Now here’s a story from Saudi Gazette/Okaz that nicely points out a contradiction in Saudi society. Executions and floggings are held in public. Some of them are publicized on the day through announcements in newspapers. Those passing by the place of execution/punishment are encouraged to watch. The reasoning behind this is the old political adage: “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.” Public executions and lashings certainly provide the visual aspect of that.
But—and it’s a sizable but—these things cannot be photographed. The ‘law’ that would seem to be in effect here is that certain things should not be photographed as they might bring shame or dishonor on the country. Taking pictures of slums, for instance, is generally not something the police like to see. (I’ll note parenthetically that some police in the US also have strange ideas about what can or cannot be photographed. Many of their rules seem to be creations of their own minds.)
Are public punishments shameful? If they are shameful, why are they being conducted in public? They certainly cause shame in those being punished, of course, so it is they who are being protected?
Public punishments used to be the rule in the West. There are many stories about the hangings at London’s Tyburn Tree or executions at Smithfields. The use of stocks and pillories in public squares was to be found from Vienna to Philadelphia. But then, punishments moved indoors, out of the public eye. Throughout the 20th C. in America, it wasn’t too difficult, though, to find pictures of hangings, electrocutions, gas chamber asphyxiations, even if conducted within prison grounds. Even today, an Internet search will pop up photographs that portray these things.
I suspect that this is the actual reason behind the photo ban in the Kingdom: photos are no longer in the control of the government—the party conducting the punishment—and could ‘go viral’ despite what the government sees as its interest. But if that’s the case, why have public punishments in the first place?
2 in trouble for photographing public lashings
Adnan Al-ShabrawiJEDDAH – Two Saudi men who allegedly photographed 30 convicts being lashed recently at Az-Zahra Square on Al-Arbaeen Street will soon go on trial.
The two were referred by the Commission for Investigation and Prosecution (CIP) to the Summary Court.
They were arrested and detained at As-Safa Police station before being referred to the CIP which released them pending trial.
…
I’ll note with some wryness that many of the same arguments—though with a very different context—are used in calling for the sessions of the US Supreme Court to be televised. ‘Til now, the Court has rejected the arguments. With a new Justice aboard, however, that may change.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
September:08:2009 - 07:16
Interestingly one can easily tell when non-Muslim readers write about such matters which they don’t understand.
In contrast to Western delayed pusishment by imprisoning, the immediate punishment is supposed to be sufficient penance for the crime. The punished person can not be held responsible for the crime after the punishment or considered a criminal.
A picture would show the person as a criminal even years after the punishment and newspapers would distribute his image as a criminal even in cities where noone knows this person.
So, encouraging people to watch and prohibiting photos to be taken isn’t contradicting.
September:08:2009 - 11:27
Perhaps showing executions and flogging publicly is used as means to deter crime. Personally, I do not believe in public executions, much less executions at all. (But that is another topic for another day)
I have met one person who saw such a horrid thing and was traumitized for the longest time. I think I would be too if I saw such thing…so the last thing I wuld do is take a photo to remember.
There is a motto “Violenece only begets violence”. As “slippery slope” as some claim this motto to be, it has got some truth to it.
I really do not think that the public flogging and executions are going to change. It hasn’t yet in the neighboring states such as Kuwait and the UAE, so it problably will not disapear in KSA anythime in near future or anytime at all. My advice to anyone is not to go shopping go near the the “square” in Riyadh on a Friday afternoon after service—one will save themselves grief if they have got a weak stomach.
September:08:2009 - 13:43
In the West, once one is convicted of a crime, then one is a criminal. One might be rehabilitated, of course, though that’s up to the individual to reform him- or herself. Nevertheless, a conviction is a matter of public record. What weight that bears on the individual’s future will be up to both how the individual leads his life and how gravely society sees his crime and culpability. You may pretend that this is not the case in Islamic societies, but you’d be wrong. Good behavior and society’s acceptance do not change the fact that the person was a criminal, as determined by the law. Historical facts are not open to revision, but they may be reinterpreted over time.
You cannot tell me, in any credible way, that those who graduate from the ‘terrorist rehabilitation’ programs will not be suspect in the future, that both the government and their neighbors won’t be keeping a close eye on them. Nor will you convince me that, say, a child molester should be able to simply fade into the background of society.
Yes, shame can be a terrible burden, particularly in societies that operate on the honor/shame system. The easy answer is to avoid the shameful act, not to pretend shameful acts didn’t and don’t happen.
I think your ideals collide with facts of human nature, no matter the religion or society.
September:08:2009 - 13:44
Perhaps, as has happened in the West, punishments won’t have to be in public.
