Now generally I do not condone or support mob-justice, this case makes me really think...
quote:'Arrest us all' When hundreds of women descended on Nagpur district court armed with knives, stones and chilli powder, within minutes the man who raped them lay dead.
Raekha Prasad reports Friday September 16 2005 The Guardian
A year ago Usha Narayane was about to embark on a new life. A call-centre worker with a diploma in hotel management, she was 25 and about to travel north from her home in the centre of India to begin a managerial job in a hotel in Punjab. The job would transport her not only geographically but also socially.
Like her neighbours, Narayane is a dalit, an "untouchable", at the bottom of the caste ladder. Schooling and literacy are rare among the women of Kasturba Nagar, the slum neighbourhood in the city of Nagpur where she grew up. She was unmarried, referring to work and study. Yet nobody resented her success. Instead, they had high hopes for the girl. But Narayane went nowhere. Today, she is in her family's one-room, windowless home, awaiting trial for murder. At 3pm on August 13 2004, Akku Yadav was lynched by a mob of around 200 women from Kasturba Nagar. It took them 15 minutes to hack to death the man they say raped them with impunity for more than a decade. Chilli powder was thrown in his face and stones hurled. As he flailed and fought, one of his alleged victims hacked off his penis with a vegetable knife. A further 70 stab wounds were left on his body. The incident was made all the more extraordinary by its setting. Yadav was murdered not in the dark alleys of the slum, but on the shiny white marble floor of Nagpur district court.
Laughed at and abused by the police when they reported being raped by Yadav, the women took the law into their own hands. A local thug, Yadav and his gang had terrorised the 300 families of Kasturba Nagar for more than a decade, barging into homes demanding money, shouting threats and abuse.
Residents say he murdered at least three neighbours and dumped their bodies on railway tracks. They had reported his crimes to the police dozens of times. Each time he was arrested, he was granted bail.
But it was rape that Yadav used to break and humiliate the community. A rape victim lives in every other house in the slum, say the residents of Kasturba Nagar. He violated women to control men, ordering his henchmen to drag even girls as young as 12 to a nearby derelict building to be gang-raped.
In India, even to admit to being raped is taboo, yet dozens of Yadav's victims reported the crime. But the 32-year-old was never charged with rape. Instead, the women say, the police would tell him who had made the reports and he would come after them. According to residents, the police were hand-in-glove with Yadav: he fed the local officers bribes and drink, and they protected him.
When one 22-year-old reported being raped by Yadav, the police accused her of having an affair with him and sent her away. Several others were sent away after being told: "You're a loose woman. That's why he raped you."
Nagpur is counted among India's fastest-growing cities. Yet the experience of the women of Kasturba Nagar is a parallel tale of how everyday life in India's back streets is stuck in the past. Splashed across the country's news- papers, the gory image of Yadav's blood on the courtroom floor was a lesson in the consequences of a state unable to protect the weak and the vulnerable.
After Yadav's murder, powerful voices were raised supporting the lynch mob. Prominent lawyers issued a statement saying the women should not be treated as the accused, but as the victims. One retired high court judge even congratulated the women. "In the circumstances they underwent, they were left with no alternative but to finish Akku. The women repeatedly pleaded with the police for their security. But the police failed to protect them," said Justice Bhau Vahane. Two weeks before the lynching, Yadav came to Narayane's house on several successive days, threatening to throw acid on her and rape her. He targeted her, she says, because she was outspoken and her brother-in-law, a lawyer, had verbally stood up to Yadav. "He raped only poor people whom he thought wouldn't go and tell, or if they did, wouldn't be listened to. But he made a big mistake in threatening me. People felt that if I were attacked, no woman would ever be safe."
Although Narayane has been charged with Yadav's murder, she claims she was not at the court when it took place but in the slum collecting signatures for a mass complaint against him. Among the charges levelled against her are some of India's most serious offences, including "anti-nationalist" crimes amounting to treason. "The cops say I planned the murder; that I started it. They have to make someone a scapegoat," she says. She believes she has been singled out because she has been the police's most vociferous critic. Her education gave her the confidence that inspired the community to act, she says.
In the week before the lynching, people started to talk about taking action against Yadav. He disappeared, sensing boiling anger. Narayane and her brother-in-law bypassed the local officers and went straight to the deputy commissioner. He gave the family a safe house for a night and promised to search for him.
On August 6, hundreds of residents smashed his empty house to rubble.By evening they heard Yadav had "surrendered" and was in custody. "The police had said he would be in danger if he came back. They suggested he surrender into their care for his own safety."
The next day he was due to appear at the city's district court and 500 slum residents gathered. As Yadav arrived, one of his henchmen tried to pass him knives wrapped in a blanket under the noses of the police. After the women protested, the accomplice was arrested and Yadav taken back into custody, but not before he threatened to return and teach every woman in the slum a lesson.
Hearing that Yadav was likely to get bail yet again, when he returned to court, the women decided to act. "It was not calculated," Narayane says. "It was not a case that we all sat down and calmly planned what would happen. It was an emotional outburst. The women decided that, if necessary, they'd go to prison, but that this man would never come back and terrorise them."
On the day of Yadav's hearing, 200 women came to the court armed with vegetable knives and chilli powder. As he walked in, Yadav spotted one of the women he had raped. He called her a prostitute and threatened to repeat the crime against her. The police laughed. She took off her sandal and began to hit him, shouting, "We can't both live on this Earth together. It's you or me."
It was a rallying cry to an incensed mob. Soon, he was being attacked on all sides. Knives were drawn and the two terrified officers guarding him ran away. Within 15 minutes, Yadav was dead on the courthouse floor. But his death has not brought the women peace. Five were immediately arrested, then released following a demonstration across the city. Now every woman living in the slum has claimed responsibility for the murder. They say no one person can take the blame: they have told the police to arrest them all.
But it is Narayane who is in limbo as she waits for her case to be heard. "After the murder, society's eyes opened: the police's failings came to light. That has irritated them. The police see me as a catalyst for the exposure and want to nip it in the bud." They face a fight. Narayane is loudly unrepentant. "I'm not scared. I'm not ashamed," she says. "We've done a good thing for society. We will see whether society repays us".
The law is there to protect the innocent, when the innocent are trampled on by the law itself then your system isn't just, it's corrupt. Morally if everything in the article is true, these women did the only thing they could to defend themselves.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The real tragedy is that the women had to take him out of commission because the state was so venal and corrupt.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Government only has its authority as long as it serves its purpose. When people have no recourse from government, they make a new government - and usually a worse one. But make it they shall.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm Spartacus!
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
I'd say the tragedy is just as much in how powerless untouchables in general are, how abused they've been for centuries.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Icarus, I was thinking Caesar and Brutus, myself...
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Oh, I dunno - it's pretty standard Old Testament "eye for an eye" and all that. I don't see that anyone has to tolerate that kind of abuse. Particularly when the gvt doesn't protect them - and I'm not sure it's worse gvt to get some safety. I could be very wrong - I have not had to live in those conditions.
I heard an interesting thing the other day with regards to the "New Testament" and the idea of turning the other cheek to the person who struck you.
Apparently, it had to do with standing up to the attacker and saying "strike me as your equal, not your inferior" - I was told that slaves were backhanded across the right cheek - equals were hit across the left. And by "turning" the other cheek, you were insisting that the attacker recognize you as their equal . . .
food for thought, no?
Posted by K.T. (Member # 8665) on :
Maybe I'm a bit of a chauvinist, but I think that the men who care about these women should have done something long ago. I know, it is not that way in India.
But since they had to take care of it themselves...GO THEM!!
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I.. This is an awful story... I... it's between awe-inspiring and awful, if that makes any sense.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan: Oh, I dunno - it's pretty standard Old Testament "eye for an eye" and all that.
Except that was never meant literally . . .
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Holy moly... an awful story BUT also an awesome one! The People rose up against the corruption and terror! All power to the Proletariat!
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Shan: Oh, I dunno - it's pretty standard Old Testament "eye for an eye" and all that.
Except that was never meant literally . . .
