Is this a good aspect of Sharia law?

[ksen]

The ability for a family to forgive a murder is horrific and barbaric. I can't see how that would amount to anything more than a license for rich people to kill whomever they choose and then just pay a fine.

Like they do now?

 

[Jayjay]

The ability for a family to forgive a murder is horrific and barbaric. I can't see how that would amount to anything more than a license for rich people to kill whomever they choose and then just pay a fine.

I've always find you to be very logical, but this time I'm not following. Say you are a poor person and a rich person kills your kid. Rich family tries to bribe you with millions of dollars. You say, "fuck you and your money."

If I were sufficiently poor, I wouldn't be able to afford to say that. I'd need the money more than see some guy in jail.

 

[Bronzeage]

The ability for a family to forgive a murder is horrific and barbaric. I can't see how that would amount to anything more than a license for rich people to kill whomever they choose and then just pay a fine.

Like they do now?

That applies only if you are a corporation.

 

[untermensche]

But where is the profit?

In the US we have figured out a way so that the rich can profit from crime and unjust laws like drug prohibition.

And we all pay them their profit through tax dollars.

I asked my question and tried to make my point. If you want to debate for 10 pages have at it. I'm moving on.

My point isn't a jab at your question.

It is a critique of so-called US justice.

We haven't created some perfect system of justice so we have no right to criticize other people's attempts.

 

[Bronzeage]

I asked my question and tried to make my point. If you want to debate for 10 pages have at it. I'm moving on.

My point isn't a jab at your question.

It is a critique of so-called US justice.

We haven't created some perfect system of justice so we have no right to criticize other people's attempts.

If we take this model seriously, we'll have to close this forum. As the great philosopher Mendacious said, "Perfection is the enemy of the good enough."

 

[untermensche]

My point isn't a jab at your question.

It is a critique of so-called US justice.

We haven't created some perfect system of justice so we have no right to criticize other people's attempts.

If we take this model seriously, we'll have to close this forum. As the great philosopher Mendacious said, "Perfection is the enemy of the good enough."

I'm no Christian but there are some ethics in the New Testament.

Like remove the beam from your own eyes before you complain about the splinter in your neighbors.

Don't be a hypocrite in other words.

 

[Trausti]

You mean it should be. I notice you are in France (and a nice area of France). The US has a very punitive and revenge based system. We are just dressed up nicer than the middle ages.

You have a punitive and revenge based system instead of justice. That it is refered to as a 'justice' system is either a simple error, an attempt at propaganda, or some kind of twisted joke - or perhaps all three.

Could you elaborate on that? If the alternative is to give a slap on the wrist and let everyone go, I'd prefer a system where criminal offenders are punished.

 

[untermensche]

You have a punitive and revenge based system instead of justice. That it is refered to as a 'justice' system is either a simple error, an attempt at propaganda, or some kind of twisted joke - or perhaps all three.

Could you elaborate on that? If the alternative is to give a slap on the wrist and let everyone go, I'd prefer a system where criminal offenders are punished.

A wise justice system is based on harm reduction, not revenge.

 

[Trausti]

Could you elaborate on that? If the alternative is to give a slap on the wrist and let everyone go, I'd prefer a system where criminal offenders are punished.

A wise justice system is based on harm reduction, not revenge.

Placing criminals in prison to protect the population is not harm reduction?

 

[untermensche]

A wise justice system is based on harm reduction, not revenge.

Placing criminals in prison to protect the population is not harm reduction?

They are sent there for arbitrary amounts of time and many are made worse by prison.

That isn't a system based on harm reduction. It is a system based on punishment and revenge. It is primitive. The same kind of justice that existed thousands of years ago.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We haven't created some perfect system of justice so we have no right to criticize other people's attempts.

We have every right to criticize other attempts.
Especially if their attempt is offered up for comparison, asking if this is better than that. If we don't critically examine the example, we can't actually determine if it's better, or even 'good.'

 

[Trausti]

Placing criminals in prison to protect the population is not harm reduction?

They are sent there for arbitrary amounts of time and many are made worse by prison.

That isn't a system based on harm reduction. It is a system based on punishment and revenge. It is primitive. The same kind of justice that existed thousands of years ago.

Your alternative to the placing the criminal convicted of aggravated rape in prison is?

 

[untermensche]

They are sent there for arbitrary amounts of time and many are made worse by prison.

That isn't a system based on harm reduction. It is a system based on punishment and revenge. It is primitive. The same kind of justice that existed thousands of years ago.