September:08:2009 - 16:10
In 7th century Medina- if someone was publically lashed for a crime- everyone knew about it. The anonymity reason doesn’t make sense. Not only that, even though punishments were done and over- former “criminals” is you were- were often excluded as viable sources for Hadith because of charactar issues. So people did indeed know who had done what. It is only modern living and mega-populations that can provide the anonymity.
Now maybe an arguement can be made to the dignity of the person being punished. That others should have a photo of their shame may not be right. I’m not sure that is the motivation for the stopping of pictures,however. I think they don’t want the international press to have the photo’s, because “a picture is worth a thousand words”.
September:08:2009 - 16:48
That’s a very good point and one I hadn’t considered.
Now I understand if shame is an issue. That’s what’s behind the Geneva Conventions on Warfare that prohibit pictures of prisoners of war, for instance. But if the punishment is conducted in public, media are purely a surrogate for people who couldn’t get their for whatever reason. If it is too shameful–and please, someone, explain how the Saudi crucifixion thing avoids shame–then it should be done in private.
And explanation of ‘just a bit shameful, for right now, but we’ll all laugh about it in the morning’ doesn’t cut it.
September:08:2009 - 17:27
I only know if I were publically punished- I wouldn’t want people to have pictures imortalizing it- as it were. Of course, I wouldn’t like the public punishment either- but in that case the visual is transient. People will know what happened but the visual will fade. Momentary visual shame as opposed to perpetual visual shame.
But- I’m not convinced that’s why authorities stop the photos. I think they know how it will be perceived in world public opinion.
September:08:2009 - 17:31
I actually think Interested’s comment made sense. The perpetual public shaming or reminding of guilt serves no useful social purpose, neither rehabilitation nor further crime prevention (if ever that purpose was serve) which is why in the West for example it is reserved for some sex offenders, and serial killers (Canada’s dangerous offender status which results in imprisonment until death). In the US there is concern about the fact that the vast majority of those on the sex offender registry are not likely to re-offend. Only 3-5% are incorrigibly likely to re-offend. The rest are having trouble working, finding a place to live, and being with their own children for crimes like being 16 and having sex with their 14 year old then girlfriend, now wife.
Two good articles on this in the Economist of Aug 6th 2009:
Sex laws: Unjust and ineffective
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614
Illiberal politics: America’s unjust sex laws
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14165460&mode=comment&page=1
September:08:2009 - 17:42
I think you’ve put your finger on it. It’s a sore spot where tradition and modernity are rubbing against each other. I think the KSA will eventually get to the point where punishments are conducted in private, and perhaps even where corporal punishment is not carried out. Capital punishment will be the last to go, if it goes.
Chiara: The problem with US sex offender lists is that too many relatively innocuous things are being categorized as ‘sex crimes’. Urinating off the side of a highway, for instance, or ‘statutory rape’ when both are close to, but not quite at the legal age for sex. A college kid streaking at an event can end up suffering more than if he’d killed fellow students.
September:08:2009 - 22:17
I would like to add a little to this conversation. Personally, I think interested makes no sense. I disagree with Chiara. And cases mentioned like let’s say a 20 year old with a sixteen year old well his or her parents must have seen it fit to take legal action. The state (to my knowledge) does not take action itself in such instances. I know there is the whole age of legal consent and I think it is getting younger.
A lot of places of employment require a background check and that includes sometimes criminal background checks. They look into all the nitty gritty. A potential employer could know how much you spend on lingerie. How? If, say, you open up a credit card at say “Victoria’s Secret” they can find out how much you spend there. That is why I much prefer a Visa.
At any rate, nothing anymore is a secret including and ESPECIALLY a person’s criminal history. People make mistakes and yes pay for them for the rest of their lives. Employers and society will judge people and shun them because of having a criminal background or even discriminate against them because of it.
I agree that pictures can stir up a lot of emotions and get people into trouble or put them in a light that they would much rather not be in. I honestly believe nothing can really be kept secret nowadays. There could always be someone creeping around a corner ready to take a snap… Since I have been back in the U.S. I have become more aware of all the cameras EVERYWHERE!!!
I think anything done in a public place is pretty much open game to be photographed. Is it right? Well, you can’t control people with their cameras. That is unless of course they are on your property without your permission. It sucks sometimes and sometimes its beneficial.
Thus, if punishments or any other activity are carried out in public; then, I would pretty much say they are open game to be photographed. What is done with the photographs is another story all together, but it was in a public place. I have seen people getting lethal injections and the electric chair on videos. I have seen the registries of sex offenders with their pics and addresses and can know exactly how many there are in my neighborhood and what they did exactly.
Thus, I say like Rihanna “Live your Life” and add my line would be “Live it Right” or else face the consequence of a bad or unfavorable pic. Does it suck? Hell yah. My biggest compassion is always reserved for the victims! I am trying to understand what kind of Saudi public punishment INTERESTED would object to having photographed? A drug dealer, a rapist, a murderer????