Maybe not - but that hasn't stopped generations of people from treating many parts of the Old and New Testament as literal, to be acted upon, gospel truth (no pun intended) . . . Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
KT- a thug leader who rapes women to control the men. likely the men near them were afraid attempts at doing anything would just lead to more rapes, and as untouchables, they were relatively without any power to get the police to do anything
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I think what KT was saying is that if women could do it, men should have.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The law is there to protect the innocent, when the innocent are trampled on by the law itself then your system isn't just, it's corrupt. Morally if everything in the article is true, these women did the only thing they could to defend themselves.
This justification could be used just about any time to do anything you want against the law. The government won't shut down those abortion clinics - should we bomb them to protect the innocent? The government won't help the poor - should they riot and steal to help themselves? The government won't stop invading other countries, or raising taxes, or finding Michael Jackson innocent, or doing all sorts of things any given person may consider wrong. Does that mean they are justified in taking it upon themselves to be judge and jury? Accepting such behavior commonly would essentially dissolve civil society.
These women should all be arrested - and if what they did was really necessary and was really worth killing this man, then that should be a comparitively minor additional cost for them to pay. My suspicion though, is that like most murders, it was only assumed to be necessary when it was not.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
quote:Accepting such behavior commonly would essentially dissolve civil society.
Yes, but the keyword there is commonly. It is an isolated incident that happened under extreme measures, not a general act that will be repeated by everyone around the world every time they feel like disobeying the law. The law is there to protect everyone's self interests, when it can no longer do that because the system is being abused, that means the system does not work and a new system has to be used.
The reason why all the examples you listed above don't work very well to address the issue is because they are all examples in which the field is mostly 50-50. There is not a widely accepted moral imposed by society, something where your common man or woman would immediately say "Given these circumstances, of course X is the right thing to do!"
Put yourself in these women's shoes, in a society where the justice system actually works for the criminals, a society where justice doesn't protect the innocent, but tramples on them. Would you think this is a system worth keeping?
Nobody is saying such behavior should be common, but much like in any other extreme moral case there are times when exceptions must be made. How many here would say that what these women did, assuming all they said in the article is 100% true, was obviously the wrong decision to make? They didn't avoid the legal system, they tried it and found it to be corrupt.
Some societies need to be dissolved. I'd rather have no society than Hitler's society Posted by closeyourmind (Member # 5916) on :
[tangent]
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Shan: Oh, I dunno - it's pretty standard Old Testament "eye for an eye" and all that.
Except that was never meant literally . . .
I have a hard time believing this is meant to be taken figuratively. There are many many cases of God requiring death for certain crimes. I think that the wrong way to take this verse is to think that vengeance can be taken without the case going to trial. At least that's how I read the chapter. In this verse, a pregnant woman is hit and a judge is to determine the penalty. If she is not harmed than the penalty is a fine. If she is harmed than the penalty is life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, burn for burn, etc. How do you see it?
My interpretation is based on the Exodus passage, but Leviticus and Deuteronomy also have this passage without the specific case being mentioned. But they go into more detail of how the judgement process is to be carried out.
[/tangent]
I think the women, unfortunately, did what they had to do in a corupt government (if the facts are all true). I commend them for it.
Patrick Brown
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Yes, but the keyword there is commonly. It is an isolated incident that happened under extreme measures, not a general act that will be repeated by everyone around the world every time they feel like disobeying the law.
Extreme according to us and the women in question, but seemingly not extreme according to their government officials, or else they would have acted.
If you think it is okay for people to create a murderous lynch mob in extreme measures, you have to keep in mind that what is considered "extreme" will be decided by the mob. If we are talking about bombing abortion clinics, it won't matter if society is 50-50 on abortion; all it takes is the individuals involved to consider abortion extreme. Consider witch hunts - it may be the we Hatrackers don't see witches as an extreme threat, but if the particular mob involved DOES, and if they believe it is okay to murder someone in such extreme circumstances, then they are going to do so, whether we'd consider it extreme or not.
In short, I don't think you can rightly say it's okay in this particular extreme case and yet condemn other cases in which those involved consider it to be similarly extreme.
quote:Some societies need to be dissolved. I'd rather have no society than Hitler's society
That's easily said when you are in neither option - but are you sure you'd prefer no society at all? Iraqis are getting a taste of this choice right now, and I'm betting they are not at all in agreement over whether life was better under Saddam or better under near anarchy. There is a reason dictators end up coming to power... Are you certain it'd be wise to abandon corrupt systems if there is no better system to turn to, rather than attempt reform? Or, to put it differently, do you think it's better to dissolve the law when the law is wrong, rather than work within the law to make it right again?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Bravo.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Tres-they're untouchables. of course it wasn't extreme to the government, they don't care. It's comparable to the situation of whites and blacks precivil rights in many ways. Gandhi himself put a stop to legislation that would have given them more representation with his "fast unto death". What else could they have done?
It's awfully easy for you to condemn the actions-but what alternatives do you offer?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Just, god, bravo. I'm proud of these women -- if there's some way to get money to them, I want to find it.
Complain away about vigilante justice, but god, this was needed. They're heroes. I just wish I could support them through this.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Extreme according to us and the women in question, but seemingly not extreme according to their government officials, or else they would have acted.
No, because the government officials were massively corrupt. Your equation does not take into effect imminent danger of loss of life, injury, the trauma of rape. If you have never been raped or no one has ever tried, you don't know what you do. Some people's instinct is to curl up into a ball and hope for the best. Others' instinct is to fight to the last breath-- either at the time or afterward-- anything they have to to try to avert the rape, but barring that, to survive, and then to get justice.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
Xaposert:
Who said that the only alternative is to live with no society at all? Once you depose a corrupt society it's up to the people to rebuild it. Do you sincerely believe that humanity has been part of a "civil society" from the very beginning? Someone had to start it.
Rebuilding a society isn't easy, but it has been done numerous times throughout history. Germany has gone through radical changes, so has Japan. Look at them now.
I really don't subscribe to the ideology of having to live in a bad society because fixing it would require effort and hard work. Society wouldn't have advanced to the present point if everyone resigned themselves to conforming to the rules. Slavery, sexism, inequality, they all used to be the norms of society at one point.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
The government failure to protect these women is inexcusable. I feel no remorse for the murder of a man who desrved death. The women were justified and should not be prosecuted.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
should be acquited after trial, I agree, but should not be prosecuted? I tend to disagree. It sounds like an opportunity for change to be effected, and that's much less likely to happen without trials and the publicity that would come from them.
Not prosecuting them is dangerous several ways: 1. it gives the police who laughed at them a better chance of avoiding reprisals. 2. it encourages mob justice, by saying actions won't be examined.
I'm totally with these women-but the thing needs to be taken to it's conclusion.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Toretha- good points.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
The guy didn't watch enough Disney. He missed a valuable life lesson from Bug's Life, and consequently met the same end as his would-be hero, Stomper.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
He got eaten by a bird?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:It's awfully easy for you to condemn the actions-but what alternatives do you offer?
Well, he was in court at the time - they could have at least waited to see if they'd send him to jail, instead of assuming what the outcome would be. They also did burn his house down - they could have waited to see if this would be enough to force him to leave. They could have banded together to defend against him, should he return to their neighborhood. They could have tried any countless number of nonviolent or less violent methods of protest to force officials into action. Instead they assumed all of these would fail, because he had gotten away in the past and because they "heard" he'd get bail. They assumed they could not "live on this Earth together" with him, in a fit of anger spurred by his comments.
This does not appear to be a matter of having no other options. This seems to be a matter of being unwilling to wait to see if the legal process would succeed in the end - and perhaps also a matter of wanting a personal degree of revenge that the legal system would not provide.
quote:No, because the government officials were massively corrupt. Your equation does not take into effect imminent danger of loss of life, injury, the trauma of rape.
I didn't disagree that this was, in fact, an extreme case. I'm just pointing out there are plenty of other people who think, rightly or wrongly, that they face extreme cases too - who are going to think their own governments are "massively corrupt" for ignoring their pleas. Do we really want them to abandon lawfulness whenever they feel this way?
quote:Who said that the only alternative is to live with no society at all?
