environment. And although I'm almost always for the protection of the planet, it's one of those times where a sacrifice has to be made. You can't say we wanna stop taking our oil from imports if we don't have a viable alternative. We have some fuel alternatives like algae-based gasoline, but that's still on the horizon. Even though that fuel works, and works as well as gasoline (it's also carbon-neutral) there just aren't the facilities to use it on a national scale yet.
Until then, the oil has to come from somewhere. It might as well be our own oil, and we might as well pay our own people to drill for it.

There's hope for you yet!

meangreendork · March 15, 2009

There's hope for you yet!

I'm a moderate, so I'm realistic about this sort of thing, but always waiting for whatever new fuel source to get off its butt and break the dependency cycle. That said, it's also weird being in Texas since people assume you're a hard-right militia member or a far-left rebellion member.

UNTFan23 · March 15, 2009

Don't other countries have a problem with our death penalty?

meangreendork · March 15, 2009

Don't other countries have a problem with our death penalty?

Yeah, they do. I'd say that the US killing a person convicted of murder would be a little closer to the ideal 1:1 ratio of crime to punishment than what happened in the original posted article.

UNTFan23 · March 15, 2009

Yeah, they do. I'd say that the US killing a person convicted of murder would be a little closer to the ideal 1:1 ratio of crime to punishment than what happened in the original posted article.

True, but the cultural differences between US and Saudi Arabia are completely different. Their views on women are completely different than ours. I'm not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

meangreendork · March 15, 2009

True, but the cultural differences between US and Saudi Arabia are completely different. Their views on women are completely different than ours. I'm not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

That's what makes this so difficult. We see women as equals. They see women almost as second-class individuals. Both groups see their views as what is right and it would be difficult to convince either side to change their stances. I don't believe that the Saudis are quite as civilized and forward-thinking as they would believe themselves to be, but they look at us and see the same, I would guess.

UNTflyer · March 15, 2009

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 16, 2009

Those that despise US offshore drilling and want our country to continue being dependant on countries like Saudia Arabia, Venezuala, etc., please don't b!tch.

Exactly. We keep ourselves in a financial and political noose because we won't drill what we have offshore.

That whole sandbox over there wasn't worth a squirt of piss until oil was discovered. Once Gaddaffi brought BP to their knees, the rest of the Arab world took notice and, eventually, took control of the worldwide market through OPEC.

They only control it because we let them. And, we let them because of the envirowhackjobs that now infiltrate every walk of American life - from the Unabomber fringes to the falsely guilt-ridden, middle class church pews of the Rick Warrens of the world.

Our dependence on foreign oil is the most unnecessary waste of time and resources going. If we drilled our own, OPEC would have no choice but to fall into line. We could stop wasting so much diplomatic time and effort on the Baal-worshiping, mental midgets in the middle east and simply ignore them.

KRAM1 · March 16, 2009

Exactly. We keep ourselves in a financial and political noose because we won't drill what we have offshore.
That whole sandbox over there wasn't worth a squirt of piss until oil was discovered. Once Gaddaffi brought BP to their knees, the rest of the Arab world took notice and, eventually, took control of the worldwide market through OPEC.
They only control it because we let them. And, we let them because of the envirowhackjobs that now infiltrate every walk of American life - from the Unabomber fringes to the falsely guilt-ridden, middle class church pews of the Rick Warrens of the world.
Our dependence on foreign oil is the most unnecessary waste of time and resources going. If we drilled our own, OPEC would have no choice but to fall into line. We could stop wasting so much diplomatic time and effort on the Baal-worshiping, mental midgets in the middle east and simply ignore them.

Wow...Lonnie...way to go. You even made sense in this one and it wasn't 50,000 words long. OK< sorry...just having a little fun with ya! Post of the day so far...but, watch out, those "envirowhacjobs" you mention are sure to reply soon enough. :clapping:shocking:

SilverEagle · March 16, 2009

You know, I find this story, and everyone's reaction to it (as well as the guy who beheaded his wife over here) rather interesting. We think we are soooo much more "evolved" when it comes to women, and how we treat them, but this article seems to say otherwise.

www.cnn.com

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- A man sentenced to just four months in prison for killing his wife, after a jury concluded he acted in a blind fury, drew a 15-year term for wounding her boyfriend.

Jimmy Dean Watkins pleaded guilty Wednesday to attempted murder for shooting Keith Fontenot on December 22, 1998. Watkins' estranged wife, Nancy, was killed with multiple gunshots as she tried to dial 911 during the attack.

The jury at his 1999 trial found Watkins guilty of murdering his wife but decided he acted with "sudden passion" when he discovered her with Fontenot.

