Saudi Court Upholds Child Rapist Crucifixion Ruling

I have pretty strong feelings about this as a parent, so I can’t say I feel that the animal who was convicted deserves to be treated any better, but is crucifixion after beheading truly necessary, or is it just playing to bloodthirsty appetites? Story from Reuters:

RIYADH (Reuters) – A Saudi court of cassation upheld a ruling to behead and crucify a 22-year-old man convicted of raping five children and leaving one of them to die in the desert, newspapers reported on Tuesday.

The convict was arrested earlier this year after a seven-year old boy helped police in their investigation. The child left in the desert after the rape was three years old, Okaz newspaper said.

International rights groups have accused the kingdom, the birthplace of Islam, of applying draconian justice, beheading murderers, rapists and drug traffickers in public. So far this year about 40 people have been executed in Saudi Arabia…


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

3 Comments on "Saudi Court Upholds Child Rapist Crucifixion Ruling"

  1. Word Eater | Nov 3, 2009 at 1:10 pm |

    I always thought crucifixion was designed to be a slow and painful death for the person experiencing it as well as a deterrent to anyone else who was thinking about doing what that person did.

    If the guy is already dead, it loses the torture aspect and only serves as a warning to others. Strangely, it is actually *less* barbaric this way. The convict gets a quick and relatively painless death.

  2. certain crimes warrant a slow painful death,
    political corruption, war profiteering sadly those get you a public scolding and a think tank or lobbying job in the US

  3. Child abuse is everywhere worldwide.
    We are all responsible.

    Child Abuse

Comments are closed.