Your alternative to the placing the criminal convicted of aggravated rape in prison is?

Where did I say they shouldn't be isolated from society so others are safe from their actions? But that isolation shouldn't be in the form of punishment. It should be in the form of rehabilitation.

But the system we have now is the rapist stays in prison for some arbitrary amount of time and is then released to rape again, many times more hardened and less caring then when they first went into prison.

Harm reduction is difficult and it requires compassion and understanding.

Revenge and punishment is easy. Any ape can do it.

A wise system tries to rehabilitate the rapist, not simply punish them.

 

[Bronzeage]

If we take this model seriously, we'll have to close this forum. As the great philosopher Mendacious said, "Perfection is the enemy of the good enough."

I'm no Christian but there are some ethics in the New Testament.

Like remove the beam from your own eyes before you complain about the splinter in your neighbors.

Don't be a hypocrite in other words.

Mendacious was not a Christian either, but he was practical enough to realize judging is a dirty job, but someone has to do it. The point of the sermon about the plank and hypocrites is the person who saw the speck in someone else's eye, could not see the plank in his own.

The basic Western model of justice, in which society takes on the burden of judging and punishing criminals, came about when we realized the old tribal revenge "eye for an eye" model resulted in a lot of one eye people trying to poke out the remaining good eye. It may not be perfect, but it is superior to the old way. It is not hypocritical to criticize a culture which clings to a system which values property over life, or in some cases, just a hand.

 

[untermensche]

I'm no Christian but there are some ethics in the New Testament.

Like remove the beam from your own eyes before you complain about the splinter in your neighbors.

Don't be a hypocrite in other words.

Mendacious was not a Christian either, but he was practical enough to realize judging is a dirty job, but someone has to do it. The point of the sermon about the plank and hypocrites is the person who saw the speck in someone else's eye, could not see the plank in his own.

The basic Western model of justice, in which society takes on the burden of judging and punishing criminals, came about when we realized the old tribal revenge "eye for an eye" model resulted in a lot of one eye people trying to poke out the remaining good eye. It may not be perfect, but it is superior to the old way. It is not hypocritical to criticize a culture which clings to a system which values property over life, or in some cases, just a hand.

How is it more just that the government punishes criminals and not the victims?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The family can be pressured or bribed.

Yup. It would mean near immunity for the rich and powerful.

 

[Bronzeage]

Mendacious was not a Christian either, but he was practical enough to realize judging is a dirty job, but someone has to do it. The point of the sermon about the plank and hypocrites is the person who saw the speck in someone else's eye, could not see the plank in his own.

The basic Western model of justice, in which society takes on the burden of judging and punishing criminals, came about when we realized the old tribal revenge "eye for an eye" model resulted in a lot of one eye people trying to poke out the remaining good eye. It may not be perfect, but it is superior to the old way. It is not hypocritical to criticize a culture which clings to a system which values property over life, or in some cases, just a hand.

How is it more just that the government punishes criminals and not the victims?

What?

 

[untermensche]

How is it more just that the government punishes criminals and not the victims?

What?

Yes, it was ambiguous.

How is it more just that some entity not connected to the crime does the punishing and not the victims of the crime?

Wouldn't it be more just to allow the victims to hand out the punishment if one thinks punishment serves some purpose?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What?

Yes, it was ambiguous.

How is it more just that some entity not connected to the crime does the punishing and not the victims of the crime?

Wouldn't it be more just to allow the victims to hand out the punishment if one thinks punishment serves some purpose?

Because it's a crime against society as a whole and the purpose is justice, not vengence.

 

[Bronzeage]

What?

Yes, it was ambiguous.

How is it more just that some entity not connected to the crime does the punishing and not the victims of the crime?

Wouldn't it be more just to allow the victims to hand out the punishment if one thinks punishment serves some purpose?

This is a philosophical question which was settled back in the bronze age, so to speak.

The general idea is, a disinterested party can consider the evidence and make a better determination of what actually happened and who was at fault, if anyone.

Suppose the victim is mistaken about who actually committed the crime and punishes the wrong person. Now that person has a grudge and returns punishment. Round and round we go. This isn't really profound stuff.

As I said in an earlier post, the United States system is modeled on repentance and rehabilitation, not punishment. It may be difficult to make the distinction, but giving the right of retribution to the victim of a crime only returns us to a barbaric age where family feuds were perpetual, and the original inciting incident is long forgotten. It creates an obstacle to civilized living.

Imagine if we lived under such a system and you offended someone like me. It would be the last good night's sleep you ever had.