Amicable solution to some issues is a crime [Archives:2008/1145/Opinion]

By: Najla Al-Ba'adani
Many people favor amicable solutions to some issues and put any relevant laws aside, and therefore receive support from legislators to do so. So, any perpetrators are always exempted from penalties for what they do. This encourages perpetrators to commit sins again and again unless a strict action is taken to prevent them from doing so.

On the other hand, victims, believed as the weak party in any quarrel or dispute, feel oppressed as the law deprives them of obtaining their right through the court's punishment of perpetrators. This is a tragedy we made by our hands and then claim that we mediate and contribute to resolving community issues. It is not enough for us to stand in the way of reinforcing the law and help perpetrators escape punishment.

In addition, we are exaggerative in the talk about our role in tackling community issues and settling disputes between citizens, as well as claim that we do justice for citizens and stand by the right, however, this is not what they really do.

Suggesting amicable solutions to any issues or treating them through the tribal arbitration system is a flagrant crime, which we commit against ourselves and our community, as well as contribute to edging out the rule of law. As a tribal sheikh, a local councilor, or a social dignitary usually replaces any security official, attorney-general or judge, perpetrators take the opportunity to repeat their wrongdoing.

A few days ago, a son of one of the tribal leaders claiming to resolve social issues interrupted a schoolgirl just as she left her school, beat her severely and tore up her clothes in the main street and before other people, who were watching what was happening to the girl without any intention to save her life, thanks to his armed bodyguards, present at the scene. The tribal leader's son and his escorts beat one of the citizens at the scene because he said that it is a shame on them to beat a schoolgirl.

The strangest thing is that the perpetrator was released from a government's jail upon the arrival of his father, who is a well-known tribal sheikh, to the jail, thereby hindering intervention of the law in such a case. The perpetrator was then handed over to a local councilor to resolve the issue via amicable or tribal arbitration. A local councilor or a social dignitary is found to exert pressure on any conflicting parties to accept his amicable solutions to their problem, particularly the victim who is forced to accept the tribal arbitration. Under the arbitration ran by the local councilor, the tribal leader's son committed not to beat that schoolgirl once again.

This indicates that nothing is going to prevent the perpetrator from beating another girl.

We don't want those who claim to be tribal sheikhs and social dignitaries to intervene for protecting or harboring perpetrators or convince both conflicting parties to accept their seemingly unjust judgment or amicable solutions to such issues. Also, we don't want them to create any obstacle to reinforcement of the relevant laws.

Source: Nabanews.net
——
[archive-e:1145-v:18-y:2008-d:2008-04-10-p:opinion]