Ship of Fools: I think this murder was justified. (news story trigger warning)

Thread: I think this murder was justified. (news story trigger warning) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024521

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Women murder rapist in court building

I wouldn't normally condone a group of people murdering a criminal but in this case I don't think the victims of this bastard had any alternative. Well ok they did have one other alternative. They could have stood by and done nothing and allowed the rapes, threats and criminal attacks to continue. Not an acceptable alternative by any means. The guys actions and the justice systems inaction and corruption backed these people into a corner and stripped away all their choices.

Ironic that this monster took advantage of the worse than useless police but found no protection from them in the end.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

NRA: We should arm rapists, to stop then getting shot.

Sorry, it is wrong to kill people in a lynch mob, even for a crime like this. The system needs to administer justice, and if it doesn't, the system is broken, and needs to change.

Having said that, I do have sympathy.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
NRA: We should arm rapists, to stop then getting shot.

Sorry, it is wrong to kill people in a lynch mob, even for a crime like this. The system needs to administer justice, and if it doesn't, the system is broken, and needs to change.

Having said that, I do have sympathy.

And during the years? decades? it takes to heal the broken system the women... do what?

I tend to see the event less as a lynching and more as a revolutionary uprising.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I think it was Johnson who said that if the state won't take care of the murderer of a man's brother, then the state admits it is lapsed and society has fallen back into a state of nature, and the man has the responsibility to take care of the murderer himself. Put me down with Lyda*Rose. Justice was done.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

Women have been raped, set on fire and otherwise tortured and murdered in India without penalty for far too long. Women are now fighting back and hopefully things will change and the legal system and society as a whole will change and step up to ensure protection and justice for women.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

This story is seven years old. Does anyone know what has happened since?

Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on :

These women were routinely denied justice and protection - by a system which then sought to prosecute them for dealing with the problem which it consistently refused to address itself.

I would like to see those policemen who turned a blind eye prosecuted for being accesories to rape. I would also expect justice to be done, regarding that female lynch-mob. Perhaps an award out of the public purse - and a grovelling apology - might be a start.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Rape is endemic in parts of India. Culture and corruption fight against justice. I have no sympathy for the foul creature who was killed, yet do not feel murder is ever right. However, I am not condemning those who murdered in this case; for I would have been amongst them had I been there.
Usha Narayane was never tried.
Story here.

[ 25. December 2012, 15:22: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

A somewhat similar situation took place in the United States 30 years ago.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Assuming that the events and background to the case have been reported accurately, I thoroughly agree that these women had no choice. In the particular circumstances it was justice, not murder, because the criminal justice system was totally corrupt and failed to protect the victims. Therefore it was an act of self-defence.

[ 25. December 2012, 16:43: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

It wasn't murder. It was self-protection and community protection after the system had proved again and again to be disinterested in offering any protection, and not even due to system helplessness but to actively helping the monster keep doing it.

I note that the immediate incident was sparked by a believable threat to keep doing it. This wasn't just some old cold revenge about the past.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This story is seven years old. Does anyone know what has happened since?

lilBuddha has updated on the specific OP story; as far as the protection of women and the deterrence of such incidents is concerned, not a lot has happened to improve things it would seem tho' the massive demonstrations sparked by
this very recent appalling case are encouraging.

[Votive]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Rape in India is very prevalent, but women are now finding their voice. There are going to be some very unfortunate incidents, as there always is when there is social change. I believe women do have the right of self defense, and should probably carry pepper spray with them as a way of warding off an attacker.

Given the circumstances as reported in the OP, if there is going to be no justice from the state, vigilante justice is better than no justice.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Weapons as a preventative will not work, especially not in India. The solution will be long, slow and will feature push-back from those who do not wish to see reform. The way forward will claim victims. Gods, what a depressing thread on Christmas day.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
NRA: We should arm rapists, to stop then getting shot.