You said "I'd rather have no society than Hitler's society".
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Toretha, I agree completely.
I even think some punishment woudld be ok, just not treason as a charge.
Tres, in our society you would be right, but it took as years of violence to effect a chage even here in the US...it was called the Civil War.
What they did was horrible, but necessary..but that doesn't mean they should get off scott free either. I don't blame them at all, but in order for society to exist there has to be concequences for these types of actions. If not there is nothing to prevent Tres's society from occuring.
Of course, whatever happens I think the police officials that allowed this to happen should pay an equal, if not greater, penalty.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Wow. I am so happy this matter was finally handled by those women, but it pains me to think about how many other people might be facing a similar situation but without the power to stop it.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Shan: Oh, I dunno - it's pretty standard Old Testament "eye for an eye" and all that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that was never meant literally . . . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a hard time believing this is meant to be taken figuratively. There are many many cases of God requiring death for certain crimes. I think that the wrong way to take this verse is to think that vengeance can be taken without the case going to trial. At least that's how I read the chapter. In this verse, a pregnant woman is hit and a judge is to determine the penalty. If she is not harmed than the penalty is a fine. If she is harmed than the penalty is life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, burn for burn, etc. How do you see it?
My interpretation is based on the Exodus passage, but Leviticus and Deuteronomy also have this passage without the specific case being mentioned. But they go into more detail of how the judgement process is to be carried out.
Just to point out... the "Eye for an eye" thing was actually from the Code of Hammurabi, not the Jews. And it was literal. It was actually a call for moderation...because the way things used to be handled before the Code was "Your whole family for an eye". Any insult or infraction by one person on another was usually responded to with murder and other horrors, far in excess of the original affront.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Jacare, your response actually made me laugh out loud, which is horribly inappropriate for this thread, but there you are. Just glad I wasn't drinking anything at the time.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Tres-why wait again? they said he'd been arrested and released before. Having seen that, having been blamed by officials for what was done to them, waiting for the legal process would simply mean another person raped or dead to them. The police were on his side, and protected him. If waiting looks like it will just buy you more injured people, why should they?
Again, I emphasis their caste. The legal system has a long history of ignoring and abusing them. Having seen it fail before with this man, why should they wait? Why should they think this time they'd be protected and treated like people despite their caste, when all evidence was against it?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If waiting looks like it will just buy you more injured people, why should they?
Because the alternative was apparently MURDER. It's worth the wait to avoid having to kill him.
And they don't have to sit by idle in the meanwhile. There's quite a bit of middle ground between just letting him rape again as he pleases and killing him in court - and that middle ground includes placing pressure on the police to do its job. There's no reason to think not killing him would have to ensure he rapes and injures again.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
How would you suggest that they "put pressure on the police?"
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Because the alternative was apparently MURDER. It's worth the wait to avoid having to kill him.
Bullshit. I know the profanity is frowned upon here, but that's just a disgusting statement, Tresopax.
One of two things are true here, Tresopax. Either you didn't read the article (the police were in the pocket of this man, you fool! How exactly do you go about pressuring someone so blatantly corrupt, when they and everyone you could turn to spit on you?!), or you think tolerating guaranteed further rape and torture is acceptable instead of killing the man who has done it before and will do it again.
Now here's where you get to say, "Well, we don't know he would do it again!" and, "There must have been another way!" Well, you dont' know jack about another way, Tresopax. How often have you been threatened with rape? How many times have one of your female loved ones been raped in front of you, in your home, and you couldn't do anything to stop it? How often after this happened did you go to the police and hear your sister / mother / daughter / niece was just a slut who got what she had coming to her?
Tell me, please. Please, from what font of experience and knowledge does this come from? You weren't there. You don't know any of the victims (and no, this man was not a victim, though of course you'll say otherwise). Have you ever spent a day in India? How much do you know about police corruption in India? What do you know about the untouchables status in India?
I'll bet the answer to almost, if not just plain all of those questions is some variation of plain nothing. Please, show me I'm wrong.
Now it's come to, "Don't kill to stop from being raped. That's ANARCHY! Trust in the system to protect you instead of killing to stop rape. After all, are you sure you're not better off being raped than taking action into your own hands?"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, there is a third option. You just don't believe what was plainly obvious to everyone but you in your ivory tower. There was METRIC FREAKING TONS of reasons to think that there was no middle ground. I'm ashamed to be a man when another man tells a woman, "Be raped. Don't kill the guy."
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I'll have to agree with Rakeesh, Tres. This man proved beyond any reasonable doubt his total inability to live with others, and the legal system proved beyond any reasonable doubt its total and complete rejection of justice.
This man was truly varelse; good riddance to him.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Well, he was in court at the time - they could have at least waited to see if they'd send him to jail, instead of assuming what the outcome would be. They also did burn his house down - they could have waited to see if this would be enough to force him to leave. They could have banded together to defend against him, should he return to their neighborhood. They could have tried any countless number of nonviolent or less violent methods of protest to force officials into action. Instead they assumed all of these would fail, because he had gotten away in the past and because they "heard" he'd get bail. They assumed they could not "live on this Earth together" with him, in a fit of anger spurred by his comments.
This does not appear to be a matter of having no other options. This seems to be a matter of being unwilling to wait to see if the legal process would succeed in the end - and perhaps also a matter of wanting a personal degree of revenge that the legal system would not provide.
Tres, lets see if I can put this less robustly than Rakeesh.
I have friends in India, and in Punjab itself. The court system there is corrupt. Money, not evidence, is the prime weight in their scales of justice. Organized thugs have it, the poorest of the poor do not.
True he was in court, but it was a court that had repeatedly let him go on bail. That does not mean the same thing as in our courts. There bail meant, "we think you are guilty, but we won't go to court for 20 or 30 years. Until then you are free to go as long as you give this court the appropriate cash."
quote:Yadav spotted one of the women he had raped. He called her a prostitute and threatened to repeat the crime against her. The police laughed.
Here he was, going to court with police protection around him, theatening to re-rape a woman when, not if, he was freed. There seems to be little doubt that he was a)going to get free and b)regardless of the destruction of his property, going to return to his former business plan of abuse, rape, and murder to rule his little kingdom. This seems more like self-defense than murder.
quote:Residents say he murdered at least three neighbours and dumped their bodies on railway tracks. They had reported his crimes to the police dozens of times. Each time he was arrested, he was granted bail.
He was a murderer. He killed people and left their bodies on the tracks to be mutilated beyond evidence by the trains. This is a common murder tactic in train-heavy India.
If your society allows you to be murdered then I believe it is time to change that society. If the only way to change that society is to destroy it, then its self defense to destroy it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Well, you dont' know jack about another way, Tresopax. How often have you been threatened with rape? How many times have one of your female loved ones been raped in front of you, in your home, and you couldn't do anything to stop it? How often after this happened did you go to the police and hear your sister / mother / daughter / niece was just a slut who got what she had coming to her?
Tell me, please. Please, from what font of experience and knowledge does this come from? You weren't there. You don't know any of the victims (and no, this man was not a victim, though of course you'll say otherwise). Have you ever spent a day in India? How much do you know about police corruption in India? What do you know about the untouchables status in India?
I'll bet the answer to almost, if not just plain all of those questions is some variation of plain nothing. Please, show me I'm wrong.
How often have YOU been raped? When have YOU been an Untouchable in India? If you believe it's not possible to understand anything about this situation without actually having lived through it, please stop discussing it (and definitely stop acting as if you are CERTAIN what situation these women faced), because you have experienced it no more than I have.
If you believe its possible to speculate about situations without actually going through them first, then we can continue the discussion.
quote:True he was in court, but it was a court that had repeatedly let him go on bail. That does not mean the same thing as in our courts. There bail meant, "we think you are guilty, but we won't go to court for 20 or 30 years. Until then you are free to go as long as you give this court the appropriate cash."