September:09:2009 - 09:19
John–I agree that the trouble with the sex offender registry is that it is inflated with “petty offenses” leaving innocent people to a life crippled by repercussions designed to prevent the worst of the worst from re-offending (they of course manage to do so anyway as the news is filled with these days).
Sparky–good thing we disagree so civilly!
The state can and does lay independent charges, if the acts are public, or if someone else reports it, eg jealous BFF, nasty neighbour, teacher, doctor, etc. In statutory rape only the when counts. Intercourse on the eve of attaining the legal age for consent to sex with a partner of that specific age = statutory rape. Girl/boy consents, seduces, is happy, parents agree but s/he is underage = statutory rape. The only difference MIGHT be in the sentencing (mitigating factors). This is the reason I always explain to students from traditional non-dating cultures the laws of statutory rape, that the normal age difference in their country (often 5-10 years) is suspect in North America (usually more around 0-5), and that graduate students involved romantically or sexually with a student currently in their TAing class can kiss their academic career goodbye.
September:10:2009 - 03:26
In your example, if the girl or boy is within the age of legal consent and if no one (within the immediate circles of influence e.g. boy or girl’s parents including the boy or girl) will talk it may equal statutory rape (according to the law), but I doubt it will get any further than that “a label” in a court of law. Plus my example was clear “within the legal age of consent”.
If a nosy or nasty neighbor etc. were to report it, at least in the city I live in; I don’t see it going as far as court IN REALITY unless the parents or guardian of the underage person were to press charges. Perhaps in Canada it happens that way.
Plus, IMO marriage cannot be compared to premarital sex. I understand the magnitude of premarital sex in Islam; however, I see more of a gross injustice in a father forcing his underage daughter (in this case a CHILD) to marry while still a child to collect a dowry worse than a person within the age of consent having sexual relations with an older person. My case for that point is that a person who engages in sex within the age of legal consent has made a choice and the former did not make a choice. The former also binds the person against their will for an indefinate amount of time and subjects them to many hardships.
Islamically, both of the above two cases are sinful transgressions. While I know there are lashings for premarital sex (if found guilty of course), all I am asking is what are the punishments for fathers who have forced their daughters into marriage? Are they questioned? Can legal actions be taken against them?
Yes, in the US there are laws to protect children and minors, and what I find especially appealing is that there are laws that give them a voice and some decision making rights.
Putting a minimum age on marriage in Saudi Arabia will help deter many of the abuses currently in practice which is mainly a mahram marrying a young girl off without her “real” consent. This is the point where people are blinded and where they will bring up the example of the Prophet and Aisha. Well, perhaps back in the day when people only lived to about age 40 that a girl that age in that society would really want to marry. I just think that nowadays very “unreligious” are trying to use any means they can especially under the guise of Islam to do whatever they want.
I think if the minimum age is established and let us say there would be sought off exceptions to the general rule (of minimum age) they would be more closely analyzed and scrutinized by those in authority before coming to any sort of conclusions (in this case allowing or disallowing the marriage). Perhaps the whole family would be reffered to someone like you for family therapy. I don’t know.
September:10:2009 - 04:13
Sparky, it may differ a bit from police department to police department, but the word ‘statutory’ is the important one here. That means that it is illegal by statute. The state is forced, by law, to press charges whether or not anyone else is interested in doing so. If the state learns of the crime, it must prosecute the crime–though if a prosecutor thinks he has no chance of winning the case in court, s/he may decline to do so.
September:10:2009 - 06:34
John–well said. Whether the case goes to court or not it is still out of the hands of the persons involved or their parents and up to the state (police, lawyers, judges) to decide.
Sparky–we seem to agree on most of what you have said. Other Islamic countries have legal age minimums for marriage, which in Islam is the same as for sex. After independence from the French, Morocco’s ages for marriage were set by Sharia Family Law at 15 for girls and 18 for boys. In 2004 when the Moudwana was revised with clerical guidance, they were set at 18 for both, to encourage girls to graduate from high school first, at the urging of Moroccan feminists. Hopefully Saudi will see fit to do something similar, ie set minimum ages high enough that the persons in question have better decision-making capacity and more education, and include women in that calculus.
September:10:2009 - 09:35
John- Thanks for the clarification. I don’t particularly like the idea of the state having too much power especially in people’s personal lives. However, if it is to protect children then I believe it is worth it.
Chiara- I agree it would be great to see a minimum age set in Saudi.
In this particular case (the article, we do not know what the girl was fleeing from. I think hearing her side of the story is important.
September:10:2009 - 09:46
Sparky–agreed!