I’ve noted before how Saudi society is reticent to ‘name and shame’ miscreants, even when they’ve been convicted of crimes. There’s a belief that the shame falls not only on the malfeasor, but also on his/her family, composed of innocents. This piece from Arab News discusses the issue a bit more. I can certainly agree that it’s not entirely necessary to name those involved in domestic abuse situations—though once one is adjudged guilty and sentenced seem to move the issue from private to public spheres. Nor, arguably, might it be useful to name those who are only charged, but not yet tried.
Those who violate laws, however, should not be able to escape accountability, even public accountability.
‘Accused should not be publicly identified’
JEDDAH: Saudi rights activists and legal experts have demanded that those accused in court should not be publicly identified until a guilty verdict is reached to avoid defamation. But they do not want any public identification in domestic abuse cases.
“That is because it would, obviously, negatively affect the interests of the other party involved. Moreover, severe punishments to such abusers, including prison time, lashes and deprival of some of their rights could be more effective than publicizing their names,” legal expert Khaled Abu Rashid told Arab News.
However, Abu Rashid added that publicizing the names of abusers who were family members was a form of punishment that did not breach Islamic Law.
Hussein Al-Sharif, supervisor general of the Human Rights Society in Makkah, said public identification was an option left purely to the discretion of a judge.
In Islamic legal terminology identification is known as taazir.
Al-Sharif did not agree with the lenient attitude of judges toward abusers who were also family members. “Anyone who abuses his family is considered a mentally ill man who needs to be treated. On the contrary, in many cases it has been proven beyond doubt that the abuser was not sick at all. What he needed was rehabilitation programs that ensured a positive behavioral change,” he said.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
March:17:2010 - 18:25
The issue is complex (and likely insoluble).
Philosophically, we should seek 2 goals from an ideal justice system.
1 — Justice should be transparent and its operations should be transparent so that the administration of justice be subject to account by the people.
This point argues for naming the culpable convicted.
2 — Justice should punish the guilty, yet not punish and indeed protect the innocent, including victims.
This point argues for withholding the names of victims or others who would face ridicule or worse due to their helpful participation in the administration of justice. That in turn, in family crimes, argues for anonymity of the guilty.
Our society is quite filled with gossip and still very focused on familial relationships that are destructive.
My conclusion, therefore, is that the two principles are in conflict in certain circumstances. As a result, one must choose a solution, knowing that one harms one of these two goals.
In our society, which suffers from a severe lack of impartial justice, and also suffers from severe social isolation for those tainted with publicly disapproved acts (especially women), there can be no ready answer.
March:17:2010 - 19:09
I agree both with your analysis and that it’s complicated.
In the US (I use it as an example, not necessarily a great one), children who are the victims of crimes are generally afforded anonymity. An innocent parent of such a child might also if to name the parent would identify the child.
Most US media will refrain (through self-censorship, not because of legal duty) to name the victim of a rape as being raped is seen as shameful for the victim. The alleged perpetrators of a rape will be named. This creates a problem, however, when (as studies have shown) upward of 25% of rape allegations are false. That leaves the men whose names have been published due to false allegations of rape rather far out of luck. They have been defamed, they are now notorious, and the only recourse they have is to seek civil damages from the person making false allegations. Even if that person had money to pay amends, it doesn’t erase the media report or the shame of the false allegation.
This