Still, it is not safe to assume the same thing that happened in the past would just happen again - especially if murder is on the line. Keep in mind that this time, presumably unlike previous instances, there was an angry mob in the courtroom to put pressure on the court to do its job or risk serious trouble. The police clearly also realized his life was at risk if they released him. Furthermore, there seemed to be at least one significant official who was concerned for the women:
quote:Narayane and her brother-in-law bypassed the local officers and went straight to the deputy commissioner. He gave the family a safe house for a night and promised to search for him.
On top of that, even if it were CERTAIN that the court would do nothing, that does not mean more rapes was a certaintly or even a likelihood. There are methods of preventing rape besides sending the rapist to jail. Given they burned his house down and he went into hiding, he could have been scared off. And given that they were already banded together against him, they could have ensured he didn't give any more opportunities to rape them. Or they could have further fought against the government until the police backed down and gave in to their demands - governments everywhere want to avoid trouble. These methods would probably have been even more effective, given that this guy sounds like he had others helping him, who were apparently not murdered when he was - and who could thus pick up where he left off, until the system itself actually changes.
quote:If the only way to change that society is to destroy it, then its self defense to destroy it.
If the situation has really reached that point, then perhaps it was right for them to ignore law altogether. However, I'm not convinced the only way to fix the Indian system of government is to destroy it altogether and start again from scratch. I think that would likely just make them worse off - subject even more to the whim of thugs.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know what, Tresopax, forget it...your speculation involves, "Just wait and hope for the best. If you get raped again..well, hey, at least you're not *gasp* killing someone!"
Even a piece of crap scum of the earth petty tyrant who rapes and destroys and ruins for a living. I'm not surprised that you're chastising the victims in this situation from on high, as usual.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Take it easy Rakeesh. The world is a very easy place to understand, when looking at it through your own intestinal wall. There's no point in arguing. *pat, pat*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*snort* *collapses* Sorry, Livvy, I couldn't help it. You're so funny! Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:your speculation involves, "Just wait and hope for the best. If you get raped again..well, hey, at least you're not *gasp* killing someone!"
No more than your speculation involves "Just start a lynch mob to kill anyone who bothers you." Strawmen can go both ways.
As I said, there's a wide wide area between "just waiting" and starting a lynch mob to murder the guy. It's similar to the logic that the only two options are invading Iraq and doing nothing - a thinking which has resulted in disaster so far. Looking only at the extreme options tends to result in trouble - and for these women it's probably going to result in some of them going to jail (unless India really takes notice of this, which is somewhat doubtful I think), or being retaliated against by the police and friends of this man. For the man it has meant death.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My speculation isn't a strawmen, because they already tried the 'go through proper channels' option. They had zero reason to believe that continuing to rely upon police would yield results. Banding together...oh, that's rich, and what do they do when he brings his thugs over with guns?
You're right about one, just one, thing at least. There is a wide area, and they traversed it. They started a lynch mob after that, remember? I expect it doesn't matter to you. From your ivory tower, I guess little details like that get missed.
Oh, and just for rhetorical purposes...that wasn't a man.
-------
I'm not sure if I've been chastised or not, but it was very funny, heh.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Okay, seriously, what do you mean by "not giving him more opportunities to rape them?"
It's not like his rapes were confined solely to women walking alone in dark alleys at night. He was raping them IN THEIR HOMES.
-pH
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Yeah, pH. Surely it would be simple to avoid the henchmen coming to your house and dragging your 12 year old daughter out for a gang rape. I mean, all you have to is... Um, let's see...
*see previous post*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, that certainly lends clarity to my uncertainty
----
No, what you do is 'pressure the police'...ummm...more.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Tres-think of it like black women reporting a white man raped them in the south, right after the civil war. I'm told that the situation of untouchables is in many ways comparable to that.
Sure, they could wait for the jury to find the man innocent. They could try to put more pressure on the police. But the conclusion is the same: man gets off, and comes after them.
Would you risk a child in your neighborhoods life on a system that's been proven over and over to be corrupt working?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well it's better than killing that poor man!`
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*laughs heartily*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Out of curiosity, does any religious-ish person on this forum think the women committed a sin and, thus, the women should not have killed him no matter what?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Not me.
Personally, if a man is intent on raping me, and the only way to prevent his success is for me to either severely injure or kill him, then that's what I'll do.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
But murder is a sin. And the pains of this life are nothing compared to the rewards and punishments of the afterlife.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Okay, seriously, what do you mean by "not giving him more opportunities to rape them?"
Well, I'm not sure about the details of their situation from this one article - but they could live together, or figure out some way of keeping watch and calling others if something happened. How would they prevent rapists if there were no police to protect them (which, apparently, there aren't)?
quote:Tres-think of it like black women reporting a white man raped them in the south, right after the civil war. I'm told that the situation of untouchables is in many ways comparable to that.
Black women did not change things by starting mobs and killing the white men who raped them. They, too, would have been wrong to do so, and probably just would have brought down the wrath of the white community if they did so. The fight against racial discrimination in America is an excellent example of why placing pressure on the government to change is a much better strategy than lynch mobs.
quote:Sure, they could wait for the jury to find the man innocent. They could try to put more pressure on the police. But the conclusion is the same: man gets off, and comes after them.
Unless the jury didn't find him innocent, or the police caved to the pressure, or they figured out some other effective method of stopping this guy, or any number of other possibilities occurred. You can assume these things won't happen, like Rakeesh seems to, but it's still just assumptions - assumptions on which a person's murder and the dissolution of the rule of law rest. I don't trust people's future-predicting abilities enough to say they should take it upon themselves to raise a lynch mob every time they assume all other methods of protecting the innocent will fail.
And if we are making assumptions about what will probably occur and these people really are in the situation you say they are, someone probably is going to come after them regardless. If the man in question is dead then it will be his friends or the police or someone altogether different. But now that they've murdered someone, whoever that is will only be more justified in the eyes of those biased against these women.
quote:Would you risk a child in your neighborhoods life on a system that's been proven over and over to be corrupt working?
No, but I don't get a mob and murder the threat.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I don't think killing self-defense or in defense of one's family is a sin. But then, you weren't asking me.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:I don't think killing self-defense or in defense of one's family is a sin. But then, you weren't asking me
I don't remember that clause in the bible.
Edit: Also I don't see how it can be defended by religious reasoning.
IF there is an afterlife, then death is inconsequential. However, killing someone is not inconsequential, as it has been specifically stated as not.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Check the Old Testament -- those effers killed folks like it was one sale. It wouldn't be out of line for a bunch of people to stone a rapist or murderer to death. I think it may even have been called for by the laws handed down by God.
But I'm sure there are lots of people on Hatrack who know TONS more about Jewish law than I do.
There were also plenty of times that God supposedly directed people to commit genocide, so pardon me, but I think there are probably a LOT of clauses in the bible that most of us are unfamiliar with.
Sin, though... it's probably up to God to judge that. Self-defense is a legal defense that most people find morally acceptable.
However, I wasn't the one being asked the question.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
And how long did the civil rights movement take? Cause I seem to remember it taking an awful long time-so not much chance of them being safe anytime soon.
It's not an either or situation. Since the creation of the government a few people have been trying to change the government. But it takes time-what about the people killed in the meantime? Do you value their collective lives less than the murderers?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:IF there is an afterlife, then death is inconsequential.
This is not true. Just because you exist in some form after life does not mean giving up life is insignificant.
quote:But it takes time-what about the people killed in the meantime? Do you value their collective lives less than the murderers?
I value them both, which is why the best course is a middle course, that neither accepts the status quo nor casts aside all laws and morality in the name of self-defense. And I do not favor assuming away all possibilities other than those two extremes, because people have proven themselves incapable of knowing what is possible and what is not.