Sorry, it is wrong to kill people in a lynch mob, even for a crime like this. The system needs to administer justice, and if it doesn't, the system is broken, and needs to change.

Having said that, I do have sympathy.

Ok, I can see where it's easy to say it is wrong to kill somebody in a lynch mob BUT c'mon there were repeated attempts over years to get the system to deal with this criminal and the System is so far broken that it aided and abetted the criminal.

Given that this man was murdering, raping and stealing with impunity for years what exactly do you propose that the residents of the slum who were being raped, robbed and beaten up by this criminal do to obtain justice and put an end to the violence?

I agree with the poster who said this is not a murder but a violent uprising.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Understandable, but not necessary. To be brutally pragmatic - they could have broken his back, or crippled him some other way. He was lynched and murdered, it was not a planned or thought through response.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

Should have castrated him instead.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

but, Anyuta, he ran a gang of henchmen - castration wouldn't stop him from continuing to do so. A regular knee-jerk reaction to rapists/paedophiles is the squeal to physically or chemically castrate them - which wouldn't necessarily stop those with a mind set on abuse from carrying it out - what caused the major life-threatening injuries in the latest case, which has sparked demos across New Delhi, was not so much the penile rape & beating but penetration with an iron bar causing major intestinal trauma.

It's interesting to read on this thread that the majority of responses are in favour of the death penalty for a crime that (so far) is less than murder (the victim is not yet dead, tho' not expected to live [Frown]

). And a death penalty carried out by a mob without due process at that. Whenever the death penalty comes up for discussion on these boards, the majority seems to be against it even for the most heinous murders even after due process and where there is absolutely no question of doubt about guilt.

Interesting.

[ 26. December 2012, 00:25: Message edited by: Jahlove ]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Crimes like rape, assaults on minorities, defacing religious buildings, etc. have an impact on an entire group of people as well as the victim. Women in India aren't just protesting the latest assault; they're protesting centuries of abuse and oppression.

The death penalty in a formal legal system is effectively no different than a mob killing. It's slow and expensive, and the violence is done by agents of the state, but it is still killing an individual on behalf of the people. We need legal systems precisely because mob justice can feel so "right".

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

Granny Weatherwax (as always) has it:

The people’d sent for her and she’d looked at him and seen the guilt writhing in his head like a red worm, and then she’d taken them to his farm and showed them where to dig, and he’d thrown himself down and asked her for mercy, because he said he’d been drunk and it’d all been done in alcohol.
Her words came back to her. She’d said, in sobriety: end it in hemp.
And they’d dragged him off and hanged him in a hempen rope and she’d gone to watch because she owed him that much, and he’d cursed, which was unfair because hanging is a clean death, or at least cleaner than the one he’d have got if the villagers had dared defy her.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
... He was lynched and murdered, it was not a planned or thought through response.

It was planned (the mob brought chilli powder and knives with them) but I agree that it was not thought through. What if there was a case of mistaken identity and they had done the judge-jury-executioner number on the wrong guy instead of the alleged rapist?

It does seem that there is enough evidence in this old case to suggest that the justice system there is (or at least was at the time) completely impotent - that those in the lynch mob who got arrested were released after a protest. Can you say mob rule?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This story is seven years old. Does anyone know what has happened since?

I went prowling.
A little more detail about the killing and immediate aftermath.

This web page says "Narayane was arrested, but with help of the villagers, she was let go with certain restraints. She was required to stay in the area and could no longer pursue her hotel career." If true, the bad guys won, the uppity woman was put in her place. forbidden to have a career and escape her low status. But no one else seems to have reported this, so I don't know if it's true.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
It's interesting to read on this thread that the majority of responses are in favour of the death penalty for a crime that (so far) is less than murder (the victim is not yet dead, tho' not expected to live ). And a death penalty carried out by a mob without due process at that. Whenever the death penalty comes up for discussion on these boards, the majority seems to be against it even for the most heinous murders even after due process and where there is absolutely no question of doubt about guilt.

Interesting.

I think you're appling and oranging. Vigilante justice of this sort, which tends toward death sentences, is what you get if the state does not provide sublethal justice. A crowd of 100 raped women does not have the wherewithal to throw this creep in jail. Their justice, so to call it, was both sending a message to other rapists, and preventing this rapist from raping them again, and working out some of their own anger and frustration.

Ideally justice systems don't include that last element. But there was no justice system in place here, so this is what you get.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

er, that may be so on your side of the pond, MT, with those weird 900-year sentences - here, every day, we see dreadful crimes get community service, cautions or a jail sentence which is always halved in actuality + a bit more time off for *good behaviour* (i.e. don't annoy the screws). It is beyond parody.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Given that some of you come from countries without the death penalty, I'm fascinated. Because apparently lots of you are fine with a death penalty for rape.

There's a difference between agreeing that these women might have been justified in carrying out some form of punishment, and agree that they were justified in making death the punishment.

Because that's the sense I get when reading this thread: that a whole bunch of you leapt from "oh yes, the State hasn't punished him so they're entitled to private justice" and straight past the question of whether the particular punishment was fine and dandy.

I don't accept the death penalty. No ifs. No buts. And just because the death penalty was inflicted by a group of victims who hadn't been delivered justice by the legal system, that doesn't suddenly make it okay in my book.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

... which was the point I was trying to make.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because that's the sense I get when reading this thread: that a whole bunch of you leapt from "oh yes, the State hasn't punished him so they're entitled to private justice" and straight past the question of whether the particular punishment was fine and dandy.

I addressed this directly so I assume you were not speaking to me.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

This is such a weird situation that I think judging the killing by normal legal or ethical standards is inappropriate. I fell about these women the same way I would have felt about hearing a prisoner in a Khmer Rouge prison camp had jumped and killed the guards in order to get out- especially since it seems like the situation was just that inescapable. Sorry it had to come to that , but the important thing is, they got out.

The chili powder thing bothers me a bit more that the killing, if that makes sense. The killing can conceivably be seen as self-defense, the torture...well, why run the risk of doing more damage to yourself (psychologically) than you do to the target?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I addressed this directly so I assume you were not speaking to me.

Correct, Sir.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I'm not certain they did, in their eyes, damage themselves psychologically. Again, I do not consider murder right, but the plight of these women push that conviction to its very edge. Were I there, I do not think I could hold that principle.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I don't think the man in the OP deserved the death penalty.

I do believe that given the facts as outlined in the news story, those women carried out an entirely justifiable homicide and rather than any punishment for them, the state should look at why the homicide was necessary and do something about introducing changes.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I re -read the story and realized my imagination had done dark things with the chili powder-- it didn't realize it was just to blind the guy. I retract my statement about psychological damage; I said that with the thought that torture was involved.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I don't think the man in the OP deserved the death penalty.

I do believe that given the facts as outlined in the news story, those women carried out an entirely justifiable homicide and rather than any punishment for them, the state should look at why the homicide was necessary and do something about introducing changes.

I am having trouble reconciling these two paragraphs. If he didn't deserve the death penalty, how can it be "an entirely justifiable homicide"? If it is "an entirely justifiable homicide" surely that implies that he deserved to die?

Unless you think it is entirely justifiable to kill people who do not deserve to die?

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

I don´t support death penalty carried by the state, but I do believe the victims might take action whenever justice fails. Not only in this cases, but also in other much less significant situations, for example: a girl is raped and then threatned by the rapist in case she tells anything to the police; the police does nothing when it knows the situation. It is completely okay for the father or a brother of this girl to take action and kill the rapist. That´s my point of view.

Also, we should take notice the women in this case didn´t deny their responsibility, and they said they would be willing to take prison if that was necessary. It´s like they were giving up their freedom in favour of many others, by making them free of the threats from this guy. I think this was brave.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I don't think the man in the OP deserved the death penalty.

I do believe that given the facts as outlined in the news story, those women carried out an entirely justifiable homicide and rather than any punishment for them, the state should look at why the homicide was necessary and do something about introducing changes.
I am having trouble reconciling these two paragraphs. If he didn't deserve the death penalty, how can it be "an entirely justifiable homicide"?

These women were fighting for their future, not just penalizing the past.

Not all killing of a human being is murder or punishment for crimes past.

I've been intrigued at the old testament justice system: restitution payment, or suffer the same harm you caused, or banishment, or death. No prison terms. If you have to remove someone from society because he is an ongoing danger to society, it's banishment or death.

These women had no way to banish him, the legal system supported him, so what other choice did they have? Should they have submitted to 30 more years of brutality? On what basis would one argue that they were obligated to continue being victims of a thug gang instead of taking whatever action necessary to free themselves from the ongoing abuse?

If the issue is "only life justifies life," remember that the reports say several women who protested gang activity over the years were murdered by the gang.

But even without that, is there no right to self-protection where a gang is kidnapping your children, raping your women, and threatening to burn down you house if you complain? People are suppose to say "OK, come on back and hit us again next week"?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I don't think the man in the OP deserved the death penalty.

I do believe that given the facts as outlined in the news story, those women carried out an entirely justifiable homicide and rather than any punishment for them, the state should look at why the homicide was necessary and do something about introducing changes.
I am having trouble reconciling these two paragraphs. If he didn't deserve the death penalty, how can it be "an entirely justifiable homicide"? If it is "an entirely justifiable homicide" surely that implies that he deserved to die?

Unless you think it is entirely justifiable to kill people who do not deserve to die?

I don't agree and I think this is confusing several different principles.

This man did deserve to die. He may not have killed his victims, but he had inflicted on them something that with good reason is frequently described as a 'fate worse than death'. He was therefore worse than a multiple murderer.

The fact that some crimes may merit death does not mean states have to impose it. Many countries including mine, commendably and I agree with them, no longer inflict death judicially.

The usual assumption is that the state enforces the law and protects the innocent against the guilty. In exchange for doing that, it is entitled to say to what extent people are and are not allowed or forbidden to avenge their own wrongs.

People often say, 'we can't allow people to take the law into their own hands because that allows vigilantes'. We could just as well argue that because the state is an amalgam of citizens, it is our civic duty to assume some responsibility for law enforcement and not to expect the police to do everything for us.

Where the state consistently and habitually fails to do its basic law enforcement job, there comes a point when the counter duty of citizens not to take the law into their own hands is also abrogated. There are major downsides to this. It can be a rough and unreliable weapon. It is likely to degenerate over time into the maintenance of social order by feud. But what else are they to do?

These women were not executing Mr Yadav extra-judicially. Because of the failure of the local organs of the state to protect them, they were remedying their situation in the only way left open to them

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Gods what a place has come to when that is a choice to be made.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gods what a place has come to when that is a choice to be made.

Yes, and aren't there a number such places on this planet right now, areas controlled by gangs of thugs because there is no functioning government, or the government is afraid of the thugs.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

A small point:

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
These women were not executing Mr Yadav extra-judicially.

This is a highly original use of the term "extrajudicial." What these women did can be described in a number of ways -- "understandable," "desperate," "correct," "right-on" -- but clearly they acted outside the law. In fact, their action amounted to a critique of the justice system, which means that one might argue that "extrajudiciality" was actually one of the points behind their action. These women were performing an act of civil disobedience, among other things. Their statement -- "arrest us all" -- suggests they were
doing this consciously.

A larger point:

While I agree with the outrage many have expressed against the rapist, some of the rationalizations for the lynching of Mr. Yadav seem rather scarey in their implications.

I don't think anyone has addressed the danger of the "slippery slope" so far. If this extrajudicial killing is rationalized, how does one draw the line against other cases where a less-justified sense of unfairness and outrage lead to similar actions?

Those of us who live in the U.S. might recall the days of racially-motivated "lynch law."

What about the code of "honor killing," which still has its apologists in certain parts of the world?

What about the aphorism: "two wrongs don't make a right"?

I'm not saying that the women should be judicially punished. In an ideal world, charges should be brought but then dismissed, with no further legal penalties.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I don't think the man in the OP deserved the death penalty.

I do believe that given the facts as outlined in the news story, those women carried out an entirely justifiable homicide and rather than any punishment for them, the state should look at why the homicide was necessary and do something about introducing changes.
I am having trouble reconciling these two paragraphs. If he didn't deserve the death penalty, how can it be "an entirely justifiable homicide"? If it is "an entirely justifiable homicide" surely that implies that he deserved to die?

Unless you think it is entirely justifiable to kill people who do not deserve to die?

No a justifiable homicide does not imply that the victim deserved to die.

The state should have dealt with this criminal's behaviour. The state did not carry out their duty to their citizens so as in self defence the women who had cause to genuinely fear for their life acted to protect themselves. This is not about the women seeking justice for the crimes committed against them it's about them acting, desperately to prevent future attacks. There's a big difference between a justifiable homicide carried out in self defence and the death penalty carried out by the state for a crime carried out in the past.

ETA Enoch answered this better than I did earlier.

[ 26. December 2012, 20:02: Message edited by: Evangeline ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Happy Boxing Day!

This case strikes me as tribal and community justice. In modern situations, some sort of sentencing circle is formed, with the goal of representing the community. The consensus of the community is then applied. Is this not an equivalent type of circumstance? It is obvious that external or constituted authority was incompetent to deal with the problem, and the community agreed to, more or less, lance the boil and drain the pus. This is not the same the as a vigilante response, where one or a small number of people determine and execute law and justice.

The difference in this situation, as described, seems to me to be that the community sentencing circle as informal. The effect and justice are the same.

I think it is quite clear that in many situations, the legal "professionals" have taken over, both in the area of policing and in court-related response such that people feel and in reality are disenfranchised. Without going too far afield, I'm not suggesting that laws and courts should be abolished, but there needs to be a reversal of the professionalisation of courts and a reduction of the status and roles of lawyers and prosecutors. More citizen representation, more non-lawyers making judgements, more community liaison for police. So that all of these functionaries resume their role as functionaries and not as deciding powers or authorities.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Ummm, no. This is what leads to lynching and the subjugation of minority populations.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

No lilBuddha, that's an oversimplification. We have alternative justice working partly and poorly in this direction already in Canada.

Of course there needs to be some oversight, but the mechanism of oversight is perhaps a red herring that I introduced. It is still headed up by judges and lawyers are expensively involved and I think this needs revision.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by roybart:...clearly they acted outside the law. ..These women were performing an act of civil disobedience,...some of the rationalizations for the lynching of Mr. Yadav seem rather scarey in their implications.

I don't think anyone has addressed the danger of the "slippery slope" so far...Those of us who live in the U.S. might recall the days of racially-motivated "lynch law."

What about the code of "honor killing," which still has its apologists in certain parts of the world?

What should the women have done? That has to be addressed in any "what they did was wrong" discussion, yes? Is the Christian message to people who are openly and repeatedly brutalized "accept it, any resistance that might harm the monster is wrong"? Is that the message we want to give kids bullied in schools -- "just let them hit you, don't learn how to fight back"?

The slippery slope issue depends on how one views the idea of a "right to self-defense" that includes killing. From past discussions I don't think all Shipmates agree on that point.

The slippery slope also depends on how one views the action of the women. Was it purely revenge for past deeds, or was it future protection from the evil deeds of an easily identified man who had been caught in the act many times and who boasted of his deeds and threaten more in public -- including in public just before he was attacked. This is not comparable to someone being killed solely for skin color, nor even solely for past deeds.

But yes the question of when it is appropriate to take the law into your own hands is real. Happens all the time with lesser offenses, right? Kid breaks a window, your choice whether to go to the cops or go to the kid's parents and demand restitution; in that case we usually think leaving the official system out of it is better, don't give the kid a police record.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It's because there is no justice. Christianity fails again. And one can never blame the oppressed for their sins.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's because there is no justice. Christianity fails again. And one can never blame the oppressed for their sins.

Right, because imperialists imposing "Christianity" on other people groups always turns out well [Roll Eyes]

Put in more effort next time, grade D-

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's because there is no justice. Christianity fails again. And one can never blame the oppressed for their sins.

I don't see that Christianity had anything to do with the OP news incident, so I don't know that it either succeeded or failed, I added the term to the discussion because it is a common, even if not universal, influence on many Shipmate thought patterns.

But as to justice, my understanding of the word as used in the Bible is not punishment or revenge for past deeds but setting the oppressed free from oppression, which is what the justice system failed to do, intentionally and aggressively failed to do, and what most of us think any justice system should have done.

There is probably a disagreement on this thread as to whether what the women did was sin, but there is probably similar disagreement as to whether a soldier who shoots someone in battle, or a police officer who shoots someone in a crime scene incident, or a homeowner who confronts a nighttime break-in by shooting the thug, sins.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

the giant cheeseburger: who's talking about travesty of Christianity we've had for 2000 years? Belle Ringer: ditto the travesty of concepts of justice, i.e. righteousness.

As always in ALL of these things, the failure is [that of] Christendom. What else? Who else?

That there is no social justice, no equity, no courage, that there is corruption, self interest; self serving power.

Therefore the terrorized oppressed are driven to unenlightened acts of counter-terror and counter-oppression.

Where is Kingdom leadership in ANY of this?

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't accept the death penalty. No ifs. No buts. And just because the death penalty was inflicted by a group of victims who hadn't been delivered justice by the legal system, that doesn't suddenly make it okay in my book.

There's a difference between approving of what was done, and finding it understandable. They shouldn't have done it, but they also shouldn't have been in a situation where they felt they needed to.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As always in ALL of these things, the failure is [that of] Christendom. What else? Who else?

The corrupt leadership of the Hindu nation involved, Christendom has nothing to do with this.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Everything.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As always in ALL of these things, the failure is [that of] Christendom. What else? Who else?
The corrupt leadership of the Hindu nation involved, Christendom has nothing to do with this.

Except that they got their legal system from the British Raj.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

It is difficult to object to what the women did. But what if others took the law into their own hands?

Suppose some group had such power that they could threaten the stability of a society, they could perhaps bring down it's economy, destroy it's medical systems, create mass unemployment. While such things aren't murder or rape (or even necessarily against the law) they certainly cause as much suffering as anything short of war. Are we justified in taking extra-judicial action against such people if we believe they are negligent and their actions are leading to such chaos? I think bankers would say not, what would we say?

Is an employer entitled to use violence against union organisers if he feels their agitation will, in the long term, lead to loss of profits and so to job losses?

Generally if we consider some extra-state violence to be acceptable, are any group entitled to resort to it if they feel 'the system' has failed them?

Can anyone offer guidelines for when extra-state violence is validly used for redress? And what sorts of redress - death, mutilation, imprisonment - are allowed?

I fear that if we don't have such guidelines it becomes lynch law, if we do we cannot enforce them with legitimate power. One definition of a state includes that it should be the sole legitimate user of force. Is that reasonable and what is the alternative?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Isn't Congress such a group?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It is reasonable until the state fails. Justice and due process are possible when the state succeeds, but not once it fails.

One cannot reasonably define guidelines for vigilante justice because whatever guidelines are just ought to be law, and overseen by the state. Hence, with a functioning state, vigilante justice is always wrong. Who decides when a state is not functioning is of course going to be a tricky bit.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

It would seem, with the benefit of several years hindsight, that the community has not descended into vigilantism or mob rule. The killing was a spontaneous outbreak of violence. Given the circumstances one might even argue it was manslaughter motivated by the need for self-defence.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I think it is also becoming clearer in the years that followed (to me at least) what a drastic systematic failure the Indian government and police force has made of dealing with sexual violence against women. And how society at large has turned a blind eye and colluded with this failure.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it is also becoming clearer in the years that followed (to me at least) what a drastic systematic failure the Indian government and police force has made of dealing with sexual violence against women. And how society at large has turned a blind eye and colluded with this failure.

And we behold the tragic outcomes

[Votive]

[ 28. December 2012, 14:43: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

India has a massive bureaucracy which is riddled with corruption. It has incredible poverty, the social structure is stratified to a point difficult for foreigners to comprehend.
Culturally, women do not have many rights, even though India is passing more laws protecting women. As everywhere, the poor have lesser access to those laws. All these factors mean poor women are one of the least protected groups in India. Can you guess what group bears the brunt of the violence?

For all our potential, humans can be such bastards.

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

It's one thing to pass laws - it's quite another to uphold them once passed, and from what I've read it seems the police are not doing that job adequately in India.
Maybe there should be a big influx of women police officers in an attempt to change police culture.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

They've only just started doing that here.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
It is difficult to object to what the women did. But what if others took the law into their own hands?

Suppose some group had such power that they could threaten the stability of a society, they could perhaps bring down it's economy, destroy it's medical systems, create mass unemployment. While such things aren't murder or rape (or even necessarily against the law) they certainly cause as much suffering as anything short of war. Are we justified in taking extra-judicial action against such people if we believe they are negligent and their actions are leading to such chaos? I think bankers would say not, what would we say?

Is an employer entitled to use violence against union organisers if he feels their agitation will, in the long term, lead to loss of profits and so to job losses?

Generally if we consider some extra-state violence to be acceptable, are any group entitled to resort to it if they feel 'the system' has failed them?

Can anyone offer guidelines for when extra-state violence is validly used for redress? And what sorts of redress - death, mutilation, imprisonment - are allowed?

I fear that if we don't have such guidelines it becomes lynch law, if we do we cannot enforce them with legitimate power. One definition of a state includes that it should be the sole legitimate user of force. Is that reasonable and what is the alternative?

One way to avoid a mass outbreak of vigilantism is to have a police/justice system that upholds the law.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Caution: more triggers

Rape, Murder, Suicide

Corruption in the legal system is a problem, but it is an after-the-fact problem. The roots of these horrors are misogyny and patriarchy.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
It is difficult to object to what the women did. But what if others took the law into their own hands?
One way to avoid a mass outbreak of vigilantism is to have a police/justice system that upholds the law.

It's more complex than that. Not all laws deserve respect. People helping slaves run away from legalized slavery are violating the law, but most of think that law is wrong.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

We don't have to look so far from home to find cases where authorities have failed to protect someone from clearly expressed threats. Perhaps this is one such case? What more could this victim have done to save herself through the law?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Everyone is talking about the poor lass who died, I wonder who is looking out for the survivor ?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I did actually attempt to ascertain his condition. None of the articles I found mention him much and I could not bear to continue reading descriptions of what happened.

Posted by catalyst (# 17436) on :

Justified murder, is like sitting in a hot tub soaking dry.

Murder has a definition. Perhaps you mean justified killing, or justified manslaughter.

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Women murder rapist in court building

I wouldn't normally condone a group of people murdering a criminal but in this case I don't think the victims of this bastard had any alternative. Well ok they did have one other alternative. They could have stood by and done nothing and allowed the rapes, threats and criminal attacks to continue. Not an acceptable alternative by any means. The guys actions and the justice systems inaction and corruption backed these people into a corner and stripped away all their choices.

Ironic that this monster took advantage of the worse than useless police but found no protection from them in the end.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0