Marquel, TPVs NYTimes Heads Up Section correspondent, was half-asleep when he read Saudi Justice, Harsh but Able to Spare Sword.
A confessed murderer’s life was spared because of little-known checks in a judicial system regularly condemned by human rights groups for violating due process, lacking transparency and applying punishments like beheading. This was a strange article for the Times. It was nothing but an apologia for Sharia justice, including beheadings (it pointed out that death is quicker by the sword but admitted it was more gory, good to “scare” ordinary people).
It turns out that for murder, a beheading will not take place unless all heirs to the victim agree. In other words, any one heir has the power of pardon. But you have to be 15 years old to be competent. Thus, the main character murdered his victim when one of the children was but two years old. The culprit was sentenced to death but couldn’t be executed for 13 years to allow the two year old to become competent to pardon or not.
They also chop off hands of thieves but most judges don’t like to hand down that sentence, pardon the pun, so most Saudi thieves still have their hands.
Finally it turns out that few, including children, seem favorable to pardon unless it’s accompanied by a six or seven figure check. The two year old, at fifteen, actually got a six figure bonus over her, well what would you call it, base salary.
Marquel was interested in the logistics of Saudi justice, however unjust and primitive it actually is. But he was more interested in why the Times went to such lengths to whitewash it.
- The fact is that the rate of beheadings per capita, a funny phrase in this instance, between the Saudis and Americans is 2500%. That is, taking into account population differences, for every American executed in death row, there are twenty five Saudis who lose their heads with a little help from a Muslim with a sword.
Marquel talked to the Times. “Why did you run this story?”
The reporter looked confused. “Why not?”
“That’s not fair,” he said.
“We wanted to show its overall rationality.” He said.
“We could also say the Israelis have rationality when they occupy the West Bank.” He said.
“We were trying to show the other side of it.” He said.
“Well, in journalism school we learn that that is the beginning of bigotry. Assuming someone is all bad. Investigative journalism can discover the real other side.” He said.
“Maybe we can agree to disagree.” He suggested.
He shrugged his shoulders in a very relativistic way, and said, “I guess,” in a very amoral manner.
Amazing op-ed piece
Excellent
stupendous piece
perfect pitch
amazing analysis
ditto
ditto2
Best journalistic analysis ever:
agreed