And remember, if you're considering suggesting that murderers are worth less than the innocent, these women are murderers too. And in a world where lynch mobs are acceptable, they would be likely to be mobbed for their murder just as quickly as they mobbed the original rapist - only the men who would mob them would be thugs and policemen armed with guns, rather than untouchable women armed with knives. It is fortunate that things remain at least civil enough that the police and others will not openly commit that kind of genocide, because the women would probably not survive. Yet it is really the public's commitment to the rules of law and order that stops them, as I'm sure there are men in that area worried about the possibility that untouchables might gang up to kill them and burn down their houses too. I think that if all sides in India accepted the logic that lynch mobs are acceptable in 'extreme' cases, the women would probably be the ones that ended up dead.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
But you are confusing cold blooded murder and rape with hot blooded momentary anger.
Kasturba Nagar is a small part of a larger city, but it is a separate political jurisidiction. The government of that jurisdiction broke down long before the women took up knives and powdered pepper, so the inhabitants did what they did to reclaim a bit of that government.
We are talking hundreds of people, all in their own squalid houses. They are underfed and undernourished. The man they killed led a group of armed and brutal men.
When one person tried to organize them into a cohesive political force, she was raped herself.
This man bribed to death the old government, and literaly beat and threatened to kill those who would create a new one. This man whom they killed became the main impediment between the people and a government.
On the other hand, I agree with you that someone should be punished for this death. Manslaughter or Second Degree murder at most since it seems to be an act of passion not premeditated. And it should not be the woman they arrested, who has an alibi for the time of the murder. She never incited these people to kill the rapist, but since she is a threat to the corrupt officials, she risks being the one punished.
Her sin is not murder or rape. It is the sin of threatening the livlihood of those in power.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Tres, please stop trying to play devil's advocate. You're not very good at it -- and these women deserve, if not your support, at least better prosecution.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:You can assume these things won't happen, like Rakeesh seems to, but it's still just assumptions - assumptions on which a person's murder and the dissolution of the rule of law rest.
But the rule of law never even had a chance to disolve - it never existed there in the first place.
The vast majority of the time, I would agree with you, Tres. But in this case, no other recourse was reasonable.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I don't think killing self-defense or in defense of one's family is a sin. But then, you weren't asking me.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think I was asked.
I agree with Olivia.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I wasn't asked either, but I agree, in most cases. I have to consider carefuly whether this was one of those cases; I'm not necessarily saying it was or wasn't. But as a general rule, I agree. AND I usually don't think it's murder.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As for whether a sin was committed, I'd venture to guess one was. Even if his killing was necessary, which I won't go into here, there was rage attached to it, and attempts to cause more pain than was needed to kill him.
Were I prosecutor (under our laws), I'd definitely try to prosecute the women who did the actual killing. But I'd hope for a really good defense attorney who would use either excuse, justification, or emotional distress to get all the facts about the dead guy in. Then I'd hope for jury nullification. If convicted, I'd ask for the lightest possible sentence. I'd also take pleas that could result in light sentences, including no jail time.
In a corrupt system where these women's peers would not be on the jury, I'm not sure what I'd do.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Tres/Xap - you are approaching this situation from your world.
Please try to appreciate that these women do not live in your world. I don't know if you've been to India (I presume not, but I could be wrong) and I don't know whether you've done much research into the status of many women in India today.
I have done both. While I am not saying "You go girls!", I think your perspective is based on a very different reality to what these women face.
India is a developing country. And in some parts, it has a great justice system. And in others, abuse of women ("accidental burning" is a number one abuse) is almost the norm. It is under-reported, and where it is reported it is often disregarded. In those situations, your conception of a justice system just doesn't apply.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
No, ketchup, I think you WERE asked. He wantedthe opinions of a religious-ish person. Fifteen years of religious education not withstanding, I hesitate to make that claim about myself, but I think you qualify.
I think the question here is more social than religious, though. Injustice can only be born so long before the society undergoes this kind of spasm. Think of the French Revolution - started by hungry, angry people whose needs were disregarded by their monarch. Then there was Robespierre (I spell for crap, and am lazy), who went too far and got caught in a social spasm himself. It was the bloody, grotesque birth of democrasy.
Moral or not, this is what happens.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Please try to appreciate that these women do not live in your world.
I think I have, as much as I can, given I don't live in their world and can't possibly know exactly what it is to live in their world. But no matter how much they are abused by their own society, I still think it seems very likely that they had other options available. (The trouble is that someone asked me to list those alternative solutions and, having not lived in that situation, I can't detail what would work and what wouldn't work for sure.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
They've told you that there were no other options. People have told you that their description is very likely correct, based on treatment of untouchables in that place.
You've chosen, however, to think that you know better...living over here, in your comfortable First World Western life. You know better, based on...what? Really only your own certainty that there was 'very likely some other option'. But what is that likelihood based upon?
Speculation. And your speculation is not founded on actual knowledge of the situation, it's founded upon comparing their situation to the closest things you've heard of-things which, I might add, you also have never experienced.
But that doesn't stop you from saying, "They were wrong. They should not have done what they did. It would have been better to do something else, and they were destroying society when they did it." And yes, you've said all of those things. But you won't change your mind, because to you this is an issue of faith.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:But that doesn't stop you from saying, "They were wrong. They should not have done what they did. It would have been better to do something else, and they were destroying society when they did it."
Nor does it stop you from choosing to speculate that they were right to murder him, despite the fact that you know their situation no more than I do.
Will you change your mind, or is this an issue of faith to you too? (Or perhaps faith is not the only reason people, such as myself and yourself, don't change their minds when other people tell them to? Perhaps we have reasons for opinions we hold? )
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm religious, and I really wouldn't call the killing of this man a MURDER.
Tres, do you ever think killing in self-defense is justified? Ever? After all, there probably is some wild way to defend yourself without actually killing the guy. For example, you could severely maim him. Hey, at least you're not killing him, right?
-pH
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
the difference between our "speculations" and yours, is that we offer reasons why they were right, and why they didn't have other options as such. You have yet to offer reasonable alternatives.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm not very religious-ish, but am definitely spiritual-ish, and my gut feeling is that 'sin' was committed, but a greater 'sin' would have been committed had the man been allowed to continue his reign of terror. Most moral systems allow for defensive killings, which this almost certainly falls under.
I don't think Tres is playing devil's advocate, since I have seen him consistently advocate for mercy on behalf of the jackasses of the world. I think Tres really is trying to practice his belief system.
If Tres really honestly values this, mercy, and really works to make this a part of himself and practice it in his daily life, then I have a great deal of respect for him.
If, on the other hand, he's just goofing around and playing devil's advocate, then, while I still respect him for giving us all a chance to think, my respect would be tinged with sadness because the world needs people who say and really feel in their heart that 'Everyone deserves mercy and compassion, no matter what.'
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:But that doesn't stop you from saying, "They were wrong. They should not have done what they did. It would have been better to do something else, and they were destroying society when they did it."
Nor does it stop you from choosing to speculate that they were right to murder him, despite the fact that you know their situation no more than I do.
Will you change your mind, or is this an issue of faith to you too? (Or perhaps faith is not the only reason people, such as myself and yourself, don't change their minds when other people tell them to? Perhaps we have reasons for opinions we hold? )
Does my opinion count? I live in Sri Lanka, off the south east coast of India, and while the cultures are not identical, there are a lot of similarities. I also know a *lot* of Indians and have for decades, some were my closest friends. I've also lived in a few neighborhoods in Canada with large Indian populations.
I can tell you that in Sri Lanka, the sort of situation described in the newspaper could happen. There is no untouchables caste here, but. . . The Tamil Tigers routinely kidnap and force children to become Tamil Tigers - and get away with it. The police are corrupt - as is the government as a whole. I've been warned that western women cannot take public transportation as we'll be sexually assaulted - this from women who know because they're regularly sexually assaulted on public transportation, but can't afford to take alternate transportation, and when they complain, the bus drivers and/or police just laugh. Men and boys regularly bathe at a local watering hole (the lake surrounding the new parliament building) wearing, if we're lucky, just their undies. I have seen naked men standing on the side of the road, sometimes on the sidewalk, not caring who sees.
I've been warned that it's not safe to go out at night by myself, and if I'm attacked/raped, the police won't do anything. But then, I've been told that, no matter what happens, there's no point in complaining because the police won't do anything. Whether this is true or not, I don't know - I haven't had occasion to test it. Regardless, this is the prevailing attitude.