In a decision that provoked an outcry, the jury recommended 10 years' probation. Because of the jury's recommendation, the most the judge could have given Watkins was six months behind bars. He sentenced Watkins to four months.

I don't know how the law reads now, but it used to be that the law in Texas would totally let you get away with shooting your wife AND her lover if you caught them in the act.

Besides this, how many times do we read in the paper about former wives/girlfriends/casual acquaintences who are stalked, shot, stabbed and beaten by the male that professes to love them. I suppose that if some ex-husband/boyfriend decides to beat his ex-wife/girlfiend to death with a baseball bat, then that would be less objectionable than cutting their head off. After all, Baseball is our national sport.

While these acts are certainly not sanctioned by the law, they have not gone away either.....regardless of how "evolved" we claim to be. So as a society we have failed miserably in raising our sons to TRUELY BELIEVE that men and women are equal.

Edited March 16, 2009 by SilverEagle

KRAM1 · March 17, 2009

You know, I find this story, and everyone's reaction to it (as well as the guy who beheaded his wife over here) rather interesting. We think we are soooo much more "evolved" when it comes to women, and how we treat them, but this article seems to say otherwise.
www.cnn.com
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- A man sentenced to just four months in prison for killing his wife, after a jury concluded he acted in a blind fury, drew a 15-year term for wounding her boyfriend.
Jimmy Dean Watkins pleaded guilty Wednesday to attempted murder for shooting Keith Fontenot on December 22, 1998. Watkins' estranged wife, Nancy, was killed with multiple gunshots as she tried to dial 911 during the attack.
The jury at his 1999 trial found Watkins guilty of murdering his wife but decided he acted with "sudden passion" when he discovered her with Fontenot.
In a decision that provoked an outcry, the jury recommended 10 years' probation. Because of the jury's recommendation, the most the judge could have given Watkins was six months behind bars. He sentenced Watkins to four months.
I don't know how the law reads now, but it used to be that the law in Texas would totally let you get away with shooting your wife AND her lover if you caught them in the act.
Besides this, how many times do we read in the paper about former wives/girlfriends/casual acquaintences who are stalked, shot, stabbed and beaten by the male that professes to love them. I suppose that if some ex-husband/boyfriend decides to beat his ex-wife/girlfiend to death with a baseball bat, then that would be less objectionable than cutting their head off. After all, Baseball is our national sport.
While these acts are certainly not sanctioned by the law, they have not gone away either.....regardless of how "evolved" we claim to be. So as a society we have failed miserably in raising our sons to TRUELY BELIEVE that men and women are equal.

The American justice system can "issue" some very interesting verdicts for sure, but at least the guy went to trail. In many parts of the world, men who commit these crimes against women are hailed as "family honor defenders" in their respective countries and never go to trial much less jail. Yes, I would say there IS a difference.

SilverEagle · March 17, 2009

The American justice system can "issue" some very interesting verdicts for sure, but at least the guy went to trail. In many parts of the world, men who commit these crimes against women are hailed as "family honor defenders" in their respective countries and never go to trial much less jail. Yes, I would say there IS a difference.

I find the aformentioned acts of "honor" just as disgusting as anyone on this forum. I'm just saying that until our women are no longer stalked, stabbed, shot and beaten by the males who claim to love them (or admire them) we have very little to feel superior about on this issue.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 20, 2009

Silver, you're talking about two separate things. Over there, the Baalist government sponsors the beating of a 70 year old woman. It's a law on the books there. We don't have a similar law on our books, nor would we.

Further in the case you discuss, the man was convicted of murder, but his sentence was given in light of the use of the "sudden passion" doctrine, which is not only on the books, but also well-established common law dating back well over 100 years. The crux of the matter lies in the intent of the criminal actor.

In this case, the jury could have rejected the "sudden passion" issue brought during the sentencing phase. It didn't. And, in America, you get what you get when you have 12 random people deciding the fate of another - and basing that decision on the information presented by two attorneys and what is allowed by the judge...who is also a former attorney.

Now, obviously, if you don't like the "sudden passion" defense, the best thing you can do, politically, is to vote for Republican judges. On the whole, conservative judges are less tolerant of such defenses than liberal judges. However, you may be one to vote straight ticket Democrat, thereby putting judges on the bench who are more lenient with defense attorneys and their clients.

Better yet, you might vote for Republican legislators who are more likely to pass laws that make is harder for defense attorneys to get their clients off with such defenses as "sudden passion."

In any case, you compare apples to oranges. We don't have laws on the book that call for beating women who have two unrelated men in their home. Saudi Arabia does.

