|
|
|
|
|
|
by rnd0
1307 days ago
|
|
|
When you start trying to equate a legitimate aspect of the judicial system with honor killings and lynching then it becomes apparent that you are not coming from a place of good faith. Yes, one aspect of the judicial system is the protection of rights but more-over it's also to protect the larger community from bad actors and to give victims a sense of closure. To do justice to those who have been wronged by those who lash out for any reason. For the Judicial system to do its' legally appointed duty and punish those who cause deliberate and measurable harm is not a "wrong", though I'll grant that far too many people appear to feel that it is. Nor is it equivalent to honor killings, lynching nor torture -to say it is is misguided at best. |
|
|
I am not arguing that.
If you scroll back up and reread, I said that retribution that violates people’s human rights is not a legitimate form of retribution. Like my original argument, which was that it is wrong to throw autistic people in prison who do not have the mental capacity to have mens rea for their crimes, particularly when alternatives solutions are a better balance.
> Nor is it equivalent to honor killings, lynching nor torture -to say it is is misguided at best.
People argue for awful and inhumane forms of retribution all the time which are comparable to (or literally are) these, and is what I am referring to.
For example: the not uncommon sentiment that it’s okay or desirable for those convicted of certain crimes to be subjected to violence while in prison.