From everything that I know about India - from newspapers, books, online sources, friends from India - the newspaper account sounds completely plausible and unsurprising, and it's likely that the rapist and murderer would have been let go and he would have continued to terrorize people. He would have retaliated by murdering and raping more. No one would have stopped him. These people would have been victimized until they were all wiped out.
It seems to me that there were few, if any, options left to these people - kill him or be killed. Yep, that's pretty much it.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I think also the fact that this was spontaneous should be taken into account. My impression from the article was that while the women were prepared for violence, they weren't actually planning anything. And then that last snowflake fell, and the one woman who begun it didn't even seem to mean to - she was whacking him with her shoe, after all. Unlike his crimes, this was not purely premeditated.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Unlike his crimes, this was not purely premeditated.
Which is not something the defense attorney would want to highlight were they attempting to use self-defense or something like it. (Edit: Classic self-defense requires imminent harm, something clearly not present here. But a justification defense is allowed in some jurisdictions based on perception that this would action was necessary to save a life. This doesn't really meet those elements either, but the real purpose is to get the facts out there to convince the jury to either nullify or at least mitigate.) That helps with a mental distress based defense, though. Again, in our legal system, which I know isn't directly applicable.
[ October 02, 2005, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:From everything that I know about India - from newspapers, books, online sources, friends from India - the newspaper account sounds completely plausible and unsurprising, and it's likely that the rapist and murderer would have been let go and he would have continued to terrorize people. He would have retaliated by murdering and raping more. No one would have stopped him. These people would have been victimized until they were all wiped out.
I believe you about their situation because you certainly know more than me, but still not about the certainty of your prediction that all alternatives to killing would certainly fail, or the prediction than killing him will produce any more safety for them. There must be many other women in India who are in similar circumstances, yet have not chosen to kill their tormentors. If the only options are killing and being wiped out, why aren't they all wiped out? Are they constantly being raped all the time? And if so, what does killing a single offender matter? If the system is as bad as you and the article are saying, won't other criminals simply take up where this man has left off?
quote:Tres, do you ever think killing in self-defense is justified? Ever? After all, there probably is some wild way to defend yourself without actually killing the guy. For example, you could severely maim him. Hey, at least you're not killing him, right?
The answer is yes and no. I do think there are situations in which killing would lead to the best results. However, because I don't think people can predict the future well enough, I think it is impossible to distinguish the few situations in which killing would be best from those many many situations in which killing just seems best but where other better alternatives were available. So, since I don't think you can know when killing is the best choice, I don't think you should kill - unless a situation somehow arises in which it is obvious. And that's the paradox - how do you know when it truly is obvious and not just seeming to be obvious?
And I don't think it's a matter of not understanding the situation at hand - it's a matter of simply not being able to see all ends, no matter how well you understand the situation these women face in India. Even the actual women in question, who know every detail of their own situation far better than I do - I think even they can't claim to know that all alternative options would have failed. Unless they somehow can. One thing I do know, though, is that whenever people tell me they only have one option to solve a problem of theirs, it is almost categorically always wrong... and people do claim this all the time.
Yes, if there are people tied to train tracks and you have to kill one to save a thousand, yes, it's okay to kill. But if there are a million different tracks to switch to, and you have no idea which tracks will hurt which people if any, then I think you should avoid killing even one to hypothetically save a bunch if your predictions about the future were to turn out right. Predictions just aren't usually accurate enough to trade one guaranteed death to several hypothetical ones.
quote:I don't think Tres is playing devil's advocate, since I have seen him consistently advocate for mercy on behalf of the jackasses of the world. I think Tres really is trying to practice his belief system.
I would not call it mercy as much as advocating understanding of the guy in question - which, in turn, implies mercy. A human being so corrupted that he believes it is okay to rape and/or kill hundreds of women is still a human being, still fundamentally good, and still worth as much as the women each are. I can only speculate what twisted beliefs lead him to do such things, but I believe that if you took those beliefs and put them into your head or mine, we would probably act the same. I'm not just playing "Devil's Advocate" when I say that - although I guess I am advocating understanding of the devil, more or less. But I do believe it, and based to some extent in reason, but also partially a matter of faith - this is a major part of what I believe Christianity is fundamentally about. (God, as I conceive of Him, is the ultimate Devil's Advocate, because He knows all our situations, understands why we make the wrong choices we do, and loves us despite them.)
One suspicion I have here is that people here might be more willing to consider the possibility that alternatives might work if they cared more about the life of the man who was killed. If it were your son or husband or daughter or wife they "had" to kill in order to protect themselves, I suspect many would hesitate and consider "Maybe there is an alternative to killing him..." But when the guy getting mobbed is a murderous rapist who you care little about, it's easier to say they had to do it - it's easier to assume nothing else would have worked.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
quote:But when the guy getting mobbed is a murderous rapist who you care little about, it's easier to say they had to do it - it's easier to assume nothing else would have worked.
Yes, it is easier. And what makes it easier still is the total lack of any reasonable alternatives being suggested.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
"Reasonable" alternatives, from page 1:
quote:Well, he was in court at the time - they could have at least waited to see if they'd send him to jail, instead of assuming what the outcome would be. They also did burn his house down - they could have waited to see if this would be enough to force him to leave. They could have banded together to defend against him, should he return to their neighborhood. They could have tried any countless number of nonviolent or less violent methods of protest to force officials into action.
Reasonable is in quotes because you can deny they are reasonable, if you assume they won't work, but I think they are reasonable, because I don't think we can make those assumptions - at least not in regards to every possible instance of the types of alternative listed above.
And really, if you're going to complain that I have not experienced the life of an untouchable woman in India and therefore cannot know what might and might not work for them, why are you asking me to then tell you what might and might not work? That's like demanding that a non-farmer speculate on how to plant corn fields and then, when he does so, complaining that he's not qualified to speculate on the matter because he isn't a farmer. (That wouldn't prove non-farmers have no reason to think it's possible to plant a field!) If you don't think I'm qualified to answer your question, don't ask me to answer. Obviously, I can't give you exact details on a plan that might work for them. That does not refute the logic that with so many variable in the situation (including how the police might react to various alternatives, how the man might react to various options, etc.) it is unlikely, given how unsuccessful people are at predicting the future, that they could say with any sort of confidence that there was no other option. (That'd be the Burden of Proof Fallacy - suggesting that my conclusion is false because I can't prove it to be true with an alternative that I can prove would work. I can't tell you with authority what definitely had a decent chance of helping them, but I think there's good reason to believe that at least some options did.)
[ October 04, 2005, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by K.T. (Member # 8665) on :
Well, he was in court at the time - they could have at least waited to see if they'd send him to jail, instead of assuming what the outcome would be
quote:
It has been mentioned that they already tried this and he kept getting off. If you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always gotten. If you do what you have always done expecting a differrent result, you are classified as "Crazy."
It seems to me that these women did what they felt was their only alternative. In the moment of madness I really don't think these women had time to moralize what they were doing. They just wanted to make sure what had happened to them wasn't going to keep happening. He was the threat at this point, so the threat was removed. No more threat. Sure, his boys might have become a bigger threat, but do you really think the women thought this one through? They did what they felt needed to be done.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Let's see.
It's stupid to suggest that it is reasonable to wait to see what the outcome would be. He'd waltzed in and out of law enforcement's hands repeatedly.
It's stupid to think that he would be frightened away by burning his house down without him in it. The man went into people's homes and raped their daughters in front of them.
It's equally stupid to think that 'banding together' would work, because he had a freaking band of his own already. These things indicate a great and terrible power this man had locally, Tresopax. Your methods are shooting at a giant with a bow made of a willow branch and strung with twine.
What other nonviolent methods might work? NAME ONE. Every single alternative you've mentioned is ridiculous to everyone but you, Tresopax. Everything you've suggested has been refuted, and all you're left with is your belief that there must have been some vague, unnamed, generic thing that could've been done.
