|
in a euro-modern legal system, the state substitutes itself for the victim of a crime. once that happens, "an eye for an eye" stops making sense--in it's place comes the system(s) of equivalents that functions as justice. this does several things--one of which is to route thinking about injury or criminal action through a sense of a social form rather than allowing that thinking to remain locked into one's skull. it puts the state in a position of effectively regulating an overall sense of harmony or well-being.
the other logic, the one enacted by this court, is in comparison maybe intuitively gratifying (judging by the comments above that by=pass the whole basis for modern law and substitute for it the idea that the victim of a crime is the individual upon whom an action was visited) is pretty problematic.
i guess the distinction comes down to how one feels about revenge instead of justice. first there is the problem of error. second there is the problem that barak guru pointed out concerning the effects of revenge. third, there is an ethical matter, which is that the state itself becomes criminal by duplicating the actions of someone convicted of a crime. i don't see the up side of that. if you think about recent events on the order of extraordinary rendition or gitmo, the consequences of criminal action on the part of the state far outweigh any fred and barney "yay revenge" sentiments.
there are a few things that have come along with capitalism that i like--i like indoor plumbing, i like electricity. i like the undercutting of vigilante action in the context of modern law.
i don't see revenge and justice as having much to do with each other.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|