FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » "Arrest us all" (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: "Arrest us all"
Katarain
Member
Member # 6659

 - posted      Profile for Katarain   Email Katarain         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
camus
Member
Member # 8052

 - posted      Profile for camus   Email camus         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Olivet
Member
Member # 1104

 - posted      Profile for Olivet   Email Olivet         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Big Grin]

[ October 04, 2005, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]

Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
Well... that's an alternative!
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2