That doesn't, that is, require women to accept ongoing rape. It's disgusting what you're asking. You're not the one being victimized in such a situation, Tresopax. Not only are you not there and still telling them that they should've done something else, if you were there, you wouldn't even be the one getting raped!
Posted by K.T. (Member # 8665) on :
Sorry, I haven't figured out the quote thing I guess.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
They had no 'reason' to believe this time at 'court' would be any different than the several dozen times before. But I guess if they clapped their hands and clicked their heels and believed really hard the police who had dismissed, ignored and even jeered at their complaints might have suddenly decided to forego the bribes they usually got from the man...
No... I just don't think anyone is that stupid. I mean, you put a monkey in a cage with an electrified wall, it's eventually going to realize 'wall cause pain' and stop touching it. At some point, it would be obvious that the police and court officials were not going to do what they should. *shrug*
I'm not saying that it isn't wrong to kill. But it IS idiotic to be surprised that people will eventually take extreme measures to protect themselves when civil authorities have lost all semblance of protecting them (and thereby abdicated any moral authority).
If the villagers, as a group, had had more education or other resources, maybe it could have been different. This sort of thing is actually a fine example of social/emotional pressures leading to a societal self-correction, on a small scale.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:It seems to me that these women did what they felt was their only alternative.
I most definitely agree with that.
quote:It's stupid to suggest that it is reasonable to wait to see what the outcome would be. He'd waltzed in and out of law enforcement's hands repeatedly.
It's stupid to think that he would be frightened away by burning his house down without him in it. The man went into people's homes and raped their daughters in front of them.
It's equally stupid to think that 'banding together' would work, because he had a freaking band of his own already. These things indicate a great and terrible power this man had locally
I don't think you should assume as much as you are here about what everyone would or would not do in all these different situations - at least not when murder is on the line. If you were going to assume stuff like that, it'd might also be 'stupid' to think these women would ever be able to get close enough to kill the guy at the courthouse. But they did.
quote:Everything you've suggested has been refuted, and all you're left with is your belief that there must have been some vague, unnamed, generic thing that could've been done.
As I said, I'm not a farmer so I can't tell you for sure how to plant a field, but there's still good reason to think the field can be planted. I can offer ideas, but if you're going to assume they are all "stupid" and impossible, and claim to refute my arguments to the contrary on the grounds that not being a farmer I can't know, why do you want me to offer more ideas?
You are right - I don't have any sure specific solution to their problem. My reasoning is not based on the grounds that I do.
quote:They had no 'reason' to believe this time at 'court' would be any different than the several dozen times before.
There was a difference this time though - there was a big mob of angry, murderous women at the court. I think this at least has a shot at making a difference from previous cases.
quote:I'm not saying that it isn't wrong to kill. But it IS idiotic to be surprised that people will eventually take extreme measures to protect themselves when civil authorities have lost all semblance of protecting them (and thereby abdicated any moral authority).
I'm not saying I'm surprised at what they did, though - I'm not suprised, and the authorities in India should not be either. I'm saying I think it was probably wrong.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Well, they say that two wrongs (though I think there are a LOT more 'wrongs' involved than just two) do not make a right. However, wrongs do sometimes help to correct a broken social order, and in that sense I am grateful for them. Democrasy is often built on blood, and 'heroic' wrongs.
Was what they did right? Probably not, but I think it needed doing, for the good of everyone. I admit it would have been better if the proper authorities had punished him, but they showed no signs of ever doing so.
Give the women a medal? No. But I think they have been punished enough.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think we can all agree that the government should be the entity to administer justice and law, and individuals should not be allowed to take the law into their own hands. But what happens when the government fails to administer the functions for which it was created to do?
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
I think in this situation, a practical government ceased to exist a long time ago. That leaves no choice but to take the law into one's own hands. That is what the rapist did, and that is what the victims were obligated to do.
Does that justify it in a religious sense? Of course that depends on which religion and which God you believe in. The OT refers to many instances of punishment in the form of murder. In the NT we have the example of Paul who, when named Saul, was responsible for the deaths of many Christians. Obviously he was not punished eternally for that. In any case, we humans are not able to condemn anyone for their actions, because how can we really know that our beliefs are correct? All we can do is judge what we feel is right for ourselves and let God judge the actions of others.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:A human being so corrupted that he believes it is okay to rape and/or kill hundreds of women is still a human being, still fundamentally good, and still worth as much as the women each are.
I find your statement above so ludicrous and utterly offensive. This man is still "fundamentally good?" Oh no. Evil exists and this man possesses a healthy share of it.
I don't believe that you really believe that this man is equal to the women he raped and/or killed. Based on your own statements, I think it is more true to say that you value the rapist far above the women, because you deny them basic human rights--such as protecting their own lives.
Your views are not merciful or compassionate to the victims, only to the rapists and murderers of the world.
I think God loves us all, the most horrible sinner to the most innocent child. And He loves us equally. We are all precious to Him. But even God understands that we must suffer the consequences of our actions. If you threaten someone's life, you can reasonably expect to be killed yourself. He offers ultimate forgiveness and eternal life to anyone who accepts His sacrifice--but just because you've been redeemed by God doesn't mean that you are not obligated to make restitution while you're still on Earth and suffer the consequences of your actions. You might receive mercy from your victims--but you are not entitled to it.
When a man makes a choice to kill someone else, he is making a choice to potentially be killed himself. He is not a victim because the person who defends himself/herself against him didn't stop to consider that he's emotionally traumatized because mommy didn't hug him enough.
I understand the value of non-violent protest. I can admire someone who chooses to act passively and let someone murder them rather than take another life. What I can't admire is when someone expects everyone else to react in that way. What I can't admire is when someone stands by while another is murdered, rather than doing something to help--whether it is killing the threatening man or something else.
You admit that there is no way of knowing whether killing is the only option. Because there is no way of knowing in so many situations, then I, personally, cannot condemn someone for choosing to kill because the other methods seemed so tenuous. I would not expect them to gamble with their own lives or the other lives being threatened. (Also, this person has shown his ability and willingness to take life. Letting him live is dangerous for the community.) The one who has decided to threaten murder is the only one who made a choice to be in that situation--knowing full well that his own death could be a result. I have no tears for him if he dies. He made the choice.
It has been suggested that since this man was only one man who had his own band of rapists/murderers, that killing him would have no affect on their safety. They would still have to be concerned about the other men.
I disagree. Those men now know what can happen to them as well. And no amount of bribing money could protect them from it.
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Punishment here can actually serve a purpose. Most people agree that there are situations where it is OK to kill. Most people also agree that such situations should be severe. There are legal standards of when it's OK, but most people don't know them. Plus, they are both under and over inclusive - barring killing when it's necessary and allowing it when it's not.
One possible use of punishment, or at least prosecution, here is to assist individuals making the decision whether to use lethal force. One would then have to decide, is my use of such force worth the punishment I might face? In the case of women about to be raped, the punishment should be set so that the answer is "yes." In the case of a man about to be relieved of 10 dollars by a pickpocket, the answer should be "no." Setting punishment levels (weighted by probability of conviction) appropriately can have a big impact here.
This isn't a very satisfying analysis, and I don't think it describes the entire situation. But if the legal system has as one of its goals the removal or reduction of violence from the list of acceptable actions, then this must at least factor into the decisions to prosecute, the standards for justification, and the mitigation effect of such prior violence.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I find your statement above so ludicrous and utterly offensive. This man is still "fundamentally good?" Oh no. Evil exists and this man possesses a healthy share of it.
There is a difference between possessing evil (or being possessed by evil) and BEING evil.
quote:Based on your own statements, I think it is more true to say that you value the rapist far above the women, because you deny them basic human rights--such as protecting their own lives.
I don't believe the rapist, had he concluded the women were out to kill him, would be right to go kill them first either.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
My problem is that you seem to want to be understanding towards the rapist, considering what it was that made him who he is. But you seem to ignore what happened to those women, and the fact that what he did to them drove them to do what they did. It may not be right, but it is understandable--especially because justice had been repeatedly denied them, when this man side-stepped any consequences for his actions.
And can't you address my point that a man threatening murder has made a decision to murder another person, full-knowing that his decision might cause his own death (whether or not he really believes that anybody could possibly overpower him...the possibility is real and undeniable.), and has therefore forfeited his right to life? By his own choice? And what about his implied assertion that his life is more important than his soon-to-be victim? The victim has not made a choice to be there, showing a respect for life by NOT being a murderer, but the murderer is making a choice against life, by threatening another and putting his own life at risk.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I agree completely that what the women did is 100% understandable, and I might have done the same had I been in their situation at that particular moment. I'm just concerned that it was not right, and is not the sort of solution we want to glorify as right.
quote:And can't you address my point that a man threatening murder has made a decision to murder another person, full-knowing that his decision might cause his own death (whether or not he really believes that anybody could possibly overpower him...the possibility is real and undeniable.), and has therefore forfeited his right to life?
Not knowingly, at least. I'd bet that guy suspected he would get away with it, even up to the moment they killed him, because that was how his world had worked up until then. And it's not really about his right to life - it's about the value of his life, which he cannot get rid of, even by his own choice. It's for that reason that it's wrong to commit suicide.
quote:And what about his implied assertion that his life is more important than his soon-to-be victim?
That is not implied, though. It's not about the loss of a rapist's life being worse than the loss of a victim's life. It's about the actual loss of a life being worse than the hypothetical predicted loss of a life - hypothetical in that it would only happen if events progressed in the way we think it will. If you aren't confident that events will almost certainly progress in a way that will lead to that loss, as I'm not, then that trade-off is not worth it.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Was his murder right? No. Was it the better of two wrongs? I believe yes. Can I judge that definitively? No. That is for God or History to decide.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Tres, do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your belief that things might have magically turned out differently this time?
-pH
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*claps hands*
I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tresopax, it is stupid and I do know what would've happened because it happened before. All you're doing is just tossing in variables at this point and saying, "But they haven't tried this!"
What other methods are available to an angry mob besides lynching? The cops and court would've talked to the women, soothed them, maybe...and then, when their back was turned, they would've let the guy go, again, and he would've been back to raping them until they formed an angry mob somewhere.
Your beliefs do value the victimizer-the rapist, the torturer, the petty tyrant-above his victims, because you're assuming that his life has as much value as those of his victims. That it's as much worth saving. That's what your belief system leads to, but of course you won't admit to that. You'll hedge, you'll fudge, you'll deny definitions and you'll assert that things could've been different, you'll even bring up a farming analogy instead of just admitting what is patently obvious to everyone in the freaking universe but you.
Oh, and people are very good at predicting the future in the short-term, Tresopax. Especially in groups. Check the weather channel sometime, if you want to go with utterly irrelevant comparisons Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
it's at times like this I wish we used contention numbers in discussions
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Your beliefs do value the victimizer-the rapist, the torturer, the petty tyrant-above his victims, because you're assuming that his life has as much value as those of his victims. That it's as much worth saving. That's what your belief system leads to, but of course you won't admit to that. You'll hedge, you'll fudge, you'll deny definitions and you'll assert that things could've been different, you'll even bring up a farming analogy instead of just admitting what is patently obvious to everyone in the freaking universe but you.
But he HAS admitted to believing that they are all worth the same--have the same value, no matter what they've done.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Tres, I'm trying to wade through all these posts to get a real sense of what your opinion is.
Correct me if I'm wrong...
You're saying that these women decided to carry out justice as they see fit. However, you feel that people, no matter what the circumstance may be, should not be allowed to exact punishment, especially in the form of murder, based solely on their own personal values of right and wrong. It just so happens that most people sympathize with these women and their sense of justice, so we think their actions were justified and morally acceptable. Your concern is that by glorifying this type of action, it is in essence approving people's decision to carry out their own form of punishment if they personally feel that is their last resort. If that specific action cannot be avoided, then the person(s) (in this case the mob of women) should be prepared to accept the punishment for their crimes.
Is this correct?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Tres, do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your belief that things might have magically turned out differently this time?
No, it's the future - what proof could I have that would convince you? But you don't have any evidence that it would have turned out the same either. All we both have are predictions that generalize based on past observations, and which could be entirely wrong. Mine is based on the many potential unknowns in the situation, and my personal observations that people almost always overestimate their ability to predict the future.
I'm just arguing alternatives are possible, though. Claiming something is impossible, as some are here, is a much more difficult claim and requires a much higher standard of proof.
quote:Oh, and people are very good at predicting the future in the short-term, Tresopax. Especially in groups. Check the weather channel sometime, if you want to go with utterly irrelevant comparisons
I would never stake anyone's life on the accuracy of a weather forecast either.
quote:Your beliefs do value the victimizer-the rapist, the torturer, the petty tyrant-above his victims, because you're assuming that his life has as much value as those of his victims.
Why would assuming the victimizer has as much value as the victim imply that the victimizer has more value than the victim? That doesn't follow, and is not what I believe.
quote:You're saying that these women decided to carry out justice as they see fit. However, you feel that people, no matter what the circumstance may be, should not be allowed to exact punishment, especially in the form of murder, based solely on their own personal values of right and wrong. It just so happens that most people sympathize with these women and their sense of justice, so we think their actions were justified and morally acceptable. Your concern is that by glorifying this type of action, it is in essence approving people's decision to carry out their own form of punishment if they personally feel that is their last resort. If that specific action cannot be avoided, then the person(s) (in this case the mob of women) should be prepared to accept the punishment for their crimes.
That is essentially right, except for one clarification and one addition. Firstly, I should clarify that if there is no law or if the people are truly willing to give up the current law and order, then it's okay for individuals to carry out justice as they consider to be right. Some have suggested this is the case for these women, but I am skeptical of that claim because, although the law is certainly vastly corrupt, I'm not sure these women would want to start over in anarchy instead - it seems to me that this would put them even more at risk, although I could be wrong.
Secondly, I'd add that even if there was no law and order here and they were free to dispense justice themselves, I still don't think this was the right way to do it. This is what we've been discussing over the last page or so. I think it would have been better if they had tried other alternatives, even unlikely ones, and waiting until the absolute last moment before resorting to killing the man.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
They really should have just cut off his hands, feet, tongue, eyes and other stuff. Letting him spend the rest of his life needing someone else to feed him and wipe his bottom would teach him a lesson, I promise you that.
[ October 04, 2005, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well... that's an alternative!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I do see what you're saying Xaposert. I've found myself in positions where I had to defend those whose actions were unconscionable because the principle that would be compromised to prevent those actions is too dear to lose. I've found myself defending the right of Klansmen to wear hoods because the same principle permits annonymity in unpopular political opinions.
But I still disagree. The result of going through proper legal channels- repeatedly- had been that those who brought complaint were beaten, raped, and sometimes killed. Those who acted had every reason to believe that the result of a trial would be the same as all previous arrests- the freedom of the accused and the sanction of the accusers. It wasn't even that his actions were legal- they were illegal and the legal authority was failing to act. _Hundreds of times_. Hundreds! To allow such a thing to continue is tantamount to releasing a serial killer on the grounds that he says he won't do it again.
If the women were ten million rather than a few hundred, they could make their own court and their own law, and it would be recognized, and they could try and convict the man. They were a few hundred, and the existing law would not protect them. So they made law where none existed, in what was admittedly a crude and rather horrifying manner.
This should have been prevented, but by the so-called legal authorities, not the women.
I don't know the situation in India; perhaps situations like this are common. I do know that _this_ case had received the publicity, _this_ case is the one that has gotten the untouchables organized. And so it is _this_ case that might cause a change in the situation, at least locally. That would not have happened, had this been allowed to become "just one more case."
As far as "sin" goes, my feeling is that yes, this was a sin. Not for the loss of the rapist's life; the only regard in which I can consider that a loss was in the loss of the ability to come to repentance, a possibility that in this case was apparently extremely slim. But there is still sin in the effect of killing another human being on the killer. That changes you, I've heard again and again, and in that I find pity that this came about.
But in this circumstance, I feel little pity for the rapist or indignation towards the killers hat the act did occur.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)