Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Lynching is a crime both legally and morally.
The concept of justice is extremely individual. Figuratively speaking, justice is only “in heaven”, since “the whole elephant” is visible from there, and not just its “tail” (for the individual).
Man has not yet learned to live according to moral laws and therefore needs legal rules, instructions, agreements-laws created by man for himself. Or rather, society for society. Nevertheless, there is a worldview that explains or, rather, solves the problem of the right attitude to violence, murder, bullying.
According to the current legislation, the avenger in the EREFIA is waiting for Article 105 and a term of 15 years of strict regime. Or a little less, which is unlikely. The state apparatus does not like it very much when ordinary mortals encroach on its prerogatives. But this is only the formal side of the matter, and we won't care if we're consumed with anger and revenge. Isn't it?
Yes, I don't mind revenge at all. My biggest complaint to any state is that it monopolizes the right to retaliate against itself. As if he alone knows justice. But answer my question: can a person who wants to commit lynching be fair and impartial? Hardly.
There is another, one might say metaphysical question here: will we not become the same as our villain? Will we share his fate? Won't it be like that old Marty Robbins song:
Five brothers who left Arkansas,
Set out to find the gambler
Who murdered their pa
Five brothers and three in their teens
Gotta find the man
Who killed their pa in New Orleans
They heard of him in Houston
And his trail was leadin' west
He'd left there many months ago
And so they couldn't rest
Five brothers and three in their teens
Gotta find the man
Who killed their pa in New Orleans
New Orleans
The sun was hot as fire
And the nights were cold as steel
Hate was strong and youth was wild
And so they couldn't feel
Five brothers and three in their teens
Gotta find the man
Who killed their pa in New Orleans
His trail led to the Badlands
And the desert promised death
The gambler's odds were different now
He treasured every breath
Five brothers and three in their teens
Close behind the man
Who killed their pa in New Orleans
New Orleans
When first they saw the killer
He was by the waterhole
Five rifles rang out through the night
They killed the gambler cold
Five brothers and three in their teens
Finally got the man
Who killed their pa in New Orleans
The desert is their keeper now
For this a traveler said
That poison lived within the hole
Now six of them are dead
Five brothers and three in their teens
Lay beside the man
Who killed their pa in New Orleans
Lay beside the man
Who killed their pa in New Orleans
PS If I were a film director, my first Western would be an adaptation of this song.
P. P. S. We have the right to decide the court ourselves, if we can ensure impartiality, integrity and competitiveness in our court. But it is unrealistic to do this, and they will not forgive us for such amateur activities…
From the point of view of justice, I have the right to do what I want, even if my loved ones were NOT taken intentionally! For example, an accident. “For accidentally beating desperately.”
Not for how much, i.e. not at all entitled, despite the mental suffering experienced.
To commit lynching means to connect yourself with the karma of negative causes with a person who is disliked to the highest degree. This will lead to karmic consequences directed at the one who committed lynching in intemperance. The law of karma is impartial and just.
To judge justice, it is necessary to know about all the causes and consequences that led karmically connected people to such an event. The reasons are very remote, such as those that have arisen in previous incarnations, when suffering and taking a life can be “repayment of a debt”. In any case, lynching is unwise “rocking the boat”.
From the point of view of morality, the qualities of selflessness and compassion have always been of high value, and they are expressed in the formula “By your Lord”. It should be applied to all, without exception, and to the criminals, and to the righteous.
As mentioned above, this is one of the manifestations of the principle of talion-blood feud-an ancient barbarian institution.
Murder on the motive of blood feud is a qualified type of murder, which is stipulated in paragraph E. 1 of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.�
I do not advise you to do this, because the person for whom you will take revenge will not be returned, and you will ruin your life: the sanction under this article includes either imprisonment for up to twenty years, or life imprisonment, or the death penalty (which, fortunately, is not yet applied). Accordingly, we do not have the right to take someone's life for such a motive.
From the point of view of archaic ethics and justice, you have the right to commit lynching. This is the oldest form of the principle of justice. The Talion principle is “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. It is inherent in a person at the level of instinct. “I know a case where a drunk man hit his son to death in front of his father, and the first thing the father did was not rush to his son, but attacked the driver and beat him to death. In the oldest forms of human society, the principle of blood feud had a positive function.
In your question, you may have described a crime that falls under Article 105 of the Criminal Code “Murder”, namely paragraph 2 of this article with sub-paragraphs” d “committed with special cruelty and” k”…involving violent acts of a sexual nature. The penalty under this article is from 8 years to life or the death penalty. From the point of view of the law, a person has no right to commit lynching over a murderer. In life, it often happens that relatives and friends, guided by a sense of justice, take the life of a murderer, life for life. There is no ethics in murder, whatever it is.
Not in the right. Because in most cases, people directly can not correctly assess the situation soberly due to emotional involvement.
In fact, this means that a person can accuse a clearly innocent person simply because they got their hands on it.
Or that he will impose sanctions significantly exceeding the offense.
Or other things that can be done in the camp of affect…
Therefore, we need a judge who is not interested in helping any of the parties, but in finding the truth.