SilverEagle · March 20, 2009

Silver, you're talking about two separate things. Over there, the Baalist government sponsors the beating of a 70 year old woman. It's a law on the books there. We don't have a similar law on our books, nor would we.
Further in the case you discuss, the man was convicted of murder, but his sentence was given in light of the use of the "sudden passion" doctrine, which is not only on the books, but also well-established common law dating back well over 100 years. The crux of the matter lies in the intent of the criminal actor.
In this case, the jury could have rejected the "sudden passion" issue brought during the sentencing phase. It didn't. And, in America, you get what you get when you have 12 random people deciding the fate of another - and basing that decision on the information presented by two attorneys and what is allowed by the judge...who is also a former attorney.
Now, obviously, if you don't like the "sudden passion" defense, the best thing you can do, politically, is to vote for Republican judges. On the whole, conservative judges are less tolerant of such defenses than liberal judges. However, you may be one to vote straight ticket Democrat, thereby putting judges on the bench who are more lenient with defense attorneys and their clients.
Better yet, you might vote for Republican legislators who are more likely to pass laws that make is harder for defense attorneys to get their clients off with such defenses as "sudden passion."
In any case, you compare apples to oranges. We don't have laws on the book that call for beating women who have two unrelated men in their home. Saudi Arabia does.

To me allowing "sudden passion" as an excuse to kill your (alleged) loved one is not much different than a country that has a law on it's books allowing the of beating a woman for having two unrelated males in the same room.

My observation of "conservative Judges" is that they tend to favor the male point of view of the law. I don't think that liberal legislators or liberal judges are responsible for the laws in Texas that allowed someone to kill their wife under the rationalization of "sudden passion".

oldguystudent · March 20, 2009

My observation of "conservative Judges" is that they tend to favor the male point of view of the law. I don't think that liberal legislators or liberal judges are responsible for the laws in Texas that allowed someone to kill their wife under the rationalization of "sudden passion".

I would think if anything, a liberal legislator would deem a crime of passion as a hate crime and tack on extra penalties.

Side Show Joe · March 21, 2009

Don't other countries have a problem with our death penalty?

Other states have a problem with our death penalty. Many think less of Texas because of the amount of people we put to death. Which is OK with me, because I don't have to worry about too many of them wanting to move here and ruin out state.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Side Show Joe

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 23, 2009

To me allowing "sudden passion" as an excuse to kill your (alleged) loved one is not much different than a country that has a law on it's books allowing the of beating a woman for having two unrelated males in the same room.
My observation of "conservative Judges" is that they tend to favor the male point of view of the law. I don't think that liberal legislators or liberal judges are responsible for the laws in Texas that allowed someone to kill their wife under the rationalization of "sudden passion".

There is no "male point of view of the law." The law is what it is - written in code (statutory law) or given in judicial decisions (common law). In America, we have jury trials because everyone is guaranteed the right to a trial if accused of a crime. The juries are composed of men and women. Men and women serve as attorney, judges, and advocates. To say that there is a "male point of view of the law" is to simply discard reality.

Liberal judges and legislators are responsible for "sudden passion" laws and decisions because they favor criminal defense attorneys - the people who fill the campaign coffers of liberal judges and legislators.

It's okay that you don't like the truth. I've met many liberal people in the law who struggle with their conscience about criminal matters. They are in a profession where they choose to defend cold-blooded killers, so their consciences should be pricked somewhat. "Sudden passion" is one of the many defense schemes they've concocted over the decades.

It offends your sense of justice, but the majority of defense attorneys don't really care about your sense of justice. They will walk into a voting booth, the same as you, and pull the lever straight ticket Democrat because they know liberal judges and legislators are the best friends of their profession. That's why they and trial attorneys shovel money to Democratic candidates.

Liberal judges and legislators are all about parole for "good behavior", "rehabilitation" programs, "early release" programs, "insanity" defenses, probation instead of jail time even for some violent offenses, and on and on and on, on and on (the beat don't stop until the break of dawn).

If Conservative/Republican judges were more lenient on criminals, they defense attorneys would be giving them the campaign cash. It's real easy. You just follow the money of those who use these defenses and who defend criminals - they go to liberal candidates. It's not rocket science. People in all walks of life are going to favor those who help them out.

Edited March 23, 2009 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

UNTLifer · March 23, 2009

Other states have a problem with our death penalty. Many think less of Texas because of the amount of people we put to death. Which is OK with me, because I don't have to worry about too many of them wanting to move here and ruin out state.

Underrated, but appreciated. :lol: