Thread: Village Council orders rape as punishment Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005698

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
BBC News

These people can fuck off all the way to hell, where they can rot.

[ 27. July 2017, 11:53: Message edited by: The Phantom Flan Flinger ]
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
I read the headline on-line, but didn't go on to read the article because I wanted to throw up.

I had read of that kind of retaliation as a judicial sentence before ( or maybe it was an old article that had been resurrected) - I hope so, once is more than enough.

Huia
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I later read that it was the two families themselves acting as the village council who came up with this happy compromise to even the score. What lovely families! One son rapes the daughter of another. That victim's family demands tit-for-tat: your daughter and sister gets it. The rapist's family acquiesces. Fair nuff. Hurrah for justice! [Projectile]


Thank God the Pakistani government has made some efforts to catch up on violence against women. Someone felt empowered to report the crimes which is more than would have happened a few years ago. And the government has set up hotlines and some shelters. A drop in the bucket and probably far out of reach to rural victims. But it's a beginning.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I later read that it was the two families themselves acting as the village council who came up with this happy compromise to even the score.

Some kind of agreed tit-for-tat has a certain amount of history as a means of preventing or ending blood feuds between families in many places.

It's not, of course, compatible with a modern sense of justice.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Like the Code of Hamurabi, reflected in Leviticus by its forbidding vengeance of relatives.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I later read that it was the two families themselves acting as the village council who came up with this happy compromise to even the score.

Some kind of agreed tit-for-tat has a certain amount of history...
You are, of course, right. But after I read the article referred to in the OP (a couple of days ago), and wandered off, shocked and sickened, to reflect some more as I did my usual chores, I couldn't help thinking that a better piece of justice would be to have the rapist gang-raped - if you're going to go in for the eye for an eye sort of thing.

Then it occurred to me that the problem here is my disordered western system of thinking, in which females are actual human beings, who can be offended against, and suffer.

When you view the original crime as primarily a property crime, a incident of vandalism committed by a male from group B, upon an object owned by [men, group A], then a punishment which involves allowing [men, group A] to go ahead and vandalise an object owned by [men, group B], can actually be argued to be a balanced approach. Which is even more horrifying than what actually happened.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I later read that it was the two families themselves acting as the village council who came up with this happy compromise to even the score.

Some kind of agreed tit-for-tat has a certain amount of history as a means of preventing or ending blood feuds between families in many places.

It's not, of course, compatible with a modern sense of justice.

The words "a modern sense of" are completely redundant in that